Arbitration Law

Supreme Court settles arbitration involving stockbroker, husband, and wife, clarifying jurisdiction and liability: AC Chokshi Share Broker vs. Jatin Pratap Desai (2025) INSC 174 (10 February 2025)

/ Arbitration Agreement, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, Bombay Stock Exchange Bye-Laws, 1957, Bombay Stock Exchange Bye-Laws, 1957 with Bye-law 248(a), Judges, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Sandeep Mehta

Date of the Judgment: 10 February 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 174 Judges: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J., Sandeep Mehta, J. When a stockbroker initiates arbitration to recover losses from a client’s account, can the client’s spouse be held jointly liable for the debt? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case involving […]

Supreme Court settles arbitration involving stockbroker, husband, and wife, clarifying jurisdiction and liability: AC Chokshi Share Broker vs. Jatin Pratap Desai (2025) INSC 174 (10 February 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Clause Barring Damages in Construction Contract: C & C Constructions vs. IRCON International (2025)

/ Abhay S. Oka, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 34, Arbitration Law with Section 37, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 23, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 28, Judges, Ujjal Bhuyan

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a clause in a construction contract can validly bar a contractor from claiming damages for delays caused by the employer. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: M/s. C & C Constructions Ltd. vs. IRCON International Ltd. [Judgment Date]: 31 January 2025 Date of the Judgment: 31 January 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 138

Supreme Court Upholds Clause Barring Damages in Construction Contract: C & C Constructions vs. IRCON International (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Settles Contractual Interpretation: Somdatt Builders vs. NHAI (27 January 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 Law, Contract Law with General Conditions of Contract (GCC), Interpretation of Contracts, Judges, Ujjal Bhuyan

LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of contract clauses regarding variations in quantity of work. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Somdatt Builders –NCC – NEC(JV) vs. National Highways Authority of India & Ors. Judgment Date: 27 January 2025 Date of the Judgment: 27 January 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 113 Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J. and Ujjal Bhuyan,

Supreme Court Settles Contractual Interpretation: Somdatt Builders vs. NHAI (27 January 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Maintainability of Writ Petitions Against MSEFC Orders in MSME Disputes: Tamil Nadu Cements vs. MSEFC (January 22, 2025)

/ A&C Act with Section 34, Arbitration, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Judges, Manmohan, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, MSMED Act with Section 18, MSMED Act with Section 19, Sanjay Kumar, Sanjiv Khanna

Introduction Date of the Judgment: January 22, 2025 The Supreme Court of India is examining whether High Courts can intervene using writ petitions against orders from the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC). This council handles disputes under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act). The core issue is whether

Supreme Court Clarifies Maintainability of Writ Petitions Against MSEFC Orders in MSME Disputes: Tamil Nadu Cements vs. MSEFC (January 22, 2025) Read Post »

MSME Dispute Resolution: Supreme Court Clarifies Registration Not Mandatory for Section 18 Reference (2025 INSC 54)

/ Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Arbitration Act, Arbitration Proceedings, Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, MSMED Act with Section 18, MSMED Act with Section 8

Supreme Court clarifies MSME dispute resolution: Registration not mandatory for Section 18 reference LEGAL ISSUE: Whether prior registration under Section 8 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) is a mandatory requirement for referring a dispute to the Facilitation Council under Section 18 of the same Act. CASE TYPE: Commercial/MSME

MSME Dispute Resolution: Supreme Court Clarifies Registration Not Mandatory for Section 18 Reference (2025 INSC 54) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Challenging Arbitral Awards: My Preferred Transformation vs. Faridabad Implements (2025)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34(3), Arbitration Law, General Clauses Act, 1897, General Clauses Act, 1897 with Section 10, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 29(2), Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 4

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Challenging Arbitral Awards: My Preferred Transformation vs. Faridabad Implements (2025) LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963, specifically Section 4, to the condonable period for challenging an arbitral award under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: My Preferred Transformation &

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Challenging Arbitral Awards: My Preferred Transformation vs. Faridabad Implements (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court nullifies ex-parte arbitration awards in service dispute: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. R.K. Pandey (2025) INSC 48

