Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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††
Supreme Court clarified that the limited jurisdiction of the referral Courts under Section 11 must not be misused by parties in order to force other parties to the arbitration agreement to participate in a time-consuming and costly arbitration process.
In the present case, Clause 12 of the partnership deed indicated that the Partnership Act, 1932 and its Rules shall cover only those aspects not specifically mentioned in the deed.
by Akash Hogade†
