This guest post is authored by Chintan Nirala. Chintan is an India-qualified lawyer and has recently obtained a master’s degree in international dispute resolution from King’s College, London. He graduated from University of Allahabad (BA, LLB) in 2017, where he secured the top position in the ADR course. Notably, Chintan has interned with the International … Continue reading Arbitration Amendment Quandary 3.0: Supreme Court in HCC v Union of India
[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?
[This post is co-authored by our guest, Manasi M. Kalvit. Manasi is a lawyer with the Dispute Resolution team at Tatva Legal, Mumbai and can be reached at email@example.com] In United Insurance Co. Ltd v. Antique Art Exports Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court refused to appoint an arbitrator on grounds that the underlying … Continue reading Court’s Power under Section 11 when a Party Challenges the Discharge of a Contract Containing an Arbitration Clause
Recently, in Damont Developers v Brys Hotels[i] (Damont Developers), the Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (Arbitration Act) even though the memorandum of understanding (MoU) containing the arbitration clause was alleged to be insufficiently stamped. The Delhi HC observed that it is well within an … Continue reading Court’s Role in Appointing Arbitrator when the Contract is Insufficiently Stamped: Then and Now
Last month, the Supreme Court reaffirmed in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr. v. Pratibha Industries Ltd (Pratibha Industries) that High Courts, being courts of record, have the inherent power to recall their own orders, even in matters falling under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). In a peculiar factual matrix of … Continue reading Oral Arbitration Agreements and High Courts’ Power to Recall an Order Appointing Arbitrator under Section 11
2018 was a rather interesting year for India’s evolving arbitration landscape. Among other things, last year witnessed several clarificatory decisions on arbitration that were much needed for much long. While Parliament was preparing to enact yet another amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), Indian courts continued to interpret and flesh out … Continue reading IAB Annual Review: India’s Key Judicial Developments on Arbitration Law in 2018
This guest post is authored by Rishabh Malaviya. Rishabh is an advocate at Arista Chambers, Bangalore. He can be contacted via email at firstname.lastname@example.org. The Indian Supreme Court’s recent decision in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. v Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. & Ors. is a welcome (albeit partial) clarification of … Continue reading India’s See-sawing Approach to Section 11 – Good Sense Prevails
Disputes arose between Vedanta and Shenzen Shedong under four EPC contracts; each providing for arbitration seated in Mumbai governed by Indian law. While Shenzen sought damages in US Dollars, Euros and Indian Rupees, the tribunal allowed only the latter two. The tribunal also awarded a 9% uniform interest on the decretal amount, calculated from the … Continue reading Supreme Court’s Modification of Dual Interest Rate in India-seated ICA Award: An Unwarranted Interference?