Enforcement of Domestic Award: Practical Realities
by Abhinay Sharma† and Lakshmi Subramaniam Iyer††
by Abhinay Sharma† and Lakshmi Subramaniam Iyer††
by Hiroo Advani† and Chaiti Desai††
Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 45
“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.”
by Pratyush Miglani*, Nikhil Varma** and Prakhar Srivastava***
“Government must have freedom of contract.”
by Baglekar Akash Kumar†
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of RF Nariman, BR Gavai and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ has held that given the object of speedy
Delhi High Court: In the notable ruling of Amazon v. Future Retail, J.R. Midha, J. of Delhi High Court considered three crucial
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of R.F. Nariman* and B.R. Gavai, JJ., addressed an important case regarding nature of arbitration under Arbitration
“The exercise of inherent power of the High Court is an extraordinary power which has to be exercised with great care and circumspection before embarking to scrutinise the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet in deciding whether the case is the rarest of rare case, to scuttle the prosecution at its inception.”
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.
Jharkhand High Court: The Division Bench comprising of Aparesh Kumar Singh and Anubha Rawat Choudhary, JJ., heard the instant Commercial Appeal challenging
Supreme Court: In the light of the “prima facie” test laid down last year in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation, (2021) 2
Supreme Court: The bench of Indu Malhotra* and Ajay Rastogi, JJ was posed with the question as to whether the period of
Delhi High Court: C. Hari Shankar, J., expressed while addressing a dispute that: “Where a valid arbitration agreement exists, the decision also
“Undoubtedly, a limited right of appeal is given under section 37 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. But it is not the province or duty of this Court to further limit such right by excluding appeals which are in fact provided for, given the language of the provision.”
by Shuchi Sejwar* and Arpit Lahoti**
“No justifiable reason why Section 69-A of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 should only incentivize the methods of out-of-court settlement stated in Section 89, CPC and afford step brotherly treatment to other methods availed of by the parties.”
“The State and its instrumentalities are not exempt from the duty to act fairly merely because in their business dealings they have entered into the realm of contract.”