Arbitration Law

Supreme Court clarifies arbitrability of disputes under Construction Management Agreements: DLF Home Developers vs. Rajapura Homes (22 September 2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Breach of contract, Construction Management Agreement, Contract Law, International Commercial Arbitration, Judges, Kompetenz Kompetenz, N.V. Ramana, Share Purchase Agreement, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitrability of Disputes Under Construction Management Agreements: DLF Home Developers vs. Rajapura Homes (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether disputes arising from Construction Management Agreements can be referred to arbitration under the arbitration clause of the Construction Management Agreements, or whether they fall under the ambit of the Share Purchase Agreements. CASE TYPE: Arbitration […]

Supreme Court clarifies arbitrability of disputes under Construction Management Agreements: DLF Home Developers vs. Rajapura Homes (22 September 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitrator’s Authority Post-Retirement in Construction Dispute (20 September 2021)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Appointment of Arbitrator, Arbitration Agreement, Arbitration Law, Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 with Section 4, Judges, M.R. Shah, Termination of Arbitrator

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitrator’s Authority Post-Retirement in Construction Dispute LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitrator’s mandate terminates upon retirement if the arbitration clause doesn’t explicitly state so. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: M/s Laxmi Continental Construction Co. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. [Judgment Date]: 20 September 2021 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 20 September

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitrator’s Authority Post-Retirement in Construction Dispute (20 September 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the meaning of “entertain” under Section 9(3) of the Arbitration Act in interim relief cases: Arcelor Mittal vs. Essar Bulk (14 September 2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 17, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 9, Indira Banerjee, Interim Measures, J. K. Maheshwari, Judges

Supreme Court Clarifies “Entertain” in Section 9(3) of Arbitration Act: Arcelor Mittal vs. Essar Bulk (2021) Date of the Judgment: 14 September 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 628 Judges: Indira Banerjee, J., J. K. Maheshwari, J. Can a court continue to hear an application for interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

Supreme Court clarifies the meaning of “entertain” under Section 9(3) of the Arbitration Act in interim relief cases: Arcelor Mittal vs. Essar Bulk (14 September 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award in Delhi Metro Dispute: DAMEPL Wins Against DMRC (2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, Breach of contract, Concession Agreement, Contract Law, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, S. Ravindra Bhat

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award in Delhi Metro Dispute: DAMEPL Wins Against DMRC (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Interference with Arbitral Awards under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. Judgment Date: September 09, 2021 Introduction Date

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Award in Delhi Metro Dispute: DAMEPL Wins Against DMRC (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitrator Appointment Under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act Despite Prior Agreement: Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. vs. M/s Ajay Sales & Suppliers (2021)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 12, Judges, M.R. Shah, Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001, Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 with Section 58, Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitrator Appointment Under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act Despite Prior Agreement: Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. vs. M/s Ajay Sales & Suppliers (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitrator appointed as per a prior agreement can be replaced by the High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitrator Appointment Under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act Despite Prior Agreement: Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. vs. M/s Ajay Sales & Suppliers (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Foreign Award Against Non-Signatories Under Alter Ego Doctrine: Gemini Bay Transcription Pvt. Ltd. vs. Integrated Sales Service Ltd. (2021) INSC 482 (10 August 2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 44, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 48, B.R. Gavai, Breach of contract, Contract Law, Contract Law with Alter Ego Doctrine, Enforcement of Foreign Awards, Judges, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Upholds Foreign Award Against Non-Signatories Under Alter Ego Doctrine Date of the Judgment: 10 August 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 482 Judges: R.F. Nariman, J and B.R. Gavai, J. The judgment was authored by R.F. Nariman, J. Can a foreign arbitral award be enforced against entities that were not direct signatories to the arbitration

