Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Enforcing Foreign Awards in Arbitration Cases: Government of India vs. Vedanta Limited (2020)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 47, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 48, Arbitration Law, Contract Law, Contract Law with Article 15.5, Enforcement of Foreign Awards, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, Production Sharing Contract, S. Abdul Nazeer

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Enforcing Foreign Awards: Government of India vs. Vedanta Limited (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Limitation period for enforcing foreign arbitral awards in India. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Government of India vs. Vedanta Limited [Judgment Date]: 16 September 2020 Date of the Judgment: 16 September 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 728 Judges: […]

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Enforcing Foreign Awards in Arbitration Cases: Government of India vs. Vedanta Limited (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Grants Bail in Gujarat Maritime Board Case: Jinofer Kawasji Bhujwala vs. State of Gujarat (2020)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 17, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 9, Ashok Bhushan, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 406, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Judges, M.R. Shah, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 13(1)(d), V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Grants Bail in Gujarat Maritime Board Case: Jinofer Kawasji Bhujwala vs. State of Gujarat (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether bail should be granted to an accused when the trial has not commenced despite the filing of a charge sheet and the accused has been in custody for a significant period. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case

Supreme Court Grants Bail in Gujarat Maritime Board Case: Jinofer Kawasji Bhujwala vs. State of Gujarat (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Enforces Foreign Arbitral Award in Two-Tier Arbitration: Centrotrade vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd. (2 June 2020)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 48, Enforcement of Foreign Awards, Judges, R.F. Nariman, S. Ravindra Bhat, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Enforces Foreign Arbitral Award in Two-Tier Arbitration: Centrotrade vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd. (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a foreign award from a second-tier arbitration in a two-tier arbitration agreement is enforceable in India. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: M/S. CENTROTRADE MINERALS AND METALS INC. vs. HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD. Judgment Date: 2 June 2020 Date

Supreme Court Enforces Foreign Arbitral Award in Two-Tier Arbitration: Centrotrade vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd. (2 June 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Arbitration Award: Patel Engineering Ltd. vs. NEEPCO (22 May 2020)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 136, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Patent Illegality, R. Banumathi, Setting Aside Arbitral Awards

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Arbitration Award: Patel Engineering Ltd. vs. NEEPCO (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court erred in setting aside an arbitral award based on the interpretation of contract clauses and the application of the “patent illegality” principle under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Arbitration Award: Patel Engineering Ltd. vs. NEEPCO (22 May 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Interprets “Change in Law” Clause in Oil Drilling Contract: SEAMEC Ltd. vs. Oil India Ltd. (2020)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 28, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Contract Act, Contract Act with Section 56, Contract Act with Section 65, Doctrine of Frustration, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, N.V. Ramana

Supreme Court Interprets “Change in Law” Clause in Oil Drilling Contract: SEAMEC Ltd. vs. Oil India Ltd. (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of a “change in law” clause in a contract. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: South East Asia Marine Engineering and Constructions Ltd. (SEAMEC Ltd.) vs. Oil India Limited [Judgment Date]: May 11, 2020 Date

Supreme Court Interprets “Change in Law” Clause in Oil Drilling Contract: SEAMEC Ltd. vs. Oil India Ltd. (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the issue of waiver of objection in Arbitration: Quippo Construction Equipment Ltd. vs. Janardan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. (29 April 2020)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 16, Arbitration Law with Section 4, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award: Waiver of Objections on Venue Date of the Judgment: 29 April 2020 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 2378 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 11011 of 2019) Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and Vineet Saran, J. Can a party object to the venue of arbitration after participating in the

Supreme Court settles the issue of waiver of objection in Arbitration: Quippo Construction Equipment Ltd. vs. Janardan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. (29 April 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 Upholds ICC Arbitration Award in Shareholder Dispute: Shakti Nath vs. Alpha Tiger Cyprus Investment (2020)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds ICC Arbitration Award in Shareholder Dispute: Shakti Nath vs. Alpha Tiger Cyprus Investment (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Challenge to an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration award. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: Shakti Nath & Ors. vs. Alpha Tiger Cyprus Investment No.3 Ltd. & Ors. Judgment Date: 18 February 2020 Date of the

Supreme Court Upholds ICC Arbitration Award in Shareholder Dispute: Shakti Nath vs. Alpha Tiger Cyprus Investment (2020) Read Post »

Arbitration Clause in Insufficiently Stamped Lease Deed: Supreme Court Rules on Enforceability

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, B.R. Gavai, Contract Law, Judges, Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, Lease Deed, S.A. Bobde, Section 33, Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, Section 34, Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, Surya Kant

Supreme Court on Arbitration and Stamp Duty: Dharmaratnakara Rai Bahadur Arcot Narainswamy Mudaliar Chattram & Ors. vs. M/S Bhaskar Raju & Brothers & Ors. (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Enforceability of an arbitration clause in a lease deed that is not sufficiently stamped under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: M/S Dharmaratnakara

Arbitration Clause in Insufficiently Stamped Lease Deed: Supreme Court Rules on Enforceability Read Post »

Supreme Court Modifies Arbitral Award on Construction Contract: Chandigarh Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Punjab (2020)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Arbitral Award, Arbitration Act, 1940, Arbitration Law, Contract Law, Contract Law with Clause 39, Contract Law with Clause 63, Contractual Interpretation, Judges, R. Banumathi, Reasoned Awards

Supreme Court Modifies Arbitral Award on Construction Contract: Chandigarh Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Punjab (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitrator’s award can be sustained if it does not provide reasons for its conclusions, especially when the contract requires it. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Chandigarh Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. State

Supreme Court Modifies Arbitral Award on Construction Contract: Chandigarh Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Punjab (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Enforceability of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Commercial Disputes: Vijay Karia vs. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL (2020) INSC 123 (13 February 2020)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 48, Enforcement of Foreign Awards, Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 with FEMA, Judges, R.F. Nariman, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Upholds Enforceability of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Vijay Karia vs. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL (2020) INSC 123 LEGAL ISSUE: Enforceability of foreign arbitral awards in India. CASE TYPE: International Commercial Arbitration Case Name: Vijay Karia & Ors. vs. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL & Ors. Judgment Date: 13 February 2020 Date of

Supreme Court Upholds Enforceability of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Commercial Disputes: Vijay Karia vs. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL (2020) INSC 123 (13 February 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the need for reasoned awards in arbitration: Dyna Technologies vs. Crompton Greaves (2019)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 31(3), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 23, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 73, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, N.V. Ramana

Supreme Court clarifies the need for reasoned awards in arbitration: Dyna Technologies vs. Crompton Greaves (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: The necessity of reasoned awards in arbitration proceedings. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: M/S. DYNA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS M/S. CROMPTON GREAVES LTD. Judgment Date: 18 December 2019 Date of the Judgment: 18 December 2019 Citation:

Supreme Court clarifies the need for reasoned awards in arbitration: Dyna Technologies vs. Crompton Greaves (2019) Read Post »

Scroll to Top