Arbitration Law

Supreme Court Orders Arbitration Despite Previous Settlement Claim in Property Dispute

/ A.S. Bopanna, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order II Rule 2, Judges, Res Judicata, S. A. Bobde, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Orders Arbitration Despite Previous Settlement Claim in Property Dispute LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a dispute exists for arbitration when a previous court order noted a settlement between parties, but no formal settlement agreement was recorded. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: V. Sreenivasa Reddy vs. B.L. Rathnamma [Judgment Date]: April 08, 2021 Date of the […]

Supreme Court Orders Arbitration Despite Previous Settlement Claim in Property Dispute Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Arbitration in Family Dispute Over Company Shares: Sanjiv Prakash vs. Seema Kukreja (2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 16, B.R. Gavai, Hrishikesh Roy, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 62, Judges, Kompetenz-Kompetenz, Novation, Rohinton Fali Nariman

Supreme Court Orders Arbitration in Family Dispute: Sanjiv Prakash vs. Seema Kukreja (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a prior Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between family members regarding shareholding in a private company is superseded by a subsequent Shareholders’ Agreement (SHA) with a third-party investor, specifically concerning an arbitration clause. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Sanjiv

Supreme Court Orders Arbitration in Family Dispute Over Company Shares: Sanjiv Prakash vs. Seema Kukreja (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction in power purchase disputes: MP Power Trading vs. Narmada Equipments (2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 21, Arbitration Law, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 174, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 86(1)(f), Electricity Law, Judges, M R Shah, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction in power purchase disputes: MP Power Trading vs. Narmada Equipments (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Jurisdiction of State Electricity Commissions in disputes between licensees and generating companies. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law, Electricity Law Case Name: Chief General Manager (IPC) M P Power Trading Co Ltd & Anr vs. Narmada Equipments Pvt Ltd [Judgment

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction in power purchase disputes: MP Power Trading vs. Narmada Equipments (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Section 37 Appeals under Arbitration Act: Government of Maharashtra vs. Borse Brothers (2021)

/ Appeals from Arbitral Orders, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, B.R. Gavai, Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 with Section 13, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 29, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Section 37 Appeals under Arbitration Act: Government of Maharashtra vs. Borse Brothers (2021) Date of the Judgment: March 19, 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 149 Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., B.R. Gavai, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J. Can delays in filing appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 be

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Section 37 Appeals under Arbitration Act: Government of Maharashtra vs. Borse Brothers (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies limitation for arbitration applications and rejects time-barred claims: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd. (2021)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Appointment of Arbitrators, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 43, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Arbitration Applications: BSNL vs. Nortel (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: What is the limitation period for filing an application for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and can a court refuse to appoint an arbitrator if the claims are evidently time-barred? CASE TYPE: Arbitration

Supreme Court clarifies limitation for arbitration applications and rejects time-barred claims: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd. (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court extends limitation period due to COVID-19: In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (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, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with Section 138, S. A. Bobde, S. Ravindra Bhat

Supreme Court extends limitation period due to COVID-19: In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Extension of limitation period due to COVID-19 pandemic. CASE TYPE: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil). Case Name: In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation. Judgment Date: March 8, 2021 Date of the Judgment: March 8, 2021 Citation:

Supreme Court extends limitation period due to COVID-19: In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of “prima facie” review of arbitration agreements: Pravin Electricals vs. Galaxy Infra (2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 8, B.R. Gavai, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Clarifies the Scope of Prima Facie Review in Arbitration Agreement Disputes: Pravin Electricals vs. Galaxy Infra (2021) Date of the Judgment: March 8, 2021 Citation: 2021 INSC 125 Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., B.R. Gavai, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J. Can a court conclusively decide the existence of an arbitration agreement based on a preliminary

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of “prima facie” review of arbitration agreements: Pravin Electricals vs. Galaxy Infra (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitrator’s Award on Rebate and Escalation in Construction Contract Dispute: NTPC Ltd. vs. Deconar Services Pvt. Ltd. (2021)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Arbitration Act, 1940, Arbitration Act, 1940 with Section 30, Arbitration Act, 1940 with Section 33, Arbitration Law, Contract Law, Escalation Charges, Fixed Price Clause, Judges, N.V. Ramana, Rebate, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitrator’s Award on Rebate and Escalation in Construction Contract Dispute: NTPC Ltd. vs. Deconar Services Pvt. Ltd. (2021) Date of the Judgment: March 04, 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 127 Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., Surya Kant, J., and Aniruddha Bose, J. Can an arbitrator’s decision on contract interpretation be challenged in court if

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitrator’s Award on Rebate and Escalation in Construction Contract Dispute: NTPC Ltd. vs. Deconar Services Pvt. Ltd. (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies definition of “International Commercial Arbitration” in Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ravindranath Rao Sindhia & Anr. (2021) INSC 105 (04 March 2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 2(1)(f), B.R. Gavai, International Commercial Arbitration, Judges, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Clarifies “International Commercial Arbitration” in Amway Dispute Date of the Judgment: 04 March 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 105 Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., B.R. Gavai, J. Can a dispute between an Indian company and individuals who are nationals and residents of the USA be considered an “international commercial arbitration,” even if the business is

Supreme Court clarifies definition of “International Commercial Arbitration” in Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ravindranath Rao Sindhia & Anr. (2021) INSC 105 (04 March 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Challenging Arbitral Awards: Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (2 March 2021)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 29, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 31, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Indu Malhotra, Judges

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Challenging Arbitral Awards: Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Determining the commencement date for the limitation period to challenge an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Challenging Arbitral Awards: Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (2 March 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitration Law Applicability in Cross-Border Contract Dispute: Punatsangchhu Hydroelectric Project vs. Larsen & Toubro (2021)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2013 (Bhutan), Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 11(6), Contract Law, Contractual Interpretation, Indu Malhotra, Judges

Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitration Law Applicability in Cross-Border Contract Dispute: Punatsangchhu Hydroelectric Project vs. Larsen & Toubro (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 versus Bhutan’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2013 in a contract with a clause specifying Indian law as a guide. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: Punatsangchhu – 1

Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitration Law Applicability in Cross-Border Contract Dispute: Punatsangchhu Hydroelectric Project vs. Larsen & Toubro (2021) Read Post »

Arbitration Clause Superseded: Supreme Court Appoints Sole Arbitrator in GR Green Life Energy vs. Leitwind Shriram Manufacturing Dispute (22 February 2021)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 with Section 24

Supreme Court Appoints Sole Arbitrator in GR Green Life Energy vs. Leitwind Shriram Manufacturing Dispute (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Appointment of a Sole Arbitrator by the Supreme Court, superseding the original arbitration clause. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: GR Green Life Energy Pvt. Ltd. vs. Leitwind Shriram Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. Judgment Date: 22 February 2021 Introduction

Arbitration Clause Superseded: Supreme Court Appoints Sole Arbitrator in GR Green Life Energy vs. Leitwind Shriram Manufacturing Dispute (22 February 2021) Read Post »

Scroll to Top