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 ...
Indian law permits enforcement of foreign arbitral awards unless specific exceptions apply. Courts now favour enforcement with minimal interference.
Despite arguable points raised, the Supreme Court declined interference since arbitration had commenced before a senior arbitrator. The decision reinforces judicial support for continuing agreed arbitral processes.
The Court held that designation of New Delhi as the arbitration venue amounts to the juridical seat, conferring supervisory jurisdiction. Despite a separate exclusive jurisdiction clause for Jajpur courts, the Court appointed an arbitrator under Section 11(6).
The ruling clarifies that limitation for appointing an arbitrator starts only when negotiations fail and arbitration is clearly invoked. Mere existence of disputes does not trigger limitation.
Gayatri Balasamy Vs ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited (Supreme Court of India) – Citation- 2025 INSC 605 Overview of the Facts- The case of Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd. evolved from a singular workplace grievance into a definitive legal precedent regarding the boundaries of judicial intervention in arbitration. The history traces back to 2006, when […]
The issue was whether interim protection lapses if a Section 11 petition is filed beyond 90 days. The Supreme Court held that arbitration commences on receipt of notice under Section 21, preserving interim relief under Section 9(2).
The issue was whether the High Court could interfere with an arbitral award upheld under Section 34. The Supreme Court held that Section 37 jurisdiction is limited and cannot re-examine merits or reinterpret the contract.
Rejecting objections on non-existence of the arbitration clause, the court applied the doctrine of separability. Arbitration was held maintainable despite termination or expiry of the main contract.
The Calcutta High Court held that once an arbitral award attains finality, the award amount must be paid in full without deduction of tax at source.
Explores how arbitration is often perceived as confidential, but legal and public interest obligations frequently limit this privacy. The takeaway: confidentiality is relative, not absolute.
