Arbitrability of Fraud: Is the Anomaly Solved
by Shuchi Sejwar* and Arpit Lahoti**
Arbitration
Parties agreeing to out-of-court settlement without judicial intervention under Section 89 CPC can’t be denied benefit of refund of court fees; they are “even more deserving”: Supreme Court
“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.”
Does the presence of arbitration clause in a contract with State oust the jurisdiction under Article 226? Supreme Court answers
“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.”
Making India a Hub of Arbitration: Bridging the Gap Between Myth and Reality
by Tariq Khan*
Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 10
In conversation with Thomas P. Valenti on the scope of Mediation and Arbitration in India
Interviewed by Stuti Dwivedi
Australian Court provides interpretation highlighting distinction between recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards vis-a-vis ICSID Convention
Federal Court of Australia: While deciding the instant appeal dealing with interpretational technicalities associated with international arbitration, the Court clarified the principles
Del HC | On invocation of arbitration clause, if a party appoints arbitrator on its own and does not receive confirmation from another party, should former approach Court under S. 11 of Arbitration Act? HC discusses
Delhi High Court: Kameswar Rao, J., decided a petition wherein on the invocation of the arbitration clause, one of the parties appointed
The who, why and when of confidentiality in Arbitration Proceedings
by Tariq Khan*
Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 4
Applicability of the Law of Limitation to Arbitration Proceedings
by Gunjan Chhabra†
Whether the arbitral process could be interfered under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, and under what circumstance? Supreme Court explains
“If the Courts are allowed to interfere with the arbitral process beyond the ambit of the enactment, then the efficiency of the process will be diminished.”
Ker HC | Powers of Court under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 are merely supervisory in nature; Court cannot correct errors from the order of Arbitrator, but can only quash it: HC explains
Kerala High Court: The Division Bench of C.T. Ravikumar and K. Haripal, JJ., partially allowed the instant appeal challenging the correctness of
Does non-payment of stamp duty in a commercial contract invalidate the arbitration clause? Issue referred to the Constitutional bench to decide
Supreme Court: The three-judge bench comprising DY Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee and Indu Malhotra, JJ. has observed that non-payment of stamp duty in
Cal HC | [S.11(6) Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996] Reiterating independence and impartiality of the Arbitrator, Court appoints former justice of the present court to preside over as the sole arbitrator
Calcutta High Court: Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J., while allowing the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
The company, its veil and the arbitration of disputes
by Mikhail Behl* and Anupam Surve**
Patent and latent ambiguities, as explained by Supreme Court
Supreme Court: While settling the dispute between Anglo American Metallurgical Coal (AAMC) and MMTC Ltd, the bench of RF Nariman* and KM
Anglo American Metallurgical Coal versus MMTC| Supreme Court finds Delhi HC’s division bench verdict “flawed”; Restores Arbitral Tribunal’s majority award
“The entire approach of the Division Bench is flawed.”
Ker HC | After appointment of Sole Arbitrator, it is up to the Arbitrator to consider the question as to whether appellant would be entitled to claim any interim measure of protection under S. 17 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; HC cannot interfere
Kerala High Court: T.V. Anilkumar, J., dismissed the present Appeal against the impugned order of Additional District Court whereby the Court refused
Supreme Court year-end roundup| From important judgments to unmissable facts and stories, here’s a comprehensive roundup of all that happened in 2020
2020 has been a year of COVID-19, challenges, and changes. Of many things that this year has taught us, one of the
Why are Landlord-tenant disputes under TP Act arbitrable but those under Rent Acts non-arbitrable? [‘Vidya Drolia’ explainer by Supreme Court]
Supreme Court: Three days after the Court overruled the ratio in Himangni Enterprises v. Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia, (2017) 10 SCC 706 wherein it was held
‘Landlord-tenant disputes under Transfer of Property Act are arbitrable’. SC lays down test for determining non-arbitrability of disputes
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of NV Ramana*, Sanjiv Khanna** and Krishna Murari, JJ has overruled the ratio in Himangni Enterprises v.