Supreme Court Rules Absence in Arbitration Hearing Doesn't Mean Claim Abandonment; Emphasizes Tribunal's Active Role.

The legality and validity of the termination of arbitral proceedings u/s 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The Supreme Court found no evidence of Sheil's abandonment of the claim. Regular participation in Marico's proceedings and absence of simultaneous scheduling were noted. - The Tribunal's duty to schedule hearings and manage proceedings was highlighted, and the mere absence of a party from a hearing does not imply abandonment or justify termination of proceedings. - The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, reinstating the arbitration proceedings and emphasizing the need for an active role by the Arbitral Tribunal in managing the process. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X