Arbitration Law

Group of Companies Doctrine: Supreme Court clarifies its application in Arbitration: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Discovery Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (27 April 2022)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 7, Arbitration Law, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Group of Companies Doctrine, Judges, Surya Kant, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court clarifies Group of Companies Doctrine in Arbitration: ONGC vs. Discovery Enterprises (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of the Group of Companies Doctrine in arbitration proceedings to bind non-signatory parties. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. M/s Discovery Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. [Judgment Date]: 27 April 2022 […]

Group of Companies Doctrine: Supreme Court clarifies its application in Arbitration: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Discovery Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (27 April 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 dismisses arbitration appeal due to limitation: Vishram Varu & Co. vs. Union of India (2022)

/ Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 11(6), B.V. Nagarathna, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, M.R. Shah, Stale Claims, Time-barred claims

Supreme Court dismisses arbitration appeal due to limitation: Vishram Varu & Co. vs. Union of India (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitration petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable when the arbitration clause is invoked after a significant delay. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Vishram Varu & Co.

Supreme Court dismisses arbitration appeal due to limitation: Vishram Varu & Co. vs. Union of India (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Partially Allows Appeal on Interim Rent Deposit: Evergreen Land Mark Pvt. Ltd. vs. John Tinson & Company Pvt. Ltd. (2022)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 17, Arbitration Law, B.V. Nagarathna, Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order XXXIX, Code of Civil Procedure with Order XXXVIII Rule 5, Interim Measures, Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Partially Allows Appeal on Interim Rent Deposit: Evergreen Land Mark Pvt. Ltd. vs. John Tinson & Company Pvt. Ltd. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitral tribunal can order a lessee to deposit the full rental amount as an interim measure under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when the lessee

Supreme Court Partially Allows Appeal on Interim Rent Deposit: Evergreen Land Mark Pvt. Ltd. vs. John Tinson & Company Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 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 »

Supreme Court Disallows Tax Benefits on Freebies Given to Doctors: Apex Laboratories vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (22 Feb 2022)

/ Business Expenditure, Contract Act, 1872, Contract Act, 1872 with Section 23, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 37(1), Judges, Public Policy, S. Ravindra Bhat, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Disallows Tax Benefits on Freebies Given to Doctors: Apex Laboratories vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (22 Feb 2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether pharmaceutical companies can claim tax deductions on expenses incurred for providing freebies to medical practitioners. CASE TYPE: Income Tax Law Case Name: M/s Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Supreme Court Disallows Tax Benefits on Freebies Given to Doctors: Apex Laboratories vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (22 Feb 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court allows NCLT proceedings to continue in Future Coupons vs. Amazon Dispute (15 February 2022)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Enforcement of Awards, Companies Act, 2013, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 230, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 232, Emergency Arbitrator, Hima Kohli, Judges, N.V. Ramana, National Company Law Tribunal

Supreme Court Allows NCLT Proceedings to Continue in Future Coupons vs. Amazon Dispute (15 February 2022) Date of the Judgment: 15 February 2022 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: N.V. Ramana (Chief Justice of India), A.S. Bopanna (Justice), Hima Kohli (Justice). The Supreme Court addressed the question of whether to allow the National Company Law

Supreme Court allows NCLT proceedings to continue in Future Coupons vs. Amazon Dispute (15 February 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Contractual Terms in Lease Dispute: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Shree Ganesh Petroleum (1 February 2022)

/ Abhay S. Oka, Arbitration Agreement, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration Law, Breach of contract, Contract Interpretation, Contract Law, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Jurisdiction of Arbitrator, Setting Aside Arbitral Award

Supreme Court Upholds Contractual Terms in Lease Dispute: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Shree Ganesh Petroleum LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitrator, appointed under a dealership agreement, can modify the terms of a separate lease agreement between the same parties. CASE TYPE: Contract Law, Arbitration Law Case Name: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. M/s Shree Ganesh

Supreme Court Upholds Contractual Terms in Lease Dispute: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Shree Ganesh Petroleum (1 February 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court sets aside Delhi High Court orders in Amazon-Future dispute: Future Coupons vs. Amazon (2022)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 17, Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order XXXIX Rule 2A, Contempt Proceedings, Hima Kohli, Interim Measures, Judges, N.V. Ramana

Supreme Court sets aside Delhi High Court orders in Amazon-Future dispute: Future Coupons vs. Amazon (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Delhi High Court’s orders enforcing an Emergency Arbitrator’s award were valid, and whether the High Court followed principles of natural justice. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: Future Coupons Private Limited & Ors. vs. Amazon.com NV

Supreme Court sets aside Delhi High Court orders in Amazon-Future dispute: Future Coupons vs. Amazon (2022) Read Post »

Scroll to Top