Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6)

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 Directs Arbitration Despite Limitation Concerns in Shareholder Dispute

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 43, International Commercial Arbitration, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 22

Supreme Court Directs Arbitration Despite Limitation Concerns in Shareholder Dispute LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Supreme Court should refer a dispute to arbitration when there are concerns that the substantive claims might be time-barred. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: Aslam Ismail Khan Deshmukh vs. ASAP Fluids Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. [Judgment Date]: 7th November 2024 Date

Supreme Court Directs Arbitration Despite Limitation Concerns in Shareholder Dispute Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act in a Family Dispute: Ajay Madhusudan Patel & Ors. vs. Jyotrindra S. Patel & Ors. (20 September 2024)

/ Arbitration Agreement, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 7

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act in a Family Dispute: Ajay Madhusudan Patel & Ors. vs. Jyotrindra S. Patel & Ors. (20 September 2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Scope of jurisdiction of the referral court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and whether a non-signatory can be

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act in a Family Dispute: Ajay Madhusudan Patel & Ors. vs. Jyotrindra S. Patel & Ors. (20 September 2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court Invalidates Pre-Deposit Clause in Arbitration: Lombardi Engineering vs. Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam (2023) INSC 976

/ Arbitration Agreement, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 2(f), Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Fundamental Rights

Supreme Court Invalidates Pre-Deposit Clause in Arbitration: Lombardi Engineering vs. Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam (2023) INSC 976 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a pre-deposit clause in an arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Constitution of India. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Lombardi Engineering Limited vs. Uttarakhand Jal

Supreme Court Invalidates Pre-Deposit Clause in Arbitration: Lombardi Engineering vs. Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam (2023) INSC 976 Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Due to Limitation: M/S B AND T AG vs. Ministry of Defence (2023)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 43, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. B. Pardiwala, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137

Supreme Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Due to Limitation: M/S B AND T AG vs. Ministry of Defence (2023) Date of the Judgment: May 18, 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 480 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI and J. B. Pardiwala, J. Can a party initiate arbitration proceedings years after the cause of action arises, simply because

Supreme Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Due to Limitation: M/S B AND T AG vs. Ministry of Defence (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Due to Limitation: B&T AG vs. Ministry of Defence (2023)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 43, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. B. Pardiwala, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 9

Supreme Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Due to Limitation: B&T AG vs. Ministry of Defence (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a petition for the appointment of an arbitrator can be dismissed if the claims are time-barred. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: M/S B AND T AG vs. MINISTRY OF DEFENCE [Judgment Date]: 18 May 2023 Date of

Supreme Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Due to Limitation: B&T AG vs. Ministry of Defence (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Pre-Referral Jurisdiction on Arbitration Agreements: Magic Eye Developers vs. Green Edge Infrastructure (2023)

/ Arbitration Agreement, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), C.T. Ravikumar, Judges, M.R. Shah, Pre-Referral Jurisdiction

Supreme Court Clarifies Pre-Referral Jurisdiction on Arbitration Agreements: Magic Eye Developers vs. Green Edge Infrastructure (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Scope of pre-referral jurisdiction of the court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 regarding the existence and validity of an arbitration agreement. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Magic Eye Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Supreme Court Clarifies Pre-Referral Jurisdiction on Arbitration Agreements: Magic Eye Developers vs. Green Edge Infrastructure (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Settles Arbitrability of Disputes After Settlement Agreement in NTPC vs. SPML Case (2023)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6A), Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Judges, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Supreme Court Settles Arbitrability of Disputes After Settlement Agreement in NTPC vs. SPML Case (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a dispute can be referred to arbitration after a settlement agreement has been reached and implemented by the parties. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: NTPC Ltd. vs. M/S SPML Infra Ltd. Judgment Date: 10 April 2023

Supreme Court Settles Arbitrability of Disputes After Settlement Agreement in NTPC vs. SPML Case (2023) Read Post »

Arbitration Clause Enforced: Supreme Court Resolves Shareholder Dispute in VGP Marine Kingdom Case (2022)

/ Arbitration Agreement, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Contractual Obligations, Corporate Law, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Judges, Krishna Murari, M.R. Shah, National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Shareholders Agreement

Supreme Court Orders Arbitration in Shareholder Dispute: VGP Marine Kingdom vs. Kay Ellen Arnold (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a court can refuse to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, if prior arbitration proceedings or related matters are pending before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). CASE TYPE: Arbitration

Arbitration Clause Enforced: Supreme Court Resolves Shareholder Dispute in VGP Marine Kingdom Case (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdictional issues in arbitration: General Manager East Coast Railway vs. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. (22 July 2022)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 42, Arbitration Law, B.V. Nagarathna, Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Issues in Arbitration: General Manager East Coast Railway vs. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Determining the correct jurisdiction for arbitration proceedings when prior applications have been filed in a different court. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: General Manager East Coast Railway Rail Sadan & Anr. vs. Hindustan Construction

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdictional issues in arbitration: General Manager East Coast Railway vs. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. (22 July 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Moratorium Impact on Corporate Debtor’s Arbitration Claims: New Delhi Municipal Council vs. Minosha India Limited (2022) INSC 423

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Hrishikesh Roy, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 14, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 25(2)(b), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 60(6), Judges, K.M. Joseph, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 3

Supreme Court Clarifies Moratorium Impact on Corporate Debtor’s Arbitration Claims: New Delhi Municipal Council vs. Minosha India Limited (2022) INSC 423 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) extends the limitation period for a corporate debtor to initiate arbitration proceedings. CASE TYPE: Arbitration, Insolvency Case Name: New Delhi Municipal Council

Supreme Court Clarifies Moratorium Impact on Corporate Debtor’s Arbitration Claims: New Delhi Municipal Council vs. Minosha India Limited (2022) INSC 423 Read Post »

Supreme Court Revives Arbitration Challenge: Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Mehta Construction (2022)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 43, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Condonation of Delay, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Revives Arbitration Challenge: Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Mehta Construction (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a delay in filing objections to an arbitration award can be condoned by the court, and whether the objections were dismissed without proper consideration of the merits of the case, including limitation issues. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name:

Supreme Court Revives Arbitration Challenge: Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Mehta Construction (2022) Read Post »

Scroll to Top