Arbitration Law

Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitration Clause in Insurance Policy Disputes: Oriental Insurance vs. Narbheram Power (2018)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Arbitration Clause, Arbitration Law, Clause 13, Insurance Policy, Contract Law, D.Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Insurance Law, Interpretation of Contracts, Judges, Repudiation of Claim, Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitration Clause in Insurance Policy Disputes: Oriental Insurance vs. Narbheram Power (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of arbitration clauses in insurance policies, specifically when the insurer denies liability. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law, Insurance Law Case Name: Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. M/s Narbheram Power and Steel Pvt. Ltd. Judgment Date: May 02, 2018 […]

Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitration Clause in Insurance Policy Disputes: Oriental Insurance vs. Narbheram Power (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 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 Clarifies Umpire’s Role in Arbitration: Oswal Woollen Mills vs. Oswal Agro Mills (2018)

/ Arbitration Act, 1940, Arbitration Act, 1940 with Schedule 1, Article 4, Arbitration Act, 1940 with Section 3, Arbitration Law, De Novo Hearing, Judges, R. Banumathi, R.K. Agrawal, Umpire's Role in Arbitration

Supreme Court Clarifies Umpire’s Role in Arbitration: Oswal Woollen Mills vs. Oswal Agro Mills (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Scope of an Umpire’s role and the meaning of “de novo” hearing in arbitration proceedings when arbitrators disagree. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: M/s Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. vs. M/s Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. [Judgment Date]: April

Supreme Court Clarifies Umpire’s Role in Arbitration: Oswal Woollen Mills vs. Oswal Agro Mills (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 incorporation of arbitration clauses by reference in construction contracts: Elite Engineering vs. Techtrans Construction (23 February 2018)

/ A.K. Sikri, Arbitration Agreement, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 7, Ashok Bhushan, Construction Contracts, Contract Law, Incorporation by reference, Interpretation of Contracts, Judges

Supreme Court clarifies incorporation of arbitration clauses by reference: Elite Engineering vs. Techtrans Construction (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitration clause from a main contract can be incorporated into a sub-contract by reference. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: M/S. Elite Engineering and Construction (Hyd.) Private Limited vs. M/S. Techtrans Construction India Private Limited Judgment

Supreme Court clarifies incorporation of arbitration clauses by reference in construction contracts: Elite Engineering vs. Techtrans Construction (23 February 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds No-Claim Certificate in Construction Dispute: ONGC Mangalore Petrochemicals Ltd. vs. ANS Constructions Ltd. (7 February 2018)

/ Amitava Roy, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Proceedings, Construction Contract Disputes, Contract Law, Contract Law with Accord and Satisfaction, Contractual Obligations, Judges, R.K. Agrawal

Supreme Court Upholds No-Claim Certificate in Construction Dispute: ONGC Mangalore Petrochemicals Ltd. vs. ANS Constructions Ltd. (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a ‘No Dues Certificate’ issued by a contractor can be invalidated on grounds of duress or coercion, allowing for arbitration of subsequent claims. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: M/s ONGC Mangalore Petrochemicals Ltd. vs.

Supreme Court Upholds No-Claim Certificate in Construction Dispute: ONGC Mangalore Petrochemicals Ltd. vs. ANS Constructions Ltd. (7 February 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies incorporation of arbitration clause by reference to standard terms: Inox Wind Ltd. vs. Thermocables Ltd. (2018)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 7(5), Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, S.A. Bobde

Supreme Court Clarifies Incorporation of Arbitration Clauses in Contracts: Inox Wind Ltd. vs. Thermocables Ltd. (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a general reference to standard terms and conditions in a contract is sufficient to incorporate an arbitration clause. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: M/S. INOX WIND LTD. vs M/S THERMOCABLES LTD. Judgment Date: 05 January

Supreme Court clarifies incorporation of arbitration clause by reference to standard terms: Inox Wind Ltd. vs. Thermocables Ltd. (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award of Interest: Union of India vs. M/s. Susaka Pvt. Ltd. (2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 31(7), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration Law, Contract Law, Contract Law with Clause 13(3), General Conditions of Contract, Judges, Navin Sinha

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitral tribunal can award interest on claims when the contract contains a clause prohibiting interest, and whether such an issue can be raised for the first time in appeal. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Union of India vs. M/s. Susaka Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Judgment Date: 08 December 2017 Date

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award of Interest: Union of India vs. M/s. Susaka Pvt. Ltd. (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitrator’s Award in Construction Contract Dispute: Sutlej Construction vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh (2017)

/ Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 34, J. Chelameswar, Judges, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court can re-appreciate evidence to overturn an arbitrator’s award. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Sutlej Construction vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh [Judgment Date]: December 05, 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: December 05, 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 1070 Judges: J. Chelameswar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ. Can a High

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitrator’s Award in Construction Contract Dispute: Sutlej Construction vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh (2017) Read Post »

Arbitration Award and Fraud: Supreme Court Addresses Public Policy in Venture Global vs. Tech Mahindra (2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Breach of contract, Contract Law, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 17, J. Chelameswar, Joint Venture Agreement, Judges, Public Policy in Arbitration, Setting Aside Arbitral Award

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitration award can be set aside due to fraud and violation of public policy. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Venture Global Engineering LLC vs. Tech Mahindra Ltd & Anr. Judgment Date: November 1, 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: November 1, 2017 Citation: 2017 INSC 934 Judges: J. Chelameswar and

Arbitration Award and Fraud: Supreme Court Addresses Public Policy in Venture Global vs. Tech Mahindra (2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top