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 ...
The court directed the refund of TDS erroneously deducted from an arbitral award, ruling that interest on the TDS is not payable. The Execution Petition was disposed of accordingly.
Bombay HC held that an emergency arbitrator’s decision is an order and not an arbitral award as it does not finally decide disputes, making Part II enforcement inapplicable.
The Court held that once the statutory deadline expires, an arbitrator becomes functus officio and cannot be granted a fresh extension. It ordered substitution under Section 29A(6), reinforcing strict timelines for arbitral awards.
Summary: The Supreme Court held that a sub-vendor cannot force arbitration against a principal employer without contractual privity. BCL’s claim failed as it lacked genuine intent to be bound by HPCL’s agreement.
The MCA now mandates e-Adjudication for corporate penalties, streamlining notices, filings, and orders. This reform accelerates compliance, enhances transparency, and reduces litigation delays.
This title highlights India’s shift toward a modern arbitration framework driven by reforms and technology. The key takeaway is India’s move toward efficiency, reduced court interference, and stronger institutional arbitration.
This case addressed the scope of judicial interference under the Arbitration Act regarding the interest awarded in a commercial dispute. The Court found no perversity in the Arbitrator’s decision to award the contractual 24% rate, rejecting the borrower’s claims under the outdated Usurious Loans Act, 1918. The ruling emphasizes that the Arbitration Act framework overrides State usury laws for NBFC lending and bars courts from reopening contractual rates.
The Supreme Court found that the arbitrator rewrote contract terms contrary to a Railway Board policy circular and thus committed “patent illegality” under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The award was quashed, and the High Court’s affirmance set aside.
The Court reiterated that mere drafting labels cannot convert a settlement clause into an arbitration agreement. Since Clause 8.28 only contemplated conciliation and allowed recourse to courts, it failed to reflect intent for binding adjudication by an independent arbitrator.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against the execution of a ₹1,087 crore arbitral award, ruling that a company’s allegation of fraud committed by its own officers (fraud on self) is not grounds to nullify a final award. The ruling restricts the scope of objections under Section 47 CPC to fraud vitiating the arbitral process itself, not internal corporate misconduct.
