Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Prof. Jan Paulsson discusses the distinction between jurisdiction and admissibility in international arbitration, examining preliminary objections, contractual conditions precedent, arbitral authority, court review, and the treatment of treaty and contractual claims.
Delhi High Court held that the signed Booking Note, which overrode all previous arrangements and incorporated only Clauses 20—41, could not be read to include the arbitration clause in Clause 43 or the Fixture Recap, and restrained the London (LMAA) arbitration.
The Court held that the application filed for appointment of sole arbitrator under Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is maintainable as the requirement of notice under Section 21 becomes unnecessary where the petitioner had already disclosed all details in a prior civil suit and the respondent had responded by filing a Section 8 application acknowledging that the dispute must be resolved via arbitration.
by Vasanth Rajasekaran* and Harshvardhan Korada**
Experts at GHAC Arbitration Week 2026 examined how artificial intelligence is reshaping international and domestic arbitration, including its use in legal research, document review, cross-examination and drafting.
Central Asia Dispute Resolution Association’s International Arbitration Summer School 2026 examined third-party funding and costs management, with Jurriaan Braat and Dmytro Shemelin discussing case assessment, litigation costs, enforcement, confidentiality, security for costs and the relationship between funders, claimants and counsel.
Justice R.F. Nariman, former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, addressed the evolving landscape of arbitration in India at GHAC Arbitration Week 2026, emphasising the need for greater certainty, accuracy and consistency in the interpretation and application of arbitration law.
GHAC Arbitration Week 2026 brings together the judiciary, legal profession, business and industry, arbitrators for three days of high-level dialogue on the future of institutional arbitration. Building on GHAC’s recent institutional milestones, the programme seeks to turn conversation into collaboration and advance Gujarat’s vision as a leading hub for domestic and international arbitration.
The present case discusses the effect of an arbitral award and the extent to which the courts can assist in execution. It also discusses the processes that are available in the court system for the execution of an arbitral award and the principle of piercing the corporate veil.
Reiterating the legislative policy of minimal judicial interference in arbitral proceedings, the Court observed that interference under Article 227 is warranted only in rare cases involving a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction that is apparent on the face of the record
Pallavi Singh Rao*, Sukanya Singh** and Tridib Mandal***
The Court pointed out that Section 35 of the A&C Act, 1996 clearly states that an arbitral award will only bind parties to the arbitration and persons claiming under the said parties.
The arbitration involved complex contractual issues including those relating to minimum guarantee, take-or-pay obligations, etc.
Arguing that the LLP is a “third party” to the LLP Agreement is much like arguing that a company is a third party to its own Articles of Association.
The Court observed that though the appellant contended that the net worth of the company is Rs.91 crores and is not a fly-by-night company, no physical assets or any other alternative security is provided either before the Single Judge or before the present Court.
‘If the non-signatory’s actions align with the signatories, it could reasonably lead the signatories to believe that the non-signatory was a veritable party to the contract containing the arbitration clause.’
“The abandonment of the claim can be either express or implied. The abandonment cannot be readily inferred. There is an implied abandonment when admitted or proved facts are so clinching that the only inference which can be drawn is of the abandonment.”
by Vasanth Rajasekaran† and Harshvardhan Korada††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 85
While dismissing the present appeal, the NCLAT held that appellant’s prayer pertaining to admission of the claim cannot be acceded to in the ‘eye of Law’.