Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Supreme Court Directs Timely Disposal of Arbitration Cases under M.P. Act, 1983

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Proceedings, Judges, M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Speedy Dispute Resolution, Timely Disposal of Arbitration

Supreme Court Directs Timely Disposal of Arbitration Cases under M.P. Act, 1983 LEGAL ISSUE: Ensuring timely disposal of arbitration proceedings under the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: M/s Essel Infra Projects Ltd. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [Judgment Date]: April 19, 2018 Date of the Judgment: April 19, 2018 […]

Supreme Court Directs Timely Disposal of Arbitration Cases under M.P. Act, 1983 Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award in Power Plant Refurbishment Dispute, Modifying Bank Guarantee Refund: M.P. Power Generation Co. Ltd. vs. Ansaldo Energia SPA (2018)

/ Arbitral Award, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 18, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 19, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Misrepresentation, S.A. Bobde

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award in Power Plant Refurbishment Dispute, Modifying Bank Guarantee Refund: M.P. Power Generation Co. Ltd. vs. Ansaldo Energia SPA (2018) Date of the Judgment: April 16, 2018 Citation: 2018 INSC 316 Judges: S.A. Bobde, J., L. Nageswara Rao, J. Can a party avoid a contract if they were misled about the

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award in Power Plant Refurbishment Dispute, Modifying Bank Guarantee Refund: M.P. Power Generation Co. Ltd. vs. Ansaldo Energia SPA (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Appoints Arbitrator in IBI Consultancy vs. DSC Limited Dispute (2018)

/ Appointment of Arbitrator, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 2(1)(f), Contract Interpretation, Contract Law, Judges, R.K. Agrawal, S. Abdul Nazeer

Supreme Court Appoints Arbitrator in IBI Consultancy vs. DSC Limited Dispute (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: IBI Consultancy India Private Limited vs. DSC Limited [Judgment Date]: April 16, 2018 Introduction Date of the Judgment: April 16, 2018 Citation:

Supreme Court Appoints Arbitrator in IBI Consultancy vs. DSC Limited Dispute (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Limitation on Challenging Arbitration Award: AnilKumar vs. Pravinchandra (2018)

/ Arbitral Award, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 31(5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Condonation of Delay, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, R. Banumathi, R.K. Agrawal

Supreme Court Upholds Limitation on Challenging Arbitration Award: AnilKumar vs. Pravinchandra (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Limitation period for challenging an arbitral award. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Anilkumar Jinabhai Patel (D) Thr. LRs. vs. Pravinchandra Jinabhai Patel and Ors. Judgment Date: 27 March 2018 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 27 March 2018 Citation: 2018 INSC

Supreme Court Upholds Limitation on Challenging Arbitration Award: AnilKumar vs. Pravinchandra (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction objections in arbitration: Lion Engineering Consultants vs. State of M.P. (2018)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 16, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 227, Judges, Jurisdiction in Arbitration, Rohinton Fali Nariman

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction objections in arbitration: Lion Engineering Consultants vs. State of M.P. (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a plea of jurisdiction can be raised under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even if not raised under Section 16 of the same Act. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: M/S Lion Engineering

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction objections in arbitration: Lion Engineering Consultants vs. State of M.P. (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction in Arbitration Cases: Lion Engineering Consultants vs. State of M.P. (22 March 2018)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 16, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 227, Judges, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction in Arbitration Cases: Lion Engineering Consultants vs. State of M.P. (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an objection to jurisdiction can be raised under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even if not raised earlier under Section 16 of the same Act. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: M/S Lion

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction in Arbitration Cases: Lion Engineering Consultants vs. State of M.P. (22 March 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Arbitration Acts in Bihar Works Contracts: State of Bihar vs. Brahmaputra Infrastructure Ltd. (2018)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 8, Bihar Public Works Contracts Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Judges, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Arbitration Acts in Bihar Works Contracts: State of Bihar vs. Brahmaputra Infrastructure Ltd. (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of the Central Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 versus the Bihar Public Works Contracts Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 in cases where an arbitration agreement exists. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: The State

