Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Supreme Court settles the scope of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in land acquisition cases under the National Highways Act, 1956 (20 July 2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, B.R. Gavai, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 12, Constitutional Law with Article 136, Judges, Land Acquisition, National Highways Act, 1956, National Highways Act, 1956 with Section 3G, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 34 of Arbitration Act in National Highway Land Acquisition Cases Date of the Judgment: 20 July 2021 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: R.F. Nariman, J and B.R. Gavai, J. Can a court modify an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or is […]

Supreme Court settles the scope of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in land acquisition cases under the National Highways Act, 1956 (20 July 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles applicability of Limitation Act and maintainability of counterclaims under MSMED Act: Silpi Industries vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (29 June 2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 43, Ashok Bhushan, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, MSMED Act with Section 15, MSMED Act with Section 16, MSMED Act with Section 18, R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Limitation Act and Counterclaims in MSMED Act Arbitrations Introduction Date of the Judgment: 29 June 2021 Judges: Ashok Bhushan J. and R. Subhash Reddy J. Can a buyer raise a counterclaim in arbitration proceedings initiated by a supplier under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act)?

Supreme Court settles applicability of Limitation Act and maintainability of counterclaims under MSMED Act: Silpi Industries vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (29 June 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Interest on Delayed Payments in Construction Contract: M/s. Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala (22 April 2021)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 31(7)(a), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration Law, Contract Law, Interest on Delayed Payments, Interpretation of Contracts, Judges, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Upholds Interest on Delayed Payments in Construction Contract: M/s. Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a contractor is entitled to interest on delayed payments for work done under a construction contract, specifically concerning the local currency component, when the contract specifies interest but leaves the interest

Supreme Court Upholds Interest on Delayed Payments in Construction Contract: M/s. Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala (22 April 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 settles jurisdiction in arbitration: Inox Renewables Ltd. wins against Jayesh Electricals Ltd. (13 April 2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 20, Arbitration Law, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Jurisdiction in Arbitration, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Seat of Arbitration

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction in arbitration cases: Inox Renewables vs. Jayesh Electricals (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of the “seat” of arbitration and its impact on court jurisdiction. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: M/s. Inox Renewables Ltd. vs. Jayesh Electricals Ltd. Judgment Date: 13 April 2021 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 13 April 2021 Citation:

Supreme Court settles jurisdiction in arbitration: Inox Renewables Ltd. wins against Jayesh Electricals Ltd. (13 April 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Arbitration Despite Previous Settlement Claim in Property Dispute

/ A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order II Rule 2, Judges, Res Judicata, S. A. Bobde, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Orders Arbitration Despite Previous Settlement Claim in Property Dispute LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a dispute exists for arbitration when a previous court order noted a settlement between parties, but no formal settlement agreement was recorded. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: V. Sreenivasa Reddy vs. B.L. Rathnamma [Judgment Date]: April 08, 2021 Date of the

Supreme Court Orders Arbitration Despite Previous Settlement Claim in Property Dispute Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Arbitration in Family Dispute Over Company Shares: Sanjiv Prakash vs. Seema Kukreja (2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 16, B.R. Gavai, Hrishikesh Roy, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 62, Judges, Kompetenz-Kompetenz, Novation, Rohinton Fali Nariman

Supreme Court Orders Arbitration in Family Dispute: Sanjiv Prakash vs. Seema Kukreja (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a prior Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between family members regarding shareholding in a private company is superseded by a subsequent Shareholders’ Agreement (SHA) with a third-party investor, specifically concerning an arbitration clause. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Sanjiv

Supreme Court Orders Arbitration in Family Dispute Over Company Shares: Sanjiv Prakash vs. Seema Kukreja (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction in power purchase disputes: MP Power Trading vs. Narmada Equipments (2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 21, Arbitration Law, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 174, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 86(1)(f), Electricity Law, Judges, M R Shah, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction in power purchase disputes: MP Power Trading vs. Narmada Equipments (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Jurisdiction of State Electricity Commissions in disputes between licensees and generating companies. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law, Electricity Law Case Name: Chief General Manager (IPC) M P Power Trading Co Ltd & Anr vs. Narmada Equipments Pvt Ltd [Judgment

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction in power purchase disputes: MP Power Trading vs. Narmada Equipments (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 limitation for arbitration applications and rejects time-barred claims: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd. (2021)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Appointment of Arbitrators, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 43, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Arbitration Applications: BSNL vs. Nortel (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: What is the limitation period for filing an application for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and can a court refuse to appoint an arbitrator if the claims are evidently time-barred? CASE TYPE: Arbitration

Supreme Court clarifies limitation for arbitration applications and rejects time-barred claims: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd. (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court extends limitation period due to COVID-19: In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (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, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with Section 138, S. A. Bobde, S. Ravindra Bhat

Supreme Court extends limitation period due to COVID-19: In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Extension of limitation period due to COVID-19 pandemic. CASE TYPE: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil). Case Name: In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation. Judgment Date: March 8, 2021 Date of the Judgment: March 8, 2021 Citation:

Supreme Court extends limitation period due to COVID-19: In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of “prima facie” review of arbitration agreements: Pravin Electricals vs. Galaxy Infra (2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 8, B.R. Gavai, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Clarifies the Scope of Prima Facie Review in Arbitration Agreement Disputes: Pravin Electricals vs. Galaxy Infra (2021) Date of the Judgment: March 8, 2021 Citation: 2021 INSC 125 Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., B.R. Gavai, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J. Can a court conclusively decide the existence of an arbitration agreement based on a preliminary

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of “prima facie” review of arbitration agreements: Pravin Electricals vs. Galaxy Infra (2021) Read Post »

Scroll to Top