Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 11 of the Arbitration Act on Limitation: Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. vs. Northern Coal Field Ltd. (27 November 2019)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 16, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 21, Contract Act, 1872, Contract Act, 1872 with Section 7, Indu Malhotra, Judges

Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 11 of the Arbitration Act on Limitation: Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. vs. Northern Coal Field Ltd. (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in rejecting an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on the grounds that it was barred by […]

Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 11 of the Arbitration Act on Limitation: Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. vs. Northern Coal Field Ltd. (27 November 2019) 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 Holds Directors Guilty of Contempt for Violating Orders in Daiichi Sankyo Case (15 November 2019)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Civil Contempt, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 with Section 2(b), Deepak Gupta, Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Judges, Ranjan Gogoi, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Holds Directors Guilty of Contempt for Violating Orders in Daiichi Sankyo Case Date of the Judgment: 15 November 2019 Citation: 2019 INSC 1137 Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, CJI, Deepak Gupta, J., Sanjiv Khanna, J. Can repeated assurances and undertakings given to a court be disregarded with impunity? The Supreme Court of India addressed this

Supreme Court Holds Directors Guilty of Contempt for Violating Orders in Daiichi Sankyo Case (15 November 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds “Excepted Matter” Clause in Construction Contract: Mitra Guha Builders vs. ONGC (2019)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 34, Arbitration Law with Section 37, Construction Contracts, Contract Law, Contract Law with Clause 2, Contract Law with Clause 25, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court Upholds “Excepted Matter” Clause in Construction Contract: Mitra Guha Builders vs. ONGC (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the levy of pre-estimated liquidated damages by a Superintending Engineer, as per a contract clause, is an arbitrable matter or an “excepted matter.” CASE TYPE: Contract/Arbitration Law Case Name: M/S. MITRA GUHA BUILDERS (INDIA) COMPANY vs. OIL

Supreme Court Upholds “Excepted Matter” Clause in Construction Contract: Mitra Guha Builders vs. ONGC (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Security Deposit in Contract Dispute: Vijay Trading vs. Central Warehousing (2019)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 34, Breach of contract, Contract Law, Contract Law with Clause 5(g), Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Security Deposit in Contract Dispute: Vijay Trading vs. Central Warehousing (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the forfeiture of a security deposit and detention of equipment by the Central Warehousing Corporation was justified due to a contractor’s failure to perform contractual obligations. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: M/s Vijay Trading and Transport

Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Security Deposit in Contract Dispute: Vijay Trading vs. Central Warehousing (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court allows CENVAT Credit Counterclaim in Arbitration: Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. vs. Go Airlines (2019)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 16, Arbitrator Jurisdiction, Contract Law, Hrishikesh Roy, Implied Terms, Judges, R. Banumathi, Scope of Arbitration Agreement

Supreme Court Allows CENVAT Credit Counterclaim in Arbitration: Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. vs. Go Airlines (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitrator has the jurisdiction to consider a counterclaim relating to CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) credit in an arbitration proceeding. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Go Airlines (India) Limited [Judgment

Supreme Court allows CENVAT Credit Counterclaim in Arbitration: Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. vs. Go Airlines (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award in Contract Termination Dispute: State of Jharkhand vs. M/s HSS Integrated SDN (2019)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 34, Arbitration Law with Section 37, Arun Mishra, Contract Law, Contract Law with Clause 2.8 of GCC, Contract Termination, General Conditions of Contract (GCC), Judges, M. R. Shah

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award in Contract Termination Dispute: State of Jharkhand vs. M/s HSS Integrated SDN (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the termination of a contract by the State of Jharkhand was legal and in accordance with the terms of the contract. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: The State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. M/s

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award in Contract Termination Dispute: State of Jharkhand vs. M/s HSS Integrated SDN (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act in Arbitration Cases: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. M/s Tejparas Associates & Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2019)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 33, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Civil Procedure Code, Civil Procedure Code with Order 7 Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code with Order 7 Rule 10A, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 14, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, R. Banumathi

Supreme Court clarifies the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act in Arbitration Cases: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. M/s Tejparas Associates & Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the time spent in a court lacking jurisdiction can be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act when re-presenting a petition in the

Supreme Court clarifies the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act in Arbitration Cases: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. M/s Tejparas Associates & Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies evidence admissibility under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act in Canara Nidhi Limited vs. M. Shashikala (2019)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration Proceedings, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 151, Grounds for Setting Aside Arbitral Award, Judges, R. Banumathi

Can Parties Adduce Evidence in Section 34 Arbitration Cases? Supreme Court Clarifies. Date of the Judgment: September 23, 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 924 Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and A.S. Bopanna, J. Can parties present new evidence when challenging an arbitration award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996? The Supreme Court addressed

Supreme Court clarifies evidence admissibility under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act in Canara Nidhi Limited vs. M. Shashikala (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the limited scope of Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in appointment of arbitrators: M/S Mayavti Trading Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pradyuat Deb Burman (05 September 2019)

/ Appointment of Arbitrator, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Judges, Judicial Intervention in Arbitration, R. Subhash Reddy, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 11(6A) of Arbitration Act: Mayavti Trading vs. Pradyuat Deb Burman (2019) Date of the Judgment: 05 September 2019 Citation: M/S Mayavti Trading Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pradyuat Deb Burman, Civil Appeal No.7023 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8519 of 2019) Judges: Rohinton Fali Nariman, J., R. Subhash

Supreme Court clarifies the limited scope of Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in appointment of arbitrators: M/S Mayavti Trading Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pradyuat Deb Burman (05 September 2019) Read Post »

Limitation for Arbitration Claims: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Geo Miller & Co. Case (03 September 2019)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 21, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Limitation Period, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, N.V. Ramana

Geo Miller & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rajasthan Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd.: Supreme Court on Limitation in Arbitration LEGAL ISSUE: Whether arbitration claims are barred by limitation based on the date the cause of action arose or the date of dispute. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: M/s Geo Miller & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs.

Limitation for Arbitration Claims: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Geo Miller & Co. Case (03 September 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation Under National Highways Act: Union of India vs. Balwant Singh (2019)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, Land Acquisition Act with Section 25, National Highways Act, National Highways Act with Section 3G(5), Rohinton Fali Nariman, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation Under National Highways Act: Union of India vs. Balwant Singh (2019) Date of the Judgment: September 03, 2019 Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 6981-6982 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10200-10201/2019) with Civil Appeal Nos. 6983-6984 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11117-11118/2019) Judges: Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman

Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation Under National Highways Act: Union of India vs. Balwant Singh (2019) Read Post »

Scroll to Top