Arbitration Law

Supreme Court Partially Upholds Arbitration Award in Saluja Construction vs. Northern Coalfields Dispute (25 November 2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 20, Arbitration Law with Section 8, Judges, M.R. Shah, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Partially Upholds Arbitration Award in Saluja Construction vs. Northern Coalfields Dispute (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitrator can expand the scope of arbitration to include disputes beyond the specific contract referenced in the arbitration agreement. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Saluja Construction Company vs. Northern Coalfields Limited [Judgment Date]: 25 November 2021 […]

Supreme Court Partially Upholds Arbitration Award in Saluja Construction vs. Northern Coalfields Dispute (25 November 2021) Read Post »

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 »

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 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 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 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 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 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 »

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 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 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 »

Scroll to Top