
Balancing Fairness and Efficiency: Contours of Writ Jurisdiction in the Arbitration Landscape
by Arush Khanna* and Akarsh Pandey**
by Arush Khanna* and Akarsh Pandey**
by Avineet Chawla* and Piyush Raj**
The remedy under Section 9 is equitable, discretionary in nature and primarily exercised to preserve subject matter of arbitration or to prevent frustration of arbitral proceedings. Such power must be exercised cautiously, particularly where interim relief sought effectively amounts to grant of final relief or impinges upon statutory powers conferred under Companies Act, 2013.
by Abhisaar Bairagi*, Milind Sharma** and Ausaf Ayyub***
“The issue of under-stamping is often weaponized in arbitral proceedings and used to trip up the adjudication of disputes by way of arbitration. Arbitrators, being private persons, tend to be timid and send the instruments to the Stamp Authorities despite being entitled to compute the stamp duty amount and penalty component themselves.”
by Arin Chatterjee* and Aranya Chatterjee**
Vedanta is engaged in a product sharing contract with the government of India, for exploration, discovery, development and production of petroleum resources in relation to an onshore oil and gas block known as Rajasthan Block, since 1995.
The Court noted that under Section 7(4)(b) of the Arbitration Act it is not necessary to conclude a contract for the arbitration agreement contained within it to be valid. The arbitration agreement must form a part of documents/communication exchange between the parties.
by Dr G.B. Reddy* and Dr S.B. Md. Irfan Ali Abbas**
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 11, 12(5) and 18 — Unilateral appointment of sole arbitrator/curating panel of arbitrators: Unilateral appointment
by Aashish Gupta*, Puneeth Ganapathy** and Rishab Aggarwal***
by Akash Gupta* and Mahi Agrawal**
by Harsha Roy* and Sainaz Parveen**
by Abhinav Agrawal* and Deepali Poddar**
The intention of both the parties where to go for arbitration, is at Ranchi and the proceeding after permission of the High Court was also conducted at Ranchi and in the agreement, the seat is also said to be at Ranchi. Thus, Ranchi court is having jurisdiction.
The High Court held that the Trial Court ought to have passed separate order, in accordance with law, considering the provisions related to filing of the written statement and its forfeiture, also, keeping a view that the procedural law is handmaid of justice and the Court has the power to extend the time for filing of the written statement in the facts and circumstances of each and every case.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 11(6) — Substantive claims of petitioner whether time-barred i.e. issue of limitation requiring intricate evidentiary
Special leave petition – Exemption from filing the certified copy of the impugned order of the High Court
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 11(6) and 37: Setting aside of order setting aside award, by Court exercising jurisdiction under
by Shalaka Patil† and Surbhi Shah††