[This is the second part of the author's composite article originally published here on Lexology.] In the first part of this post, the Supreme Court’s decision in Perkins was analyzed in light of the parties’ right to choose an appointment procedure under Section 11(2) and the specific legislative purport of Section 12. This part attempts … Continue reading The Fate of Unilaterally Appointed Sole Arbitrators in India: Part – II
[This is the first part of the author's composite article originally published here on Lexology.] For arbitration clauses allowing only one party to appoint the sole arbitrator, the Supreme Court observed in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. v HSCC (India) Limited (Perkins) that the appointing party’s choice will always have an element of exclusivity … Continue reading (Via Lexology) The Fate of Unilaterally Appointed Sole Arbitrators in India: Part – I
[This post was originally published here as an update by International Law Office (ILO)] In 2019 a three-judge bench (full bench) of the Bombay High Court had to decide whether the courts can exercise their power to grant interim or ad interim reliefs under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 where the arbitration … Continue reading [Via ILO] Insufficiently stamped agreements: can parties still seek interim relief in support of India-seated arbitrations?