Arbitration Law

Supreme Court Restricts Arbitrator’s Power to Award Interest When Contract Prohibits: Union of India vs. Manraj Enterprises (2021)

/ Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 31(7)(a), Arbitration Law, B.V. Nagarathna, Contract Law, Contract Law with Clause 16(2), General Conditions of Contract, Interest in Arbitration, Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Restricts Arbitrator’s Power to Award Interest When Contract Prohibits: Union of India vs. Manraj Enterprises (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitrator can award pendente lite and future interest when the contract between the parties expressly bars it. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Union of India vs. Manraj Enterprises [Judgment Date]: 18 November […]

Supreme Court Restricts Arbitrator’s Power to Award Interest When Contract Prohibits: Union of India vs. Manraj Enterprises (2021) Read Post »

Arbitration Process: Supreme Court Appoints New Arbitrator After Setting Aside Ex-Parte Award in M/s. Narinder Singh and Sons vs. Union of India (18 November 2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 18, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 19, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Judges, M.R. Shah, Natural Justice, Sanjiv Khanna, Violation of Natural Justice

Supreme Court Appoints New Arbitrator in Contract Dispute: M/s. Narinder Singh and Sons vs. Union of India (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitral award should be set aside for violating principles of natural justice and not providing sufficient opportunity to present a case. CASE TYPE: Arbitration. Case Name: M/s. Narinder Singh and Sons vs. Union

Arbitration Process: Supreme Court Appoints New Arbitrator After Setting Aside Ex-Parte Award in M/s. Narinder Singh and Sons vs. Union of India (18 November 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Liquidated Damages and Time Essence in Contracts: Welspun vs. ONGC (2021)

/ Arbitral Award, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Breach of contract, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 55, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 74, Judges, N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Clarifies Liquidated Damages and Time Essence in Contracts: Welspun vs. ONGC (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether time was of the essence in the contract and the validity of imposing liquidated damages. CASE TYPE: Contract Law, Arbitration Case Name: Welspun Specialty Solutions Limited vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Judgment Date: 13 November 2021

Supreme Court Clarifies Liquidated Damages and Time Essence in Contracts: Welspun vs. ONGC (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Setting Aside of Arbitral Award in Business Dispute: Ratnam Sudesh Iyer vs. Jackie Kakubhai Shroff (2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 2(1)(f), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Breach of contract, Contract Law, Deed of Settlement, International Commercial Arbitration, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court Upholds Setting Aside of Arbitral Award in Business Dispute: Ratnam Sudesh Iyer vs. Jackie Kakubhai Shroff (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitral award can be set aside for being in conflict with the fundamental policy of Indian law. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: Ratnam Sudesh Iyer vs. Jackie Kakubhai Shroff [Judgment Date]: November

Supreme Court Upholds Setting Aside of Arbitral Award in Business Dispute: Ratnam Sudesh Iyer vs. Jackie Kakubhai Shroff (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Stridhana Rights in Family Property Dispute: Pusapati Ashok Gajapathi Raju vs. Pusapati Madhuri Gajapathi Raju (2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, B.R. Gavai, Family Law, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Property Rights of Women, Stridhana, Terms of Reference

Supreme Court Clarifies Stridhana Rights in Family Property Dispute: Pusapati Ashok Gajapathi Raju vs. Pusapati Madhuri Gajapathi Raju (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of Stridhana property rights in the context of a family partition dispute. CASE TYPE: Arbitration/Family Law Case Name: Pusapati Ashok Gajapathi Raju & Anr. vs. Pusapati Madhuri Gajapathi Raju & Ors. [Judgment Date]:

Supreme Court Clarifies Stridhana Rights in Family Property Dispute: Pusapati Ashok Gajapathi Raju vs. Pusapati Madhuri Gajapathi Raju (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Levy of Supervision Charges in Sal Seed Supply Contract: State of Chhattisgarh vs. M/S Sal Udyog Private Limited (2021) INSC 745 (08 November 2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 28(3), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, Contract Law, Contractual Obligations, Hima Kohli, Judges, N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant, Terms of Contract

