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 allegation of collusion between the arbitrator and the opposite party cannot be decided in an application filed under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
HC Held that order passed under section 16 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be challenged under section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Held that section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is an exception to Section 42. However, if Section 8 is also brought within the ambit of Section 42, it would defeat the sublime philosophy underlining arbitration i.e., party autonomy.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court observed that in no manner under Commercial Courts Act, the Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 11 has been either disturbed or divested in matters of appointment of an arbitral tribunal as provided for under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Arbitrator has discretion to grant post-award interest. Section 37(1)(b) does not fetter discretion of arbitrator to grant post-award interest
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India and have directed to form new arbitral Tribunal due to disputes in the fee structure provided in IV Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Held that in a case where there exists an arbitration agreement, the court is under obligation to refer the parties to arbitration in terms of the arbitration agreement.
rbitral award was set aside partially by the Hon’ble High court on the basis that the arbitrator has clearly exceeded his jurisdiction and has awarded most of the items of claims by either ignoring the terms and conditions of the contract or acting in derogation therefrom.
Calcutta High Court have allowed appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the issue that the arbitrator has not furnished any arithmetical basis or any documentary evidence to support the claim awarded to the respondent as Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions.
HC held that merely because one party, has approached before MSME Council, Arbitration application cannot be held to be not maintainable
