Supreme Court Post Vidya Drolia: Reconsidering Referral Jurisprudence in India
by Senu Nizar† and Velpula Audityaa††
arbitration and conciliation act
Mandatory and Directory Provisions under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
by Manavendra Mishra† and Alok Vajpeyi††
Explained| Three types of issues that can be considered in an application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Supreme Court: In an appeal against the judgment passed by Telangana High Court, wherein the High Court dismissed the application
Call for Papers | RGNUL RSRR Volume 9 Issue 2 [Submit Abstract by December 20, 2022]
About RSRR The RGNUL Student Research Review (RSRR) Journal is a bi-annual, student-run, blind peer-reviewed, flagship journal based at Rajiv
Preliminary Inquiry under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
by Ayushi Raghuwanshi*
Uttaranchal High Court | Commercial Court cannot modify arbitral award in absence of manifest and patent error/illegality
Uttaranchal High Court: The Division Bench of Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, JJ. allowed appeals filed by the
2022 SCC Vol. 9 Part 2
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 31(7) and Ss. 17, 21, 23(3), 24(1), 25, 26, 29 and 85(2)(a) —
Mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation — Effective Remedy to Declog Courts in India
by Abhijnan Jha* and Urvashi Misra**
The Growing Need for Data Protection in International Arbitration
by Tariq Khan†
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 76
Madras High Court | Courts will not interfere or set aside an arbitral award, merely because an alternative view is possible; Adopt a hands-off approach
Madras High Court: In an intra-Court appeal filed against the order of the single judge, whereby, the judge allowed the
Court’s power under Section 9 A&C Act, 1996 wider than CPC; Technicalities of CPC cannot prevent it from securing the ends of justice: SC
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Indira Banerjee* and A.S. Bopanna, JJ., contemplated the scope of Section 9 of Arbitration
2022 SCC Vol. 8 Part 1
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 8, 11, 7, 2(1)(h), 16 and 45 — Non-signatory or non-party to arbitration
Arbitration clause, even without the words “final and binding”, valid if the intention of the parties, to abide by arbitrator’s decision, is clear: Supreme Court
When Section 7 or any other provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 do not stipulate any particular form or requirements, it would not be appropriate for a court to gratuitously add impediments and desist from upholding the validity of an arbitration agreement.
Supreme Court holds ‘Arbitrators cannot unilaterally issue binding and enforceable orders determining their own fees’; Justice Sanjiv Khanna partially dissents
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Dr DY Chandrachud*, Surya Kant and Sanjiv Khanna*, JJ has held that arbitrators do not have
Calcutta High Court | Conduct of Parties – not a substitute for an arbitration agreement
Calcutta High Court: While deciding a review petition, Debangsu Basak, J. held that the court while exercising powers under Section
2022 SCC Vol. 7 Part 3
Advocates Act, 1961 — S. 16 — Procedure for designation of Senior Advocates: Clarification of Guidelines prescribed for Supreme Court