Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34

Supreme Court Upholds ICC Arbitration Award in Shareholder Dispute: Shakti Nath vs. Alpha Tiger Cyprus Investment (2020)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds ICC Arbitration Award in Shareholder Dispute: Shakti Nath vs. Alpha Tiger Cyprus Investment (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Challenge to an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration award. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: Shakti Nath & Ors. vs. Alpha Tiger Cyprus Investment No.3 Ltd. & Ors. Judgment Date: 18 February 2020 Date of the […]

Supreme Court Upholds ICC Arbitration Award in Shareholder Dispute: Shakti Nath vs. Alpha Tiger Cyprus Investment (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the need for reasoned awards in arbitration: Dyna Technologies vs. Crompton Greaves (2019)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 31(3), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 23, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 73, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, N.V. Ramana

Supreme Court clarifies the need for reasoned awards in arbitration: Dyna Technologies vs. Crompton Greaves (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: The necessity of reasoned awards in arbitration proceedings. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: M/S. DYNA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS M/S. CROMPTON GREAVES LTD. Judgment Date: 18 December 2019 Date of the Judgment: 18 December 2019 Citation:

Supreme Court clarifies the need for reasoned awards in arbitration: Dyna Technologies vs. Crompton Greaves (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies “Seat” of Arbitration Under the Arbitration Act, 1996: BGS SGS SOMA JV vs. NHPC LTD. (2019) INSC 1052 (10 December 2019)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 20, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 with Section 13, Judges, R.F. Nariman, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Clarifies “Seat” of Arbitration Under the Arbitration Act, 1996 Date of the Judgment: 10 December 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 1052 Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., Aniruddha Bose, J., V. Ramasubramanian, J. Can a contractual clause specifying a venue for arbitration proceedings also be considered the “seat” of arbitration, thereby determining which courts have jurisdiction

Supreme Court Clarifies “Seat” of Arbitration Under the Arbitration Act, 1996: BGS SGS SOMA JV vs. NHPC LTD. (2019) INSC 1052 (10 December 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of arbitration under the Electricity Act in a dispute between a licensee and consumer: Hindustan Zinc vs. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam (2019)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, Dispute Resolution, Electricity Act, 2003, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 42, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 86, Judges, Rohinton Fali Nariman, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitration Scope under Electricity Act: Hindustan Zinc vs. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam (2019) Date of the Judgment: December 04, 2019 Citation: 2019 INSC 1148 Judges: Rohinton Fali Nariman, J., Aniruddha Bose, J., V. Ramasubramanian, J. Can a dispute between a power distribution company and a consumer be resolved through arbitration under the

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of arbitration under the Electricity Act in a dispute between a licensee and consumer: Hindustan Zinc vs. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Strikes Down Section 87 of the Arbitration Act: Hindustan Construction Company vs. Union of India (2019)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 36, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 87, Arbitration Law, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Definition of Corporate Person, Fundamental Rights, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 3(7), Judges, R.F. Nariman, Surya Kant, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Strikes Down Section 87 of the Arbitration Act: Hindustan Construction Company vs. Union of India (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Section 87 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the repeal of Section 26 of the 2015 Amendment Act are constitutionally valid. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Arbitration Law Case Name: Hindustan Construction Company

Supreme Court Strikes Down Section 87 of the Arbitration Act: Hindustan Construction Company vs. Union of India (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act in Arbitration Cases: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. M/s Tejparas Associates & Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2019)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 33, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Civil Procedure Code, Civil Procedure Code with Order 7 Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code with Order 7 Rule 10A, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 14, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court clarifies the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act in Arbitration Cases: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. M/s Tejparas Associates & Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the time spent in a court lacking jurisdiction can be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act when re-presenting a petition in the

Supreme Court clarifies the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act in Arbitration Cases: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. M/s Tejparas Associates & Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies evidence admissibility under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act in Canara Nidhi Limited vs. M. Shashikala (2019)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration Proceedings, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 151, Grounds for Setting Aside Arbitral Award, Judges, R. Banumathi

Can Parties Adduce Evidence in Section 34 Arbitration Cases? Supreme Court Clarifies. Date of the Judgment: September 23, 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 924 Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and A.S. Bopanna, J. Can parties present new evidence when challenging an arbitration award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996? The Supreme Court addressed

Supreme Court clarifies evidence admissibility under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act in Canara Nidhi Limited vs. M. Shashikala (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Partially Upholds Arbitration Award on Coal Price Escalation: Parsa Kente Collieries vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam (2019)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, Arun Mishra, Contract Interpretation, Contract Law, Force Majeure, Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Partially Upholds Arbitration Award on Coal Price Escalation: Parsa Kente Collieries vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the arbitral award passed by the learned Arbitrator, confirmed by the learned Commercial Court, in an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and

Supreme Court Partially Upholds Arbitration Award on Coal Price Escalation: Parsa Kente Collieries vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Contract Terms in Ssangyong vs. NHAI Price Adjustment Dispute: Civil Appeal No. 4779 of 2019 (08 May 2019)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 18, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 24(3), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Breach of contract, Contract Law, Interpretation of Contract, Judges, R.F. Nariman, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Upholds Contract Terms in Ssangyong vs. NHAI Price Adjustment Dispute Date of the Judgment: 08 May 2019 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 4779 of 2019 Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., Vineet Saran, J. Can a government body unilaterally change a contract’s price adjustment formula? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a dispute between Ssangyong

Supreme Court Upholds Contract Terms in Ssangyong vs. NHAI Price Adjustment Dispute: Civil Appeal No. 4779 of 2019 (08 May 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award: MMTC Ltd. vs. Vedanta Ltd. (2019)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, Arbitration Law, Contract Law, Interpretation of Contracts, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award: MMTC Ltd. vs. Vedanta Ltd. (2019) Date of the Judgment: February 18, 2019 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J., Vineet Saran, J. Can a party avoid an arbitration award by claiming the dispute was outside the scope of the original agreement? The Supreme Court of India,

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award: MMTC Ltd. vs. Vedanta Ltd. (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Aside Delay Condonation in Arbitration Case: Simplex Infrastructure Ltd vs. Union of India (2018)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration Law, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 14, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Sets Aside Delay Condonation in Arbitration Case: Simplex Infrastructure Ltd vs. Union of India (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a delay beyond the statutorily prescribed limit for filing an application to set aside an arbitral award can be condoned. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: M/S Simplex Infrastructure Ltd vs. Union of India [Judgment

Supreme Court Sets Aside Delay Condonation in Arbitration Case: Simplex Infrastructure Ltd vs. Union of India (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies “seat” vs. “venue” in international arbitration: Union of India vs. Hardy Exploration (2018)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, D.Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Judges, UNCITRAL Model Law, UNCITRAL Model Law with Article 20, UNCITRAL Model Law with Article 31(3)

Supreme Court clarifies “seat” vs. “venue” in international arbitration: Union of India vs. Hardy Exploration (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Clarification of the distinction between “seat” and “venue” in international commercial arbitration agreements, particularly concerning the jurisdiction of Indian courts. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Union of India vs. Hardy Exploration and Production (India) INC [Judgment

Supreme Court clarifies “seat” vs. “venue” in international arbitration: Union of India vs. Hardy Exploration (2018) Read Post »

Scroll to Top