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Arbitration Acts in Bihar Works Contracts: State of Bihar vs. Brahmaputra Infrastructure Ltd. (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of 2015 Amendment Act to Arbitration Proceedings: BCCI vs. Kochi Cricket (2018) INSC 227

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 36, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, General Clauses Act, 1897, General Clauses Act, 1897 with Section 6, Judges, Navin Sinha, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of 2015 Amendment Act to Arbitration Proceedings: BCCI vs. Kochi Cricket (2018) INSC 227 LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 to pending arbitral and court proceedings. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of 2015 Amendment Act to Arbitration Proceedings: BCCI vs. Kochi Cricket (2018) INSC 227 Read Post »

Supreme Court restricts practice of foreign law firms in India: Bar Council of India vs. A.K. Balaji (2018)

/ Adarsh Kumar Goel, Advocates Act, 1961, Advocates Act, 1961 with Section 29, Advocates Act, 1961 with Section 33, Advocates Act, 1961 with Section 47, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 48, International Commercial Arbitration, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Restricts Foreign Law Firms’ Practice in India: Bar Council of India vs. A.K. Balaji (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether foreign law firms and lawyers are permitted to practice law in India. CASE TYPE: Regulatory/Advocacy Case Name: Bar Council of India vs. A.K. Balaji and Ors. Judgment Date: March 13, 2018 Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court restricts practice of foreign law firms in India: Bar Council of India vs. A.K. Balaji (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies payment appropriation in contract dispute: Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Kurien E. Kalathil (2018)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 7, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 89, Breach of contract, Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order XXI Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure with Section 34, Contract Act, Contract Act with Clause E1.079, Judges, R. Banumathi, Ranjan Gogoi

Supreme Court clarifies payment appropriation in contract dispute: Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Kurien E. Kalathil (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Contractual payment appropriation and interest calculation CASE TYPE: Contract/Civil Case Name: Kerala State Electricity Board and Anr. vs. Kurien E. Kalathil and Anr. [Judgment Date]: 9 March 2018 Date of the Judgment: 9 March 2018 Citation:

Supreme Court clarifies payment appropriation in contract dispute: Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Kurien E. Kalathil (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds SARFAESI Act Invocation by Successor-in-Interest in Indiabulls Housing Finance vs. Deccan Chronicle Holdings (2018)

/ A.K. Sikri, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 9, Ashok Bhushan, Judges, SARFAESI Act, 2002, SARFAESI Act, 2002 with Section 13(2), SARFAESI Act, 2002 with Section 2(1)(f), SARFAESI Act, 2002 with Section 35

Supreme Court Upholds SARFAESI Act Invocation by Successor-in-Interest in Indiabulls Housing Finance vs. Deccan Chronicle Holdings (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a successor-in-interest, like Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited, can invoke the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) when the original lender, Indiabulls Financial Services Limited (IBFSL), was

Supreme Court Upholds SARFAESI Act Invocation by Successor-in-Interest in Indiabulls Housing Finance vs. Deccan Chronicle Holdings (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies price adjustment formula in highway contracts: National Highway Authority of India vs. M/S. ProgressiveMVR (JV) (23 February 2018)

/ A.K. Sikri, Arbitration, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration with Section 34, Ashok Bhushan, Contract Law, Interpretation of Contracts, Judges, Price Adjustment Clause

Supreme Court Clarifies Price Adjustment Formula in Highway Contracts Date of the Judgment: 23 February 2018 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 458 of 2018 Judges: A.K. Sikri, J., Ashok Bhushan, J. Can a contractual clause be interpreted in a way that leads to unrealistic price adjustments? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in

Supreme Court clarifies price adjustment formula in highway contracts: National Highway Authority of India vs. M/S. ProgressiveMVR (JV) (23 February 2018) Read Post »

Scroll to Top