Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37

Supreme Court Upholds Compound Interest in Arbitration, Rejects State’s Appeal: UHL Power Company Ltd. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2022)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 31(7)(b), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, Arbitration Law, Compound Interest in Arbitration, Hima Kohli, Judges, Merger of Agreements, N.V. Ramana

Supreme Court Upholds Compound Interest in Arbitration, Rejects State’s Appeal: UHL Power Company Ltd. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitral tribunal can award compound interest and whether a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) merges into an Implementation Agreement. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: UHL Power Company Ltd. vs. State of […]

Supreme Court Upholds Compound Interest in Arbitration, Rejects State’s Appeal: UHL Power Company Ltd. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Arbitration Petition Due to Appellant’s Inaction: Durga Welding Works vs. Chief Engineer, Railway Electrification (2022)

/ Abhay S. Oka, 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 37, Judges

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Arbitration Petition Due to Appellant’s Inaction: Durga Welding Works vs. Chief Engineer, Railway Electrification (2022) Date of the Judgment: 04 January 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 1 Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka. The judgment was authored by Justice Ajay Rastogi. Can a party, after filing an arbitration

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Arbitration Petition Due to Appellant’s Inaction: Durga Welding Works vs. Chief Engineer, Railway Electrification (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Levy of Supervision Charges in Sal Seed Supply Contract: State of Chhattisgarh vs. M/S Sal Udyog Private Limited (2021) INSC 745 (08 November 2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 28(3), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, Contract Law, Contractual Obligations, Hima Kohli, Judges, N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant, Terms of Contract

Supreme Court Upholds Levy of Supervision Charges in Sal Seed Supply Contract: State of Chhattisgarh vs. M/S Sal Udyog Private Limited (2021) INSC 745 (08 November 2021) Date of the Judgment: 08 November 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 745 Judges: N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant, J., Hima Kohli, J. Can a State Government levy supervision charges

Supreme Court Upholds Levy of Supervision Charges in Sal Seed Supply Contract: State of Chhattisgarh vs. M/S Sal Udyog Private Limited (2021) INSC 745 (08 November 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Pre-Existing Dispute in Insolvency Case: Jai Balaji Industries vs. D.K. Mohanty (2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, Dinesh Maheshwari, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 8, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Judges, Pre-Existing Dispute, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Upholds Pre-Existing Dispute in Insolvency Case: Jai Balaji Industries vs. D.K. Mohanty (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a pre-existing dispute, for the purposes of Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, includes a situation where an appeal against an arbitral award is dismissed in default but subsequently restored. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law

Supreme Court Upholds Pre-Existing Dispute in Insolvency Case: Jai Balaji Industries vs. D.K. Mohanty (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award in Delhi Metro Dispute: DAMEPL Wins Against DMRC (2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, Breach of contract, Concession Agreement, Contract Law, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, S. Ravindra Bhat

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award in Delhi Metro Dispute: DAMEPL Wins Against DMRC (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Interference with Arbitral Awards under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. Judgment Date: September 09, 2021 Introduction Date

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award in Delhi Metro Dispute: DAMEPL Wins Against DMRC (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Contractual Terms: PSA Sical Terminals Loses Appeal Against V.O. Chidambaranar Port Trust (28 July 2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, Arbitration Law, B.R. Gavai, Contract Law, Contract Law with Article 14, Interpretation of Contracts, Judges, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Upholds Contractual Terms: PSA Sical Terminals vs. V.O. Chidambaranar Port Trust (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of “Change in Law” clause in a contract and the extent of the Arbitral Tribunal’s power to modify contractual terms. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law, Contract Law Case Name: PSA Sical Terminals Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Board of Trustees

Supreme Court Upholds Contractual Terms: PSA Sical Terminals Loses Appeal Against V.O. Chidambaranar Port Trust (28 July 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Section 37 Appeals under Arbitration Act: Government of Maharashtra vs. Borse Brothers (2021)

/ Appeals from Arbitral Orders, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, B.R. Gavai, Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 with Section 13, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 29, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Section 37 Appeals under Arbitration Act: Government of Maharashtra vs. Borse Brothers (2021) Date of the Judgment: March 19, 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 149 Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., B.R. Gavai, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J. Can delays in filing appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 be

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Section 37 Appeals under Arbitration Act: Government of Maharashtra vs. Borse Brothers (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies appealability of order refusing to condone delay under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act: Chintels India Ltd. vs. Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2021) INSC 70 (11 February 2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 133, Constitutional Law with Article 134A, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Navin Sinha, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Clarifies Appealability of Delay Condonation Rejection in Arbitration Cases LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an order refusing to condone delay in filing an application to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is appealable under Section 37 of the same Act. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: Chintels

Supreme Court clarifies appealability of order refusing to condone delay under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act: Chintels India Ltd. vs. Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2021) INSC 70 (11 February 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Enforceability of Arbitration Agreements in Unstamped Contracts: NN Global Mercantile vs. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. (2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 16, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 8, Contract Act, 1872, Contract Act, 1872 with Section 17, Contract Act, 1872 with Section 7, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 with Section 33, Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 with Section 34

Supreme Court Clarifies Enforceability of Arbitration Agreements in Unstamped Contracts: NN Global Mercantile vs. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. (2021) Date of the Judgment: January 11, 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 19 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J., Indu Malhotra, J., and Indira Banerjee, J. (authored by Indu Malhotra, J.) Can an arbitration agreement within an unstamped

Supreme Court Clarifies Enforceability of Arbitration Agreements in Unstamped Contracts: NN Global Mercantile vs. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. (2021) Read Post »

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 “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 »

Scroll to Top