Explained| Can arbitrator grant pendente lite interest if contract expressly bars payment of interest?
Supreme Court: The bench of SA Nazeer* and Krishna Murari, JJ has held that if the contract contains a specific clause which
arbitration and conciliation act
Chairman of party who entered into arbitration, can he be categorised as eligible under Arbitration and Conciliation Act? SC highlights impartiality of arbitrators as a key element while pronouncing this ruling
Supreme Court: Expressing on the aspect of independence and impartiality of the arbitrators, Division Bench of M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.,
Taking it out on the Arbitrator: The Rationale of Arbitral Immunity
by Tariq Khan†
Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 57
Apex Court v. the unruly horse: Journey from Renusagar to Ssangyong Engineering
by Hiroo Advani† and Manav Nagpal††
Acts in Contravention of Orders of Injunction —The Consequences
by Karl K. Shroff*
Del HC | Can International Arbitration Award be assailed on ground of patent illegality? Is it permissible for arbitrator to award compound interest? HC answers
Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bakhru, J., held that the scope of interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration
“Complex” questions involving novation of contract can’t be decided by Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act: Supreme Court
“Detailed arguments on whether an agreement which contains an arbitration clause has or has not been novated cannot possibly be decided in exercise of a limited prima facie review as to whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties.”
Short delay in filing appeals under section 37 of the Arbitration Act can be condoned in exceptional cases. Here’s why Supreme Court overruled N.V. International verdict
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of RF Nariman, BR Gavai and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ has held that given the object of speedy
3 years’ limitation period ‘unduly long’; Necessary for Parliament to fill the vacuum by prescribing a specific period of limitation under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation 1996: SC
3 years is an unduly long period for filing an application under Section 11, since it would defeat the very object of the Act, which provides for expeditious resolution of commercial disputes within a time bound period.
SC calls for amendment to Sections 11(7) & 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to bring Sections 8 & 11 at par on appealability. Read how Vidya Drolia judgment has led to an anomaly
Supreme Court: In the light of the “prima facie” test laid down last year in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation, (2021) 2
The conundrum in seeking Interim reliefs for foreign seated arbitrations in India
by Sushmita Gandhi*, Anamika Singh** & Bhargav Kosuru***
Appointment of arbitrators under Section 11 by the Supreme Court: A time intensive phenomenon
by Payal Chandra* & Rhythm Buaria**
Stamping of Agreements vis-à-vis Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996
by Yakshay M. Chheda* & Ishan J. Ravindranath**
Post Award Interim Reliefs under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: A light at the end of the tunnel
by Alabh Anant Lal* & Soham Banerjee**
Enforceability of Foreign Arbitral Award in India: Developments
by Byron Sequeira* & Dhruv Srivastava**
Amended Section 8 of A&C Act does not inundate entire regime of special legislation in non-arbitrable cases: SC
Supreme Court: A Bench comprising of Uday U. Lalit and Ashok Bhushan, JJ. dismissed a review petition filed against Supreme Court’s judgment dated
Principles of CPC can be looked at for guidance while deciding matters under Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996
Uttaranchal High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Manoj K. Tiwari, J., dismissed a bunch of writ petitions filed against the