Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Supreme Court Upholds Strict Time Limits for Challenging Arbitration Awards: Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. vs. Maheshbhai Tinabhai Rathod & Ors. (16 December 2021)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Arbitral Award, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34(3), Hima Kohli, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, N.V. Ramana

Supreme Court Upholds Strict Time Limits for Challenging Arbitration Awards: Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. vs. Maheshbhai Tinabhai Rathod & Ors. (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the delay in filing a petition to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be condoned beyond the statutorily prescribed […]

Supreme Court Upholds Strict Time Limits for Challenging Arbitration Awards: Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. vs. Maheshbhai Tinabhai Rathod & Ors. (16 December 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes order passed by MSME Council for not following Arbitration Act: Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan (2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 34, Dispute Resolution, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, MSMED Act with Section 18, R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court quashes order passed by MSME Council for not following Arbitration Act: Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) can pass an order for payment without initiating proper arbitration proceedings as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. CASE TYPE:

Supreme Court quashes order passed by MSME Council for not following Arbitration Act: Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles jurisdiction in works contract arbitration: M.P. Housing Board vs. K.P. Dwivedi (2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 34, B.V. Nagarathna, Judges, M. R. Shah, Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, Works Contract

Supreme Court Settles Jurisdiction in Works Contract Arbitration: M.P. Housing Board vs. K.P. Dwivedi (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a fresh arbitration reference is maintainable before the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal when an earlier arbitration award by a court-appointed arbitrator for the same dispute exists. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law, Works Contract Case Name: M.P. Housing and

Supreme Court settles jurisdiction in works contract arbitration: M.P. Housing Board vs. K.P. Dwivedi (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court allows delayed claim in Insolvency Case: GPR Power Solutions vs. Supriyo Chaudhuri (29 November 2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 141, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Indira Banerjee, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 60(5), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, J.K. Maheshwari, Judges

Supreme Court Allows Delayed Claim in Insolvency Case: GPR Power Solutions vs. Supriyo Chaudhuri (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the delay in filing a claim by a creditor in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) can be condoned, considering the Supreme Court’s orders on extending limitation periods during the COVID-19 pandemic. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case

Supreme Court allows delayed claim in Insolvency Case: GPR Power Solutions vs. Supriyo Chaudhuri (29 November 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Partially Upholds Arbitration Award in Saluja Construction vs. Northern Coalfields Dispute (25 November 2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 20, Arbitration Law with Section 8, Judges, M.R. Shah, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Partially Upholds Arbitration Award in Saluja Construction vs. Northern Coalfields Dispute (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitrator can expand the scope of arbitration to include disputes beyond the specific contract referenced in the arbitration agreement. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Saluja Construction Company vs. Northern Coalfields Limited [Judgment Date]: 25 November 2021

Supreme Court Partially Upholds Arbitration Award in Saluja Construction vs. Northern Coalfields Dispute (25 November 2021) Read Post »

Arbitration Process: Supreme Court Appoints New Arbitrator After Setting Aside Ex-Parte Award in M/s. Narinder Singh and Sons vs. Union of India (18 November 2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 18, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 19, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Judges, M.R. Shah, Natural Justice, Sanjiv Khanna, Violation of Natural Justice

Supreme Court Appoints New Arbitrator in Contract Dispute: M/s. Narinder Singh and Sons vs. Union of India (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitral award should be set aside for violating principles of natural justice and not providing sufficient opportunity to present a case. CASE TYPE: Arbitration. Case Name: M/s. Narinder Singh and Sons vs. Union

Arbitration Process: Supreme Court Appoints New Arbitrator After Setting Aside Ex-Parte Award in M/s. Narinder Singh and Sons vs. Union of India (18 November 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Restricts Arbitrator’s Power to Award Interest When Contract Prohibits: Union of India vs. Manraj Enterprises (2021)

/ Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 31(7)(a), Arbitration Law, B.V. Nagarathna, Contract Law, Contract Law with Clause 16(2), General Conditions of Contract, Interest in Arbitration, Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Restricts Arbitrator’s Power to Award Interest When Contract Prohibits: Union of India vs. Manraj Enterprises (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitrator can award pendente lite and future interest when the contract between the parties expressly bars it. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Union of India vs. Manraj Enterprises [Judgment Date]: 18 November

Supreme Court Restricts Arbitrator’s Power to Award Interest When Contract Prohibits: Union of India vs. Manraj Enterprises (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Liquidated Damages and Time Essence in Contracts: Welspun vs. ONGC (2021)

/ Arbitral Award, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Breach of contract, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 55, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 74, Judges, N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Clarifies Liquidated Damages and Time Essence in Contracts: Welspun vs. ONGC (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether time was of the essence in the contract and the validity of imposing liquidated damages. CASE TYPE: Contract Law, Arbitration Case Name: Welspun Specialty Solutions Limited vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Judgment Date: 13 November 2021

Supreme Court Clarifies Liquidated Damages and Time Essence in Contracts: Welspun vs. ONGC (2021) 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 Stridhana Rights in Family Property Dispute: Pusapati Ashok Gajapathi Raju vs. Pusapati Madhuri Gajapathi Raju (2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, B.R. Gavai, Family Law, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Property Rights of Women, Stridhana, Terms of Reference

Supreme Court Clarifies Stridhana Rights in Family Property Dispute: Pusapati Ashok Gajapathi Raju vs. Pusapati Madhuri Gajapathi Raju (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of Stridhana property rights in the context of a family partition dispute. CASE TYPE: Arbitration/Family Law Case Name: Pusapati Ashok Gajapathi Raju & Anr. vs. Pusapati Madhuri Gajapathi Raju & Ors. [Judgment Date]:

Supreme Court Clarifies Stridhana Rights in Family Property Dispute: Pusapati Ashok Gajapathi Raju vs. Pusapati Madhuri Gajapathi Raju (2021) 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 Clarifies Rights of Decree Assignees Under Section 146 of CPC: Vaishno Devi Construction vs. Union of India (2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 2(1)(g), B.R. Gavai, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XXI Rule 16, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 146, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 47, Judges, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court Clarifies Rights of Decree Assignees Under Section 146 of CPC: Vaishno Devi Construction vs. Union of India (2021) Date of the Judgment: October 21, 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 745 Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., B.R. Gavai, J. Can a person who has been assigned the rights to a decree before it was passed,

Supreme Court Clarifies Rights of Decree Assignees Under Section 146 of CPC: Vaishno Devi Construction vs. Union of India (2021) Read Post »

Scroll to Top