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 ...
Provisions of section 34 restricts the scope of interference with the arbitral award on the ground of public policy. Present arbitral award doesn’t contradict public policy hence interference unjustified.
Explore the ACIT Vs Zodiac Transport case as ITAT Delhi directs fresh adjudication on protective additions, influenced by the SVP Group entities recent partial relief.
A comprehensive analysis of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in light of recent court pronouncements in India.
This liability of GST (taxes) was certainly not in contemplation of the parties when they entered into the contract in the year 2001. MCGM who would be liable to pay the GST to the Government on a Reverse Charge basis and the same cannot be deducted from the dues payable to the Applicant.
Conduct cannot impliedly waive the rights under Section 12(5) of the A&C Act. The waiver under Section 12(5) of the A&C Act has to be by an express agreement in writing.
The applications u/s. 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration Act for appointment of arbitrators are kept pending for a number of years, it would defeat the object and purpose of the enactment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act as well as the Commercial Courts Act.
Held that in case of appointment of a sole arbitrator, the law is very clear that it is the Court that is to decide the sole arbitrator. The persons that have been nominated by the respondent cannot be accepted.
NBCC (India) Ltd. Vs State of West Bengal (Calcutta High Court) MSMED Act is a special legislation and has an overriding effect, the parties governed by it are bound to follow the mechanism provided under Section 18 of the Act. It was further reiterated in Mackintosh Burn Limited v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council […]
A-One Realtors Pvt. Ltd Vs Energy Efficiency Services Ltd (Delhi High Court) It is settled law that a litigant is not entitled to refund of court fees in case of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC where the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. On the same analogy, […]
Om Prakash Kumawat Vs Rekha Kumawat (Rajasthan High Court) In case of Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited , the Apex Court, after appreciating Sections 35 & 37 of the SARFAESI Act, held that arbitration proceedings and proceedings under the SARFAESI Act can be resorted to simultaneously Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that in view […]
