A Division Bench of SC has criticized the intervention made by the High Court in arbitration proceedings. The SC has explicitly held that the High Court under its writ jurisdiction can intervene in arbitration proceedings only when the order of the arbitral tribunal is patently perverse.
In the present case, the High Court had directed the arbitral tribunal to grant additional time to one of the parties to cross-examine even when the arbitral tribunal had provided sufficient time to cross-examine the witnesses in accordance with the equity principle under Section 18 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (the Act).
The SC noted that the High Court in its decision couldn’t identify the perversity in the decision of the arbitral tribunal. Furthermore, the SC stated that when equal opportunity was provided to both the parties in accordance with Section 18 of the Act, the High Court should have restrained its interference in arbitration proceedings.
Sign Up on mentblue here: 
And check out each of mentblue offerings here:
In My Preferred Transformation and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court delved into the interplay between the Limitation Act, 1963, and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (ACA). The case centered on whether the benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act—which extends deadlines when courts are closed—applies to the 30-day condonable period under Section 34(3) of the ACA. The appellants filed an applic...
On January 10, 2025, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi appeared virtually before a Pune court in connection with a defamation case filed by Satyaki Savarkar, the grandnephew of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. The case pertains to alleged derogatory remarks made by Gandhi about the Hindutva ideologue during a speech in London in 2023.
On January 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of India dismissed review petitions challenging its October 2023 verdict, which declined to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriages. The five-judge bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant, B.V. Nagarathna, P.S. Narasimha, and Dipankar Datta, considered the review pleas in chambers and found no apparent error in the original judgment, concluding that no interference was warranted.