The first part of some of the important arbitration decisions taken by the Supre me Court in 2011 deals with

the judgment given out by the Court on some disputes which upheld sections of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and ensured that legal proceedings are not hampered by unnecessary legal hassles. There were certain court cases in 2011 which saw a variety of medium covering th em due to their interesting content and more importantly, India s highest judicial a uthority, The Supreme Court s judgment on such cases. The first case to be pointed out is the one involving the dispute between the St ate of Goa and Praveen Enterprises. The latter wanted to settle the case outside legal proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1 996 but the State of Goa filed counterclaims against them. It was argued by Praveen Enterprises that the State of Goa never raised the coun terclaims before the arbitration was filed. Hence the counterclaims in no way co uld be referred to during the settlement of the dispute and the State was not al lowed to raise the counterclaims. It was for the Supreme Court to decide whether the respondent in a proceeding of settlement is prevented from making a counter claim if a notice has already been served requesting that the disputes related to the counter claims are referred to settlement and if the counter claim was in reply to the application under the mentioned section of the Act. The decision taken up by Supreme Court held that during settlement amidst a trib unal constituted by the court, under Section 11 of the Act, the Chief Justice or someone similar in position is not to refer to other disputes and point them ou t as settlements. The Court also held that if the settlement agreement allows re ferring to all between the parties during the settlement, the person presiding o ver the settlement has jurisdiction over all the disputes even if a dispute was not raised before the pleadings were filed. Records of judicial decisions show there have been considerable amount of litiga tions and the previous Act, known as Arbitration Act 1940 allowed the Court to r efer to disputes during a settlement. Disputes not covered in the reference were considered to be outside the realm of settlement. There is no scope of referenc e of disputes to during a settlement under the new Act. Thus lawyers now cannot adopt the strategy they used to earlier under the previous Act and the litigatio n strategy for settlements cannot be used anymore. The second case of this year where the Supreme Court had come up with a noticeab le decision is the one titled Union of India v. Tantia Construction Pvt. Ltd. Th is case is unique because Tanta Construction went to seek relief under its writt en order despite the presence of a settlement clause in the agreement amongst th e parties. The Supreme Court decided settlement is possible under written orders from a cou rt. This decision of the Supreme Court ensures that there is scope for judicial interference by the courts even when parties have agreed to resolve the problem by settlement, beyond the limit of interference as stated by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. In case the settlement proceedings have begun, a party can se ek a written order from the court, providing the party with interim relief. The third case where Supreme Court had come up with a noticeable judgment this y ear was the one between Booz Allen Hamilton Inc and SBI Home Finance. The latter had filed an enforcement suit of a mortgage. It was up to the Supreme Court to decide whether the problem of the mortgage fell under the clause of settlement. The Supreme Court decided that the mortgage suit is to be settled by a judicial procedure under the Code of Civil procedure, 1908. An arbitral tribunal does not have the judicial right to preside over such suits.

The fourth case involving an interesting judgment by the Supreme Court was the o ne between SMS Tea Estates and Chandamari Tea. The principal cause of dispute wa s an unregistered lease deed and it was up to the Court to decide if the documen t was enough for the parties to rely on before the arbitral tribunal. The Suprem e Court decided that an agreement of arbitration has no legal effect when not st amped properly. Payment of stamp duty and penalty can make such a document effec tive though. This important decision ensured that it is necessary that agreement s and documents are adequately stamped and registered so that they can be produc ed as valid