Supreme Court Upholds Levy of Supervision Charges in Sal Seed Supply Contract: State of Chhattisgarh vs. M/S Sal Udyog Private Limited (2021) INSC 745 (08 November 2021) Date of the Judgment: 08 November 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 745 Judges: N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant, J., Hima Kohli, J. Can a State Government levy supervision charges

Supreme Court Upholds Levy of Supervision Charges in Sal Seed Supply Contract: State of Chhattisgarh vs. M/S Sal Udyog Private Limited (2021) INSC 745 (08 November 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Rights of Decree Assignees Under Section 146 of CPC: Vaishno Devi Construction vs. Union of India (2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 2(1)(g), B.R. Gavai, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XXI Rule 16, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 146, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 47, Judges, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court Clarifies Rights of Decree Assignees Under Section 146 of CPC: Vaishno Devi Construction vs. Union of India (2021) Date of the Judgment: October 21, 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 745 Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., B.R. Gavai, J. Can a person who has been assigned the rights to a decree before it was passed,

Supreme Court Clarifies Rights of Decree Assignees Under Section 146 of CPC: Vaishno Devi Construction vs. Union of India (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Mandates 75% Pre-Deposit for MSME Act Appeals: Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority vs. M/s Aska Equipments Limited (2021) INSC 6252

/ A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, 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 MSME Act Appeals: Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority vs. M/s Aska Equipments Limited (2021) INSC 6252 Date of the Judgment: October 08, 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 6252 Judges: Justice M.R. Shah and Justice A.S. Bopanna Can an appellate court waive or reduce the mandatory 75% pre-deposit required under Section

Supreme Court Mandates 75% Pre-Deposit for MSME Act Appeals: Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority vs. M/s Aska Equipments Limited (2021) INSC 6252 Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Contractual Bar on Pendente Lite Interest in Arbitration: Garg Builders vs. BHEL (2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 31(7)(a), Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 28, Interest Act, 1978, Interest Act, 1978 with Section 3, Judges, Krishna Murari, M.A. Khan, S. Abdul Nazeer

Supreme Court Upholds Contractual Bar on Pendente Lite Interest in Arbitration: Garg Builders vs. BHEL (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitrator can award pendente lite interest when the contract between the parties explicitly bars it. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Garg Builders vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited [Judgment Date]: October 4, 2021 Introduction Date

Supreme Court Upholds Contractual Bar on Pendente Lite Interest in Arbitration: Garg Builders vs. BHEL (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Pre-Existing Dispute in Insolvency Case: Jai Balaji Industries vs. D.K. Mohanty (2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, Dinesh Maheshwari, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 8, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Judges, Pre-Existing Dispute, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Upholds Pre-Existing Dispute in Insolvency Case: Jai Balaji Industries vs. D.K. Mohanty (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a pre-existing dispute, for the purposes of Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, includes a situation where an appeal against an arbitral award is dismissed in default but subsequently restored. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law

Supreme Court Upholds Pre-Existing Dispute in Insolvency Case: Jai Balaji Industries vs. D.K. Mohanty (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies MSMED Act Procedure: Vijeta Construction vs. Indus Smelters Ltd. (2021)

/ A. S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Sections 65 to 81, Conciliation, Judges, M. R. Shah, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 with Section 15, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 with Section 18, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 with Section 24

Supreme Court Clarifies MSMED Act Procedure: Vijeta Construction vs. Indus Smelters Ltd. (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Procedure for dispute resolution under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: M/s Vijeta Construction vs. M/s Indus Smelters Ltd. & Anr. Judgment Date: 23 September 2021 Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court Clarifies MSMED Act Procedure: Vijeta Construction vs. Indus Smelters Ltd. (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Extends Limitation Period Due to COVID-19: In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (23 September 2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 23(4), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 29A, Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 with Section 12A, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 141, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, N.V. Ramana, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with Section 138, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Extends Limitation Period Due to COVID-19: In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Extension of limitation period for legal proceedings due to the COVID-19 pandemic. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation. Case Name: In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation. Judgment Date: 23 September 2021 Date of the Judgment: 23 September

Supreme Court Extends Limitation Period Due to COVID-19: In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (23 September 2021) Read Post »

Scroll to Top