"Abhishek is a practicing advocate currently working as an Associate at Archeus Law, New Delhi, where he focuses on high stake Construction Arbitrations, commercial litigation and Infrastructure projects advisory. He has previously worked with Senior Advocate Ratan Kumar Singh, wherein he gained extensive experience in high-value disputes and complex legal propositions. Abhishek is also the Founder & Managing Director of Nyayshastram, a platform dedicated to legal education, research, and thought leadership. His contributions to the field have earned him international recognition—he has been listed among the Top 60 Global Influencers by Prime Dispute and honored as the Rising Star in Dispute Resolution 2025 by APAC Insider. Passionate about writing and research, Abhishek regularly contributes analytical pieces on judgments and contemporary legal issues. Abhishek is an adept relationship manager, an effective communicator, and adept at maintaining cordial working relationships with legal counsel and other external organizations."
The Delhi High Court rules that arbitral awards based on unsubstantiated CA certificates are invalid, requiring arbitrators to rely on concrete, verifiable evidence.
Delhi HC dismisses an application under Section 27 of the Arbitration Act, directing the Arbitral Tribunal to assess evidence relevancy prima facie.
Modified Resolution Plan cannot be directly presented to NCLT without receiving final approval from the Committee of Creditors (COC).
HC held that There is no absolute bar against a lawsuit or legal proceedings continuing concurrently with liquidation proceedings under Section 33(5) of IBC (Liquidation Moratorium), unlike Section 14 of IBC (CIRP Moratorium).
National Highway Authority of India Vs Transstroy (India) Limited (Supreme Court) The counter-claim of a party cannot be rejected for the simple reason that the claims were not notified prior to initiating arbitration. Facts of the Case: The National Highway Authority of India and Transstroy (India) Limited entered into an Engineering Procurement and Construction Agreement […]
Whether the delay in making the impugned award rendered it liable to be set aside as opposed to public policy would also necessarily have to be considered in the context of the challenge?
Resolution Professional’s job is confined to making recommendations; there is no aspect of adjudication on the Resolution Professional’s behalf. The final decision on whether the application should be accepted or rejected is made by the Adjudicating Authority, which is not bound by the Resolution Professional’s advice.
