Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Supreme Court clarifies land compensation under National Highways Act: National Highways Authority of India vs. Sri P. Nagaraju (2022)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 31(3), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Indira Banerjee, Judges, National Highways Act, 1956, National Highways Act, 1956 with Section 3G(7)(a), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with Section 28

Supreme Court Clarifies Land Compensation Under National Highways Act: NHAI vs. Nagaraju (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of fair compensation for land acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956 (NH Act) and the applicability of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act, 2013). CASE TYPE: Land […]

Supreme Court clarifies land compensation under National Highways Act: National Highways Authority of India vs. Sri P. Nagaraju (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Refuses to Transfer Arbitration Case Based on Territorial Jurisdiction: Neilan International Co. Ltd. vs. Powerica Limited & Ors. (2022)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 25, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, J.K. Maheshwari, Judges, Territorial Jurisdiction, Transfer Petition

Supreme Court Refuses to Transfer Arbitration Case Based on Territorial Jurisdiction Date of the Judgment: July 6, 2022 Judges: J.K. Maheshwari, J. Can the Supreme Court transfer a case based on a challenge to the territorial jurisdiction of a lower court? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a transfer petition related to an

Supreme Court Refuses to Transfer Arbitration Case Based on Territorial Jurisdiction: Neilan International Co. Ltd. vs. Powerica Limited & Ors. (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Seat of Arbitration: BBR (India) vs. S.P. Singla Constructions (2022)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 20, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 42, Judges, Place of Arbitration, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Seat of Arbitration: BBR (India) vs. S.P. Singla Constructions (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of the jurisdictional seat of arbitration when a new arbitrator is appointed and conducts proceedings at a different location. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: BBR (India) Private Limited vs. S.P. Singla Constructions Private Limited [Judgment Date]: 18

Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Seat of Arbitration: BBR (India) vs. S.P. Singla Constructions (2022) Read Post »

Group of Companies Doctrine: Supreme Court refers to Larger Bench in Arbitration Case (6 May 2022)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration Agreement, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 8, Judges, N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant

Group of Companies Doctrine: Supreme Court refers to Larger Bench (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of the Group of Companies Doctrine in Arbitration Law CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: Cox and Kings Limited vs. SAP India Private Limited & Another [Judgment Date]: 6 May 2022 Can a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement be bound by it

Group of Companies Doctrine: Supreme Court refers to Larger Bench in Arbitration Case (6 May 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Termination of Arbitrator Mandate Under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act: Swadesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal (2022)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitrator Appointment, B.V. Nagarathna, Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order VII Rule 11, Judges, M. R. Shah, Termination of Arbitrator Mandate

Supreme Court Clarifies Termination of Arbitrator Mandate Under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act: Swadesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal (2022) Date of the Judgment: May 5, 2022 Citation: 2022 INSC 427 Judges: M. R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J. Can a High Court, in an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration

Supreme Court Clarifies Termination of Arbitrator Mandate Under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act: Swadesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of “sum” under Section 31(7) of the Arbitration Act: Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (2022)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Proceedings, B.R. Gavai, Breach of contract, Concession Agreement, Contract Law, Contractual Agreements, Interest in Arbitration, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Section 31, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Supreme Court Clarifies Interest Calculation Under Section 31(7) of the Arbitration Act: Delhi Airport Metro vs. Delhi Metro Rail (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the “sum” awarded under Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 includes interest pendente lite. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited vs. Delhi Metro

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of “sum” under Section 31(7) of the Arbitration Act: Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (2022) Read Post »

Kerala Arbitration Act Overruled: Supreme Court Upholds Judicial Power (2022)

/ Arbitration Act, 1940, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, B.R. Gavai, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 254, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Legislative Competence, Separation of Powers

Kerala Arbitration Act Overruled: Supreme Court Upholds Judicial Power (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Legislative competence of a State to enact laws impacting arbitration and encroachment on judicial power. CASE TYPE: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Case Name: The Secretary to Govt. of Kerala, Irrigation Department and Others vs. James Varghese and Others Judgment Date: 04 May 2022 Introduction

Kerala Arbitration Act Overruled: Supreme Court Upholds Judicial Power (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Moratorium Impact on Corporate Debtor’s Arbitration Claims: New Delhi Municipal Council vs. Minosha India Limited (2022) INSC 423

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Hrishikesh Roy, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 14, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 25(2)(b), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 60(6), Judges, K.M. Joseph, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 3

Supreme Court Clarifies Moratorium Impact on Corporate Debtor’s Arbitration Claims: New Delhi Municipal Council vs. Minosha India Limited (2022) INSC 423 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) extends the limitation period for a corporate debtor to initiate arbitration proceedings. CASE TYPE: Arbitration, Insolvency Case Name: New Delhi Municipal Council

Supreme Court Clarifies Moratorium Impact on Corporate Debtor’s Arbitration Claims: New Delhi Municipal Council vs. Minosha India Limited (2022) INSC 423 Read Post »

Supreme Court Mandates 75% Pre-Deposit for Challenging MSME Arbitration Awards: Tirupati Steels vs. Shubh Industrial Component (2022)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, B.V. Nagarathna, Judges, M.R. Shah, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 with Section 19

Supreme Court Mandates 75% Pre-Deposit for Challenging MSME Arbitration Awards Date of the Judgment: April 19, 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 434 Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J. Can a company challenge an arbitration award against it without depositing 75% of the awarded amount? The Supreme Court of India, in this case, clarified that

Supreme Court Mandates 75% Pre-Deposit for Challenging MSME Arbitration Awards: Tirupati Steels vs. Shubh Industrial Component (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Revives Arbitration Challenge: Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Mehta Construction (2022)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 43, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Condonation of Delay, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Revives Arbitration Challenge: Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Mehta Construction (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a delay in filing objections to an arbitration award can be condoned by the court, and whether the objections were dismissed without proper consideration of the merits of the case, including limitation issues. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name:

Supreme Court Revives Arbitration Challenge: Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Mehta Construction (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction in arbitration cases: Ravi Ranjan Developers vs. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee (2022)

/ 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(1)(e), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 42, Indira Banerjee, Judges

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction in arbitration cases: Ravi Ranjan Developers vs. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Determining the appropriate court for initiating arbitration proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, particularly when the arbitration agreement specifies a venue for sittings but not a seat. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name:

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction in arbitration cases: Ravi Ranjan Developers vs. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Holds Contemnors Guilty for Disobeying Orders in Arbitration Case: Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund vs. Dharmesh S. Jain (2022) INSC 200 (10 March 2022)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 36, B.V. Nagarathna, Civil Contempt, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Holds Contemnors Guilty for Disobeying Orders in Arbitration Case Date of the Judgment: 10 March 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 200 Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J. Can a party repeatedly delay compliance with court orders and then claim they are not bound by them? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed

Supreme Court Holds Contemnors Guilty for Disobeying Orders in Arbitration Case: Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund vs. Dharmesh S. Jain (2022) INSC 200 (10 March 2022) Read Post »

Scroll to Top