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 34, Arbitration Law with Section 7, Civil Procedure, Civil Procedure with Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Supreme Court nullifies ex-parte arbitration awards in service dispute: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. R.K. Pandey (2025) INSC 48 LEGAL ISSUE: Validity of ex-parte arbitration awards and the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. CASE TYPE: Service Law, Arbitration Law. Case Name: State of Uttar Pradesh and Another vs. R.K. Pandey and Another [Judgment Date]:

Supreme Court nullifies ex-parte arbitration awards in service dispute: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. R.K. Pandey (2025) INSC 48 Read Post »

Supreme Court Modifies Interest Award in Insurance Claim Dispute: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bansal Wood Products Pvt. Ltd. (2025)

/ Arbitration Law, Insurance Claim Disputes, Insurance Law, Interest on Arbitration Awards, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 14

Supreme Court Modifies Interest Award in Insurance Claim Dispute: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bansal Wood Products Pvt. Ltd. (2025) Date of the Judgment: January 8, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 39 Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Manmohan, J. Can an insurance company be held liable to pay interest for delays in claim settlement when

Supreme Court Modifies Interest Award in Insurance Claim Dispute: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bansal Wood Products Pvt. Ltd. (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Restrains High Court Interference in Arbitration Proceedings: Serosoft Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dexter Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd. (2025)

/ Arbitral Tribunal, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 18, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 227, Supervisory Jurisdiction

Supreme Court Restrains High Court Interference in Arbitration Proceedings: Serosoft Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dexter Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd. (2025) LEGAL ISSUE: The extent of High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution in arbitration matters. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law. Case Name: Serosoft Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dexter Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd. [Judgment

Supreme Court Restrains High Court Interference in Arbitration Proceedings: Serosoft Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dexter Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd. (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Post-Award Interest Calculation in Arbitration: North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. S.A. Builders Ltd. (2024)

/ Arbitral Award, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 31(7), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 33, Breach of contract, Contract Law, Contract Law with Arbitration Clause

Supreme Court Clarifies Post-Award Interest Calculation in Arbitration: North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. S.A. Builders Ltd. (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Calculation of post-award interest on arbitral awards. CASE TYPE: Arbitration. Case Name: North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. M/s. S.A. Builders Ltd. [Judgment Date]: 17 December 2024 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 17 December 2024 Citation: 2024

Supreme Court Clarifies Post-Award Interest Calculation in Arbitration: North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. S.A. Builders Ltd. (2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court rules on arbitrability of wage disputes under Payment of Wages Act: Dushyant Janbandhu vs. M/S Hyundai Autoever India Pvt. Ltd (2024) INSC 966 (11 December 2024)

/ Arbitrability, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 16, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with Section 2(A), Labour Law, Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Payment of Wages Act, 1936 with Section 15(2), Payment of Wages Act, 1936 with Section 22, Statutory Remedies, Termination of Employment, Wage Disputes

Supreme Court rules on arbitrability of wage disputes under Payment of Wages Act: Dushyant Janbandhu vs. M/S Hyundai Autoever India Pvt. Ltd (2024) INSC 966 (11 December 2024) Date of the Judgment: 11 December 2024 Citation: 2024 INSC 966 Judges: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J., Sandeep Mehta, J. Can an employer bypass statutory authorities and force

Supreme Court rules on arbitrability of wage disputes under Payment of Wages Act: Dushyant Janbandhu vs. M/S Hyundai Autoever India Pvt. Ltd (2024) INSC 966 (11 December 2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies “Optional” Arbitration Clauses in Partnership Deeds: Tarun Dhameja vs. Sunil Dhameja (2024)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 11(6), Disputes in Partnership, Interpretation of Arbitration Clauses, Partnership Deed, Partnership Law

Supreme Court Clarifies “Optional” Arbitration Clauses in Partnership Deeds: Tarun Dhameja vs. Sunil Dhameja (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of arbitration clauses in partnership deeds, specifically the meaning of “optional” arbitration. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Tarun Dhameja vs. Sunil Dhameja & Anr. Judgment Date: 06 December 2024 Date of the Judgment: 06 December 2024

Supreme Court Clarifies “Optional” Arbitration Clauses in Partnership Deeds: Tarun Dhameja vs. Sunil Dhameja (2024) Read Post »

Scroll to Top