Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is an expression of the principle “pending a litigation nothing new should be introduced”. It provides that pendente lite, neither party to the litigation, in which any right to immovable property is in question, can alienate or otherwise deal with such property so as to affect his appointment
Even if the Arbitrator is successful in justifying his reasons for deciding a rate of interest, the Agreement between the parties being the birth-giver, should be held at a higher stature when it concerns an issue that has been pre-decided and mutually agreed upon by the parties.
The limited scope of judicial scrutiny at the pre-referral stage is navigated through the test of a ‘prima facie review’
The Five-Judge Bench of Supreme Court in 3:2 majority approved paragraphs 22 and 29 of Garware Wall Ropes case, and to this extent, also approved Vidya Drolia case.
Calcutta High Court held that an arbitrator unilaterally appointed by one party lacks inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between both the parties.
The Delhi High Court observed that Cinema Ventures Private Limited, the defaulting entity, neither filed the undertaking as assured to the court nor made any payment but rather continued to be in the possession of the property.
On 31-3-2023, the India International Arbitration Centre (‘Centre’) notified the India International Arbitration Centre (Criteria for Admission to the panel of arbitrators)
Indian Law Society’s Centre for Arbitration and Mediation, Pune announces Winter School Programme in Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms from 27th March 2023
About RGNUL, Punjab Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL), Punjab, was established by the State Legislature of Punjab by passing the
Calcutta High Court held that all the unilateral appointment of arbitrators is not invalid unless the arbitrator’s relationship falls within the Seventh Schedule to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Collaboration Agreement is a commercial transaction between the private parties and hence the same by its very nature is determinable, even if there is termination clause in the Collaboration Agreement
ABOUT RGNUL Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL), Punjab, was established by the State Legislature of Punjab by passing the Rajiv
Concluding that the principal contention raised by the petitioner regarding consolidation of claims arising out of nine separate contracts is devoid of substance, the Bombay High Court dismissed the petition refusing to interfere with the arbitral award.
At a symposium on ‘Issues Arising out of Construction Contracts: Advocacy & Evidence’ organized by Saraf & Partners Law Offices and the Society of Construction Law, India, Former CJI N.V. Ramana discussed various challenges while adjudicating disputes arising from construction contracts.
The scope of a challenge under Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is limited to the grounds stipulated in Section 34 Arbitration Act.
The High Court of Madras recognised the foreign arbitration award pronounced by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (‘SIAC’) and found that the respondents have failed to establish any ground for refusing the recognition of foreign award.
Born on 10-02-1962 in Hisar, Justice Surya Kant, has the distinction to be appointed as the youngest Advocate General of Haryana. Before being elevated as a Supreme Court Judge, Justice Surya Kant served as a Judge in the Punjab and Haryana High Court and as Chief Justice of Himanchal Pradesh High Court.
The Delhi High Court held that even if the Contract clearly stated that before resorting to arbitration, the parties agreed to explore Conciliation by the Committee, the same cannot be held to be mandatory in nature. Further, the Court held that in case of urgency, arbitral proceedings can be initiated even when conciliation proceedings were pending.
An arbitration agreement that is embedded within a contract would always be considered as a separate and severable clause, and despite a reference being made by the court the arbitrator is free to decide on their jurisdiction including the existence of the arbitration agreement in accordance with the kompetenz-kompetenz principle
Madras High Court held that the petitioners are not entitled to join respondents 3 to 5 as parties to arbitral proceedings, as they do not qualify as “alter egos” of the first respondent or as successors-in-interest.