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 ...
Held that there is no provision in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, providing for a review of an order passed under Section 11 of the Act.
Extramarks Education India Private Limited Vs Ram School (Delhi High Court) The petitioner’s other objection, that since in its reply dated 31.08.2021 the respondent themselves were willing to accept and had given their consent for appointment of an arbitrator “near to the locality” where the respondents were located, is neither here nor there, since if […]
Madras High Court held that interference with Arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the ground of inequitable nature or unfair advantage not justified
Md. Wasim Vs Bengal Refrigeration and Company (Calcutta High Court) The partnership deed containing the Arbitration Clause has not been disputed by the respondents. It is also not in dispute that it is an unregistered partnership deed. The objection of the respondents is in respect of the bar contained under Section 69 of the Act […]
West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited Vs Sical Mining Limited (Calcutta High Court) In this case application under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed to appoint the sole arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties. Learned Counsel for the respondent has raised an objection that no notice making a […]
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that a preliminary enquiry shall be conducted by the High Court on the issue whether the dispute is arbitrable or not while deciding an application made under Section 11(5) & (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of arbitrators.
Calcutta High Court held that an arbitrator cannot shun away his responsibilities and leave the work of quantification of awarded interest on chartered accountant. Accordingly, held that arbitration award suffers infirmity.
In present case, the Honble Supreme Court invoked the provision of Article 142 of the Constitution of India and reduced the rate of Interest awarded by the arbitral tribunal by considering the fact that the long duration has been passed since filing of the claim.
High Court dismissed the petition stating that the terms of e-auction provided that any dispute is arbitrable and the Appellant is virtually seeking the enforcement of a contract through a writ petition for raising a claim for refund.
Delhi High Court held that considering the limited scope of judicial review u/s. 34 of the Arbitration Act, court cannot modify the arbitral award by awarding interest to the appellant.
