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 in absence of written arbitration agreement, the conduct between the parties cannot be construed to mean that, the parties had agreed to arbitration.
In the present case, the Agreement has indeed been signed by the respondent, who himself resists the appointment of an arbitrator thereunder.
D. Ravinder Reddy Vs Smt. C. Geethanjali (Telangana High Court) In the present case, there is no dispute that the parties by incorporating Clause 28 had agreed to resolve their disputes through arbitration. The said clause is extracted below: “In the case of any dispute between the parties hereto touching these presents, the matter shall […]
Held that qualification of the arbitrator as per the arbitration agreement is pre-requisite for eligibility to be appointed as an appointed as an arbitrator. Arbitrator not satisfying the qualification is ineligible and arbitral award passed by such ineligible arbitrator cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
Held that application u/s 11(6) for appointment of an arbitrator after the period of cause of action got extinguished is not maintainable
Held that impugned award set aside as the same was passed rejecting the counter claim, which was duly filed within the time limit, as being time barred.
Held that law mandates neutrality for both arbitrator and arbitrator selection process. Interim award passed by the arbitration who was appointed in contravention of provisions is unenforceable.
Held that provisions of section 11(6) are judicial one and hence principal of opportunity of hearing or putting other party to notice is imperative. In absence of issuance of notice u/s 11 of A&C Act, order and proceedings gets vitiate.
Held that insufficiency of evidence or material is not a ground for setting aside an arbitral award. Income tax return is material evidence to establish the claim.
Bestpay Solutions Private Limited Vs Razorpay Software Private Limited (Karnataka High Court) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:- “A. Pass An Order U/S 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 appointing a sole arbitrator as per agreement dated entered on dated: 18/11/2020 to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, […]
