Corporate Law : The Supreme Court ruled that Section 34(5) is a procedural requirement and not a mandatory precondition for challenging an arbitra...
Corporate Law : A Constitution Bench held that courts can modify arbitral awards in limited situations such as correcting manifest errors and seve...
Corporate Law : Indian law permits enforcement of foreign arbitral awards unless specific exceptions apply. Courts now favour enforcement with min...
Corporate Law : The ruling clarifies that limitation for appointing an arbitrator starts only when negotiations fail and arbitration is clearly in...
Corporate Law : Gayatri Balasamy Vs ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited (Supreme Court of India) – Citation- 2025 INSC 605 Overview of the Fa...
Corporate Law : The Government invites public feedback on the Draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024, aiming to enhance institu...
Finance : The Expert Committee has submitted its report on drafting institutional arbitral rules for the International Arbitration Centre at...
Corporate Law : Sub-section 3 of Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006 provides that where the conci...
Corporate Law : Comments invited on working paper of high level committee (HLC) to review Institutionalisation of Arbitration Mechanism in India b...
Corporate Law : In order to ensure speedy resolution of commercial disputes and to facilitate effective conduct of international and domestic arbi...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court held that applications to extend an arbitral tribunals mandate under Section 29A must be filed before the Court ...
Corporate Law : The Karnataka High Court held that the arbitral award suffered from patent illegality because the Tribunal ignored invoices showin...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court ruled that Section 4 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked where the prescribed limitation period expires befo...
Company Law : The NCLT held that the mere existence of an arbitration clause in a Shareholders' Agreement does not automatically require dispute...
Corporate Law : The Orissa High Court held that dismissal of a Section 34 petition on maintainability grounds effectively amounts to refusal to se...
Corporate Law : Delhi High Court mandates email and mobile service for arbitration petitions under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, effective...
SEBI : SEBI issues guidance to GAIL (India) Limited on disclosing arbitral proceedings details as per LODR Regulations, ensuring complian...
Corporate Law : 1) These regulations may be called the India International Arbitration Centre (Conduct of Arbitration) Regulations, 2023. (2) T...
Corporate Law : New Delhi International Arbitration Centre (Amendment) Bill, 2022 is Introduced in Lok Sabha to to change the name of the Centre f...
Corporate Law : (1) This Act may be called the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2021. (2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, it ...
The Supreme Court held that applications to extend an arbitral tribunals mandate under Section 29A must be filed before the Court defined in Section 2(1)(e), not the High Court that appointed the arbitrator. The ruling resolves conflicting judicial views on jurisdiction.
The Karnataka High Court held that the arbitral award suffered from patent illegality because the Tribunal ignored invoices showing that GST had already been included in at least some non-tendered work bills. The Court set aside the award on this limited issue and directed fresh computation of GST and consequential interest.
The Supreme Court ruled that Section 4 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked where the prescribed limitation period expires before the court closes for vacation. The Section 34 petition was therefore barred by limitation.
The NCLT held that the mere existence of an arbitration clause in a Shareholders’ Agreement does not automatically require disputes to be referred to arbitration. The Tribunal refused reference where the dispute involved statutory remedies under the Companies Act.
The Supreme Court ruled that Section 34(5) is a procedural requirement and not a mandatory precondition for challenging an arbitral award. Non-compliance with prior notice requirements does not invalidate a Section 34 petition.
A Constitution Bench held that courts can modify arbitral awards in limited situations such as correcting manifest errors and severable portions of awards. The ruling recognised an implied power under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
The Orissa High Court held that dismissal of a Section 34 petition on maintainability grounds effectively amounts to refusal to set aside an arbitral award under Section 37. The Court restored the arbitration challenge for adjudication on merits.
The Orissa High Court held that dismissal of a Section 34 challenge petition on maintainability grounds effectively amounts to refusal to set aside an arbitral award under Section 37. The Court restored the challenge petition for adjudication on merits.
NCLT Mumbai held that existence of an arbitration clause in the MoU did not bar initiation of CIRP under Section 7 of the IBC. The Tribunal admitted the insolvency plea after finding sufficient evidence of financial debt and default.
The Supreme Court held that a collaborator essential to contract execution and bound through a Deed of Joint Undertaking can invoke the arbitration clause despite not being a direct signatory.