Supreme Court Upholds Foreign Award Against Non-Signatories Under Alter Ego Doctrine: Gemini Bay Transcription Pvt. Ltd. vs. Integrated Sales Service Ltd. (2021) INSC 482 (10 August 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Contractual Terms: PSA Sical Terminals Loses Appeal Against V.O. Chidambaranar Port Trust (28 July 2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, Arbitration Law, B.R. Gavai, Contract Law, Contract Law with Article 14, Interpretation of Contracts, Judges, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Upholds Contractual Terms: PSA Sical Terminals vs. V.O. Chidambaranar Port Trust (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of “Change in Law” clause in a contract and the extent of the Arbitral Tribunal’s power to modify contractual terms. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law, Contract Law Case Name: PSA Sical Terminals Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Board of Trustees

Supreme Court Upholds Contractual Terms: PSA Sical Terminals Loses Appeal Against V.O. Chidambaranar Port Trust (28 July 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the scope of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in land acquisition cases under the National Highways Act, 1956 (20 July 2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, B.R. Gavai, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 12, Constitutional Law with Article 136, Judges, Land Acquisition, National Highways Act, 1956, National Highways Act, 1956 with Section 3G, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 34 of Arbitration Act in National Highway Land Acquisition Cases Date of the Judgment: 20 July 2021 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: R.F. Nariman, J and B.R. Gavai, J. Can a court modify an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or is

Supreme Court settles the scope of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in land acquisition cases under the National Highways Act, 1956 (20 July 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles applicability of Limitation Act and maintainability of counterclaims under MSMED Act: Silpi Industries vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (29 June 2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 43, Ashok Bhushan, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, MSMED Act with Section 15, MSMED Act with Section 16, MSMED Act with Section 18, R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Limitation Act and Counterclaims in MSMED Act Arbitrations Introduction Date of the Judgment: 29 June 2021 Judges: Ashok Bhushan J. and R. Subhash Reddy J. Can a buyer raise a counterclaim in arbitration proceedings initiated by a supplier under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act)?

Supreme Court settles applicability of Limitation Act and maintainability of counterclaims under MSMED Act: Silpi Industries vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (29 June 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Interest on Delayed Payments in Construction Contract: M/s. Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala (22 April 2021)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 31(7)(a), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration Law, Contract Law, Interest on Delayed Payments, Interpretation of Contracts, Judges, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Upholds Interest on Delayed Payments in Construction Contract: M/s. Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a contractor is entitled to interest on delayed payments for work done under a construction contract, specifically concerning the local currency component, when the contract specifies interest but leaves the interest

Supreme Court Upholds Interest on Delayed Payments in Construction Contract: M/s. Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala (22 April 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the enforceability of foreign arbitral awards between two Indian parties: PASL Wind Solutions vs. GE Power Conversion (20 April 2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 2(1)(f), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 44, B.R. Gavai, Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 with Section 10, Hrishikesh Roy, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 23, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 28, International Commercial Arbitration, Judges, R.F. Nariman

Date of the Judgment: 20 April 2021 Citation: 2021 INSC 208 Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., B.R. Gavai, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J. Can two Indian companies choose a foreign country as the seat of arbitration? The Supreme Court of India addressed this important question in a recent judgment, clarifying the scope of “foreign awards” under the

Supreme Court clarifies the enforceability of foreign arbitral awards between two Indian parties: PASL Wind Solutions vs. GE Power Conversion (20 April 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles jurisdiction in arbitration: Inox Renewables Ltd. wins against Jayesh Electricals Ltd. (13 April 2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 20, Arbitration Law, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Jurisdiction in Arbitration, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Seat of Arbitration

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction in arbitration cases: Inox Renewables vs. Jayesh Electricals (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of the “seat” of arbitration and its impact on court jurisdiction. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: M/s. Inox Renewables Ltd. vs. Jayesh Electricals Ltd. Judgment Date: 13 April 2021 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 13 April 2021 Citation:

Supreme Court settles jurisdiction in arbitration: Inox Renewables Ltd. wins against Jayesh Electricals Ltd. (13 April 2021) Read Post »

Scroll to Top