Question

The provisions of $1996$ Act have to be interpreted being uninfluenced by principles under $1940$ Act. This observation was laid down in ______________.

• A. M.M.T.C. Ltd. v. Sterlite Industries(India) Ltd, AIR $1997$ SC $605$
• B. Sundamm Finance Ltd. v. N.E.P.C. India Ltd., AIR $1999$ SC $565$
• C. Olympus Super Structures Pvt. Ltd. v. Meemz Vijay Khetan, AIR $1999$ SC $2102$.
• D. Orma Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Nissuri Arb. Pte. Ltd., AIR $1999$ SC $2871$.

Answer 1

Answer: (B)

Sundamm Finance Ltd. v. N.E.P.C. India Ltd., AIR $1999$ SC $565$

In Sundaram Finance Limited v. NEPC India Limited, the Apex Court has held that while considering the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the provisions must be construed independently of any reference to the 1940 Act which may actually lead to misconstruction. In other words, the provisions of the 1996 have to be interpreted being uninfluenced by the principles underlying the 1940 Act. In order to get help in construing the provisions of the Act, it is more relevant to refer to Uncitral Model Law, rather than the 1940 Act.