Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Supreme Court Mandates 75% Pre-Deposit for MSME Act Appeals: Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority vs. M/s Aska Equipments Limited (2021) INSC 6252

/ A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Judges, M.R. Shah, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 with Section 19

Supreme Court Mandates 75% Pre-Deposit for MSME Act Appeals: Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority vs. M/s Aska Equipments Limited (2021) INSC 6252 Date of the Judgment: October 08, 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 6252 Judges: Justice M.R. Shah and Justice A.S. Bopanna Can an appellate court waive or reduce the mandatory 75% pre-deposit required under Section […]

Supreme Court Mandates 75% Pre-Deposit for MSME Act Appeals: Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority vs. M/s Aska Equipments Limited (2021) INSC 6252 Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Contractual Bar on Pendente Lite Interest in Arbitration: Garg Builders vs. BHEL (2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 31(7)(a), Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 28, Interest Act, 1978, Interest Act, 1978 with Section 3, Judges, Krishna Murari, M.A. Khan, S. Abdul Nazeer

Supreme Court Upholds Contractual Bar on Pendente Lite Interest in Arbitration: Garg Builders vs. BHEL (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitrator can award pendente lite interest when the contract between the parties explicitly bars it. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Garg Builders vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited [Judgment Date]: October 4, 2021 Introduction Date

Supreme Court Upholds Contractual Bar on Pendente Lite Interest in Arbitration: Garg Builders vs. BHEL (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 Clarifies MSMED Act Procedure: Vijeta Construction vs. Indus Smelters Ltd. (2021)

/ A. S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Sections 65 to 81, Conciliation, Judges, M. R. Shah, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 with Section 15, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 with Section 18, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 with Section 24

Supreme Court Clarifies MSMED Act Procedure: Vijeta Construction vs. Indus Smelters Ltd. (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Procedure for dispute resolution under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: M/s Vijeta Construction vs. M/s Indus Smelters Ltd. & Anr. Judgment Date: 23 September 2021 Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court Clarifies MSMED Act Procedure: Vijeta Construction vs. Indus Smelters Ltd. (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Extends Limitation Period Due to COVID-19: In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (23 September 2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 23(4), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 29A, Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 with Section 12A, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 141, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, N.V. Ramana, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with Section 138, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Extends Limitation Period Due to COVID-19: In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Extension of limitation period for legal proceedings due to the COVID-19 pandemic. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation. Case Name: In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation. Judgment Date: 23 September 2021 Date of the Judgment: 23 September

Supreme Court Extends Limitation Period Due to COVID-19: In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (23 September 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 Upholds Arbitrator’s Authority Post-Retirement in Construction Dispute (20 September 2021)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Appointment of Arbitrator, Arbitration Agreement, Arbitration Law, Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 with Section 4, Judges, M.R. Shah, Termination of Arbitrator

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitrator’s Authority Post-Retirement in Construction Dispute LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitrator’s mandate terminates upon retirement if the arbitration clause doesn’t explicitly state so. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: M/s Laxmi Continental Construction Co. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. [Judgment Date]: 20 September 2021 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 20 September

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitrator’s Authority Post-Retirement in Construction Dispute (20 September 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the meaning of “entertain” under Section 9(3) of the Arbitration Act in interim relief cases: Arcelor Mittal vs. Essar Bulk (14 September 2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 17, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 9, Indira Banerjee, Interim Measures, J. K. Maheshwari, Judges

Supreme Court Clarifies “Entertain” in Section 9(3) of Arbitration Act: Arcelor Mittal vs. Essar Bulk (2021) Date of the Judgment: 14 September 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 628 Judges: Indira Banerjee, J., J. K. Maheshwari, J. Can a court continue to hear an application for interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

Supreme Court clarifies the meaning of “entertain” under Section 9(3) of the Arbitration Act in interim relief cases: Arcelor Mittal vs. Essar Bulk (14 September 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 Arbitrator Appointment Under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act Despite Prior Agreement: Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. vs. M/s Ajay Sales & Suppliers (2021)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 12, Judges, M.R. Shah, Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001, Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 with Section 58, Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitrator Appointment Under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act Despite Prior Agreement: Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. vs. M/s Ajay Sales & Suppliers (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitrator appointed as per a prior agreement can be replaced by the High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitrator Appointment Under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act Despite Prior Agreement: Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. vs. M/s Ajay Sales & Suppliers (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Foreign Award Against Non-Signatories Under Alter Ego Doctrine: Gemini Bay Transcription Pvt. Ltd. vs. Integrated Sales Service Ltd. (2021) INSC 482 (10 August 2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 44, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 48, B.R. Gavai, Breach of contract, Contract Law, Contract Law with Alter Ego Doctrine, Enforcement of Foreign Awards, Judges, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Upholds Foreign Award Against Non-Signatories Under Alter Ego Doctrine Date of the Judgment: 10 August 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 482 Judges: R.F. Nariman, J and B.R. Gavai, J. The judgment was authored by R.F. Nariman, J. Can a foreign arbitral award be enforced against entities that were not direct signatories to the arbitration

Supreme Court Upholds Foreign Award Against Non-Signatories Under Alter Ego Doctrine: Gemini Bay Transcription Pvt. Ltd. vs. Integrated Sales Service Ltd. (2021) INSC 482 (10 August 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 »

Scroll to Top