Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34

Supreme Court Settles the Extent of Courts’ Power to Modify Arbitral Awards under Sections 34 & 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Gayatri Balasamy vs. ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited (30 April 2025)

/ Arbitral Awards, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, Arbitration Law, Augustine George Masih, B.R. Gavai, Judges, Judicial Intervention, K.V. Viswanathan, Sanjay Kumar, Sanjiv Khanna

Introduction Date of the Judgment: April 30, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 605 Judges: Sanjiv Khanna, CJI; B.R. Gavai, J.; Sanjay Kumar, J.; Augustine George Masih, J.; K.V. Viswanathan, J. (authored a separate judgment) Can Indian courts modify an arbitral award, or are they limited to setting it aside? The Supreme Court of India addressed this […]

Supreme Court Settles the Extent of Courts’ Power to Modify Arbitral Awards under Sections 34 & 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Gayatri Balasamy vs. ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited (30 April 2025) Read Post »

Breach of Contract Affirmed, Compensation Modified: Supreme Court’s Verdict in Larsen and Toubro Limited vs. Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2025)

/ Abhay S. Oka, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, Contract Act, Contract Act with Section 16, Contract Act with Section 73, Judges, Pankaj Mithal

Introduction Date of the Judgment: April 21, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 523 Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Pankaj Mithal, J. In complex real estate disputes, determining the extent of liability and appropriate compensation can be challenging. The Supreme Court of India recently addressed such a case, focusing on a breach of contract between Larsen and

Breach of Contract Affirmed, Compensation Modified: Supreme Court’s Verdict in Larsen and Toubro Limited vs. Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the enforceability of arbitral awards post-resolution plan approval under IBC: Electrosteel Steel Limited vs. Ispat Carrier Private Limited (2025) INSC 525 (21 April 2025)

/ Abhay S. Oka, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 36, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 31, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, Ujjal Bhuyan

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 21 April 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 525 Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ujjal Bhuyan, J. The Supreme Court addressed a critical question regarding the enforceability of arbitral awards when a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) has been approved. This case, Electrosteel Steel Limited (Now M/S

Supreme Court settles the enforceability of arbitral awards post-resolution plan approval under IBC: Electrosteel Steel Limited vs. Ispat Carrier Private Limited (2025) INSC 525 (21 April 2025) Read Post »

Scroll to Top