Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Supreme Court clarifies “International Commercial Arbitration” in Consortium Agreements: Larsen and Toubro vs. MMRDA (2018)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 2(1)(f), International Commercial Arbitration, Judges, Navin Sinha, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court clarifies “International Commercial Arbitration” in Consortium Agreements: Larsen and Toubro vs. MMRDA (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a consortium agreement between an Indian company and a foreign company constitutes an “international commercial arbitration” under Section 2(1)(f) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: M/S LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED SCOMI […]

Supreme Court clarifies “International Commercial Arbitration” in Consortium Agreements: Larsen and Toubro vs. MMRDA (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies “seat” vs. “venue” in international arbitration: Union of India vs. Hardy Exploration (2018)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, D.Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Judges, UNCITRAL Model Law, UNCITRAL Model Law with Article 20, UNCITRAL Model Law with Article 31(3)

Supreme Court clarifies “seat” vs. “venue” in international arbitration: Union of India vs. Hardy Exploration (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Clarification of the distinction between “seat” and “venue” in international commercial arbitration agreements, particularly concerning the jurisdiction of Indian courts. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Union of India vs. Hardy Exploration and Production (India) INC [Judgment

Supreme Court clarifies “seat” vs. “venue” in international arbitration: Union of India vs. Hardy Exploration (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Appoints Arbitrator in Shipping Dispute: Trans Asian Shipping vs. Beacon Shipping (2018)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Agency Agreement, Appointment of Arbitrator, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(9), Arbitration Law, Contract Law, D.Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Judges

Supreme Court Appoints Arbitrator in Shipping Dispute: Trans Asian Shipping vs. Beacon Shipping (2018) Date of the Judgment: September 19, 2018 Citation: Not Available Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. Can a party compel another to arbitration when a dispute arises from a commercial agreement? The Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court Appoints Arbitrator in Shipping Dispute: Trans Asian Shipping vs. Beacon Shipping (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the nature of Section 34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti (30 July 2018)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34(5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34(6), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 80, Indu Malhotra, Judges, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Clarifies Mandatory Nature of Section 34(5) of the Arbitration Act in Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti vs State of Bihar (2018) Date of the Judgment: 30 July 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 694 Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., Indu Malhotra, J. Can a procedural lapse in filing an application under Section 34 of the

Supreme Court clarifies the nature of Section 34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti (30 July 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitration Clause Requirements in Share Sale Agreement: Shyam Sunder Agarwal vs. P. Narotham Rao (2018)

/ Arbitration Agreement, Arbitration Law, Breach of contract, Contract Interpretation, Contract Law, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Memorandum of Understanding, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitration Clause Requirements in Share Sale Agreement: Shyam Sunder Agarwal vs. P. Narotham Rao (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a clause in a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) constitutes a valid arbitration agreement. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Shyam Sunder Agarwal vs. P. Narotham Rao and Ors. Judgment Date: July 23, 2018 Date

Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitration Clause Requirements in Share Sale Agreement: Shyam Sunder Agarwal vs. P. Narotham Rao (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Dealership: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. T. Natarajan (2018)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Administrative Law, Arbitration, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Constitution of India, Constitution of India with Article 226, Constitution of India with Article 227, Contract Law, Dealership Agreements, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Dealership: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. T. Natarajan (2018) Date of the Judgment: July 17, 2018 Citation: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. T. Natarajan, Civil Appeal No. 6748 of 2018, arising out of SLP (C) No. 33100 of 2015 Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Dealership: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. T. Natarajan (2018) Read Post »

Right of First Refusal Requires Participation in Tender: Supreme Court Rules in National Highways Authority of India vs. Gwalior Jhansi Expressway Limited (2018)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 17, Contract Law, Contract Law with Right of First Refusal, D.Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Judges, Tender Process

Supreme Court on Right of First Refusal in Tender Process: National Highways Authority of India vs. Gwalior Jhansi Expressway Limited (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Right of First Refusal (ROFR) can be exercised without participating in a tender process. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law, Contract Law Case Name: National Highways Authority of India vs. Gwalior Jhansi

Right of First Refusal Requires Participation in Tender: Supreme Court Rules in National Highways Authority of India vs. Gwalior Jhansi Expressway Limited (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Interconnected Agreements in Arbitration: Ameet Lalchand Shah vs. Rishabh Enterprises (2018)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 8, Breach of contract, Commercial Contracts, Contract Law, Interconnected Agreements, Judges, R. Banumathi, Ranjan Gogoi

Supreme Court Clarifies Interconnected Agreements in Arbitration: Ameet Lalchand Shah vs. Rishabh Enterprises (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether multiple agreements related to a single commercial project can be referred to arbitration even if not all agreements contain an arbitration clause. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Ameet Lalchand Shah and Others vs. Rishabh Enterprises and Another

Supreme Court Clarifies Interconnected Agreements in Arbitration: Ameet Lalchand Shah vs. Rishabh Enterprises (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies applicability of Arbitration Act, 1996 despite reference to 1940 Act: Purushottam vs. Anil (2018)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 7, Arbitration Law with Section 85, Arun Mishra, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court clarifies applicability of Arbitration Act, 1996 despite reference to 1940 Act: Purushottam vs. Anil (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a reference to the Arbitration Act, 1940 in a partnership agreement entered after the enactment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, invalidates the arbitration clause. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Purushottam s/o Tulsiram

Supreme Court clarifies applicability of Arbitration Act, 1996 despite reference to 1940 Act: Purushottam vs. Anil (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court refers the issue of “seat” vs “venue” in international commercial arbitration to a larger bench

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 34, Judges, R.K. Agrawal

Supreme Court refers the issue of “seat” vs “venue” in international commercial arbitration to a larger bench LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of the “seat” of arbitration when the agreement specifies the “venue” but not the “seat” in international commercial arbitration. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Union of India vs. Hardy Exploration and Production (India) INC

Supreme Court refers the issue of “seat” vs “venue” in international commercial arbitration to a larger bench Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award Against Non-Signatory: Cheran Properties vs. Kasturi & Sons (2018)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Arbitration Agreement, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 35, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 36, Companies Act, 1956, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 111, D.Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Judges, Rectification of Register

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award Against Non-Signatory: Cheran Properties vs. Kasturi & Sons (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitral award can be enforced against a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement, particularly a nominee of a party to the agreement. CASE TYPE: Arbitration and Company Law Case Name: Cheran Properties Limited vs. Kasturi and Sons Limited

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award Against Non-Signatory: Cheran Properties vs. Kasturi & Sons (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Contractual Bar on Wage Escalation: Union of India vs. Varindera Constructions Ltd. (2018)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 5, Ashok Bhushan, Contract Law, Government Contracts, Interpretation of Contracts, Judges, R.K. Agrawal

Supreme Court Upholds Contractual Bar on Wage Escalation: Union of India vs. Varindera Constructions Ltd. (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a contractor can claim additional costs for increased labor wages due to statutory hikes, despite a contractual clause prohibiting such claims. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Union of India vs. M/s. Varindera Constructions Ltd. [Judgment

Supreme Court Upholds Contractual Bar on Wage Escalation: Union of India vs. Varindera Constructions Ltd. (2018) Read Post »

Scroll to Top