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 intention of the parties to have their disputes arbitrated and that the same is paramount even where the dispute resolution clauses are vaguely worded or where there is an ambiguity in choice of the mechanism to be adopted.
Held that dispute in respect of ESOP which forms part of the Employment Agreement, would be referable to arbitration as provided in Clause 21 of ESOP.
Held that TDI was not seeking a review, but rather, a discharge/ modification of the conditions prescribed in the said interim order. Accordingly, Arbitral Tribunal was entitled to exercise the said option, having regard to the principles enshrined under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC.
Understanding the enforcement of an arbitration agreement in commercial contracts. Learn how parties can settle disputes out of court through arbitration.
Held that an application u/s. 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator, filed beyond three years, is barred by limitation.
Bombay HC held that Amendment to Section 34 Arbitration Application cannot be allowed if it constitutes a fresh challenge
Possible extent of claim likely to be awarded cannot be a foregone conclusion. Arbitrator fell in error by exercising Section 17 jurisdiction for securing the amount
Swastik Pipe Ltd Vs Dimple Verma (Delhi High Court) In terms of Section 7(4)(b) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it is clear that arbitration agreement can be derived from exchange of letters / telex / telegram or other means of communication including through electronic means and if it is shown that the parties are […]
Magirsha Industries Vs Gujarat State Fertilizer And Chemicals Limited (Gujarat High Court) Issue relating to power of this Court to extend the mandate, insofar as the references made by MSME is seriously disputed by respondent counsel. Having regard to the fact that sub-section (3) of section 18 of MSME Act, 2006 that the provision of […]
Held that Manual issued by the Government suggesting settlement of dispute by arbitration would not amount to execution of arbitration agreement between the parties. Application u/s 11(4) & 11(6) dismissed as no arbitration agreement exists between the parties.
