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 ...
Vimlesh Bansal Vs Ashok Kumar (Rajasthan High Court) The legal maxim ‘Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt’ literally translates to ‘the law assists only those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights’. The said legal maxim applies squarely to the present case where applicants did not take recourse of law available to […]
Admittedly, no limitation is provided for filing an appeal under Section 3G(5) of National Highways Act, 1956. Therefore, it can be construed, as held in the aforesaid judgments, that Article 137 of the Limitation Act would stand applicable to such cases.
Respondent cannot be presumed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of Court and waived its right to arbitration when it had reserved its right to take appropriate legal proceedings against plaintiff.
Bali Nagwanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court) The main contention of the respondent State, respondent-BRPL and respondent- Union of India is this that the whole process for determination of compensation was based on fraud and criminal conspiracy, as out of numerous land oustees, only two of them, namely, Bali Nagwanshi and Neelima Belsariya […]
There was no right to apply for reference of a dispute to arbitration until there was a clear and unequivocal denial of the right asserted by one party by the other.
Power under Section 9 could only be exercised for preservation of the subject matter of the dispute till the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal and scope of relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Act could not be extended for directing specific performance of the contract.
Powers under Section 9 of the A& C Act cannot be invoked by the competent Court prior to the termination of the conciliation proceedings under the MSMED Act.
There cannot be any justification for the ONGC to withhold any amount on the premise that it has a claim of unliquidated damages against the petitioner
S. Square Infra Vs Garneni Chalapathi Rao (Telangana High Court) The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that as the respondents nominated the Arbitrator residing at Hyderabad, only the Courts at Hyderabad are having jurisdiction but not the Courts at Sangareddy and thus, sought for transfer. Admittedly, the offer of the respondents was rejected […]
Held that agreement would not be discharged by death of the party thereto and will be enforceable by or against the heirs of the deceased. Accordingly, present arbitration application allowed.
