International Commercial Arbitration

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: Arbitration Clause in Amenities Agreement extends to Leave and License Agreement

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 7(5), Contract Interpretation, Contract Law, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, International Commercial Arbitration, J B Pardiwala, Judges, Leave and License Agreement, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Supreme Court Clarifies Incorporation of Arbitration Clauses in Linked Agreements Date of the Judgment: March 13, 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 232 Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J, J B Pardiwala, J Can an arbitration clause in one agreement be considered part of another agreement if the two are linked? The Supreme

Supreme Court clarifies: Arbitration Clause in Amenities Agreement extends to Leave and License Agreement Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Setting Aside of Arbitral Award in Business Dispute: Ratnam Sudesh Iyer vs. Jackie Kakubhai Shroff (2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 2(1)(f), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Breach of contract, Contract Law, Deed of Settlement, International Commercial Arbitration, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court Upholds Setting Aside of Arbitral Award in Business Dispute: Ratnam Sudesh Iyer vs. Jackie Kakubhai Shroff (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitral award can be set aside for being in conflict with the fundamental policy of Indian law. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: Ratnam Sudesh Iyer vs. Jackie Kakubhai Shroff [Judgment Date]: November

Supreme Court Upholds Setting Aside of Arbitral Award in Business Dispute: Ratnam Sudesh Iyer vs. Jackie Kakubhai Shroff (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies arbitrability of disputes under Construction Management Agreements: DLF Home Developers vs. Rajapura Homes (22 September 2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Breach of contract, Construction Management Agreement, Contract Law, International Commercial Arbitration, Judges, Kompetenz Kompetenz, N.V. Ramana, Share Purchase Agreement, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitrability of Disputes Under Construction Management Agreements: DLF Home Developers vs. Rajapura Homes (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether disputes arising from Construction Management Agreements can be referred to arbitration under the arbitration clause of the Construction Management Agreements, or whether they fall under the ambit of the Share Purchase Agreements. CASE TYPE: Arbitration

Supreme Court clarifies arbitrability of disputes under Construction Management Agreements: DLF Home Developers vs. Rajapura Homes (22 September 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the enforceability of foreign arbitral awards between two Indian parties: PASL Wind Solutions vs. GE Power Conversion (20 April 2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 2(1)(f), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 44, B.R. Gavai, Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 with Section 10, Hrishikesh Roy, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 23, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 28, International Commercial Arbitration, Judges, R.F. Nariman

Date of the Judgment: 20 April 2021 Citation: 2021 INSC 208 Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., B.R. Gavai, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J. Can two Indian companies choose a foreign country as the seat of arbitration? The Supreme Court of India addressed this important question in a recent judgment, clarifying the scope of “foreign awards” under the

Supreme Court clarifies the enforceability of foreign arbitral awards between two Indian parties: PASL Wind Solutions vs. GE Power Conversion (20 April 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies definition of “International Commercial Arbitration” in Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ravindranath Rao Sindhia & Anr. (2021) INSC 105 (04 March 2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 2(1)(f), B.R. Gavai, International Commercial Arbitration, Judges, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Clarifies “International Commercial Arbitration” in Amway Dispute Date of the Judgment: 04 March 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 105 Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., B.R. Gavai, J. Can a dispute between an Indian company and individuals who are nationals and residents of the USA be considered an “international commercial arbitration,” even if the business is

Supreme Court clarifies definition of “International Commercial Arbitration” in Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ravindranath Rao Sindhia & Anr. (2021) INSC 105 (04 March 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award in Coal Supply Dispute: Anglo American Metallurgical Coal vs. MMTC Ltd. (2020)

/ Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 34, Breach of contract, Contract Law, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 94, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 95, International Commercial Arbitration, Interpretation of Contracts, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Rohinton Fali Nariman

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award in Coal Supply Dispute: Anglo American Metallurgical Coal vs. MMTC Ltd. (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitral award can be set aside for perversity when the tribunal’s findings are based on a possible interpretation of the evidence, and whether the court can re-evaluate evidence in such cases. CASE TYPE: International

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award in Coal Supply Dispute: Anglo American Metallurgical Coal vs. MMTC Ltd. (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies arbitration clause applicability in Balasore Alloys vs. Medima LLC (16 September 2020)

/ A. S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 11, International Commercial Arbitration, Judges, S. A. Bobde, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court clarifies arbitration clause applicability in Balasore Alloys vs. Medima LLC LEGAL ISSUE: Determining the correct arbitration clause when multiple agreements exist between the same parties for the same transaction. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Balasore Alloys Limited vs. Medima LLC Judgment Date: 16 September 2020 Date of the Judgment: 16 September 2020

Supreme Court clarifies arbitration clause applicability in Balasore Alloys vs. Medima LLC (16 September 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies seat of arbitration in international commercial disputes: Mankastu Impex Private Limited vs. Airvisual Limited (2020) INSC 196 (05 March 2020)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 2(2), Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 141, Hrishikesh Roy, International Commercial Arbitration, Judges, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court clarifies seat of arbitration in international commercial disputes Date of the Judgment: 05 March 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 196 Judges: R. Banumathi, J., A.S. Bopanna, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J. Can a clause specifying the “place of arbitration” in a contract also determine the “seat” of arbitration, especially in international commercial disputes? The Supreme

Supreme Court clarifies seat of arbitration in international commercial disputes: Mankastu Impex Private Limited vs. Airvisual Limited (2020) INSC 196 (05 March 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of International Commercial Arbitration and the impartiality of arbitrators: Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. v. HSCC (India) Ltd. (26 November 2019)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 2(1)(f), Indu Malhotra, International Commercial Arbitration, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Date of the Judgment: 26 November 2019 Citation: Not Available Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Indu Malhotra, J. Can a party to a contract appoint an arbitrator when that party has an interest in the outcome of the dispute? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a set of arbitration applications, clarifying

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of International Commercial Arbitration and the impartiality of arbitrators: Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. v. HSCC (India) Ltd. (26 November 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies “International Commercial Arbitration” in Consortium Agreements: Larsen and Toubro vs. MMRDA (2018)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 2(1)(f), International Commercial Arbitration, Judges, Navin Sinha, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court clarifies “International Commercial Arbitration” in Consortium Agreements: Larsen and Toubro vs. MMRDA (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a consortium agreement between an Indian company and a foreign company constitutes an “international commercial arbitration” under Section 2(1)(f) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: M/S LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED SCOMI

Supreme Court clarifies “International Commercial Arbitration” in Consortium Agreements: Larsen and Toubro vs. MMRDA (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court restricts practice of foreign law firms in India: Bar Council of India vs. A.K. Balaji (2018)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Advocates Act, 1961, Advocates Act, 1961 with Section 29, Advocates Act, 1961 with Section 33, Advocates Act, 1961 with Section 47, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 48, International Commercial Arbitration, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Restricts Foreign Law Firms’ Practice in India: Bar Council of India vs. A.K. Balaji (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether foreign law firms and lawyers are permitted to practice law in India. CASE TYPE: Regulatory/Advocacy Case Name: Bar Council of India vs. A.K. Balaji and Ors. Judgment Date: March 13, 2018 Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court restricts practice of foreign law firms in India: Bar Council of India vs. A.K. Balaji (2018) Read Post »

Scroll to Top