Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
This report provides insights into the first-ever ICDR Conference held in India. It highlights the key discussions, themes, and outcomes of the event, showcasing the innovative ideas and collaborative efforts presented by participants in the field of dispute resolution.
‘Courts, while evaluating a challenge under Section 34, would not be justified in faulting an award merely because an alternative view was possible or that, in their opinion, a more just conclusion could have been reached.’
“Merely for the reason that the view of the Appellate Court is a better view than the one taken by the arbitral tribunal, is no ground to set aside the award”.
The Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC) organised its Annual India Conferences 2024 in Mumbai and Delhi on September 6th and 7th respectively
by Vasanth Rajasekaran* and Harshvardhan Korada**
To resolve the questions arising and considering the uncertainties regarding time-lapse between the date of the award and its enforceability and the ever-fluctuating exchange rates, the Court formulated twin principles.
The event is scheduled on 21-09-2024.
by Prashant Pakhiddey* and Manav Gill**
The Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA) Council is responsible for the implementation of the MCIA Rules.
This post provides an overview of the key highlights from the Uzbekistan Arbitration Week
As per Clause 26.2 of the Agreement, the Chairman/Managing Director of the Board of Directors of Contractors was supposed to do the conciliation and not the committee constituted by NHIDCL.
Justice Hima Kohli, who bids farewell to the Supreme Court, became the first woman Chief Justice of the High Court for the State of Telangana and became the ninth woman to be elevated to the Supreme Court of India.
The Collegium noted that Advocate Karia is a domain expert in the law of arbitration and has extensive experience in conducting arbitrations, both domestic and international.
The direction given by the Sole Arbitrator to exclude the period from 31-03-2015 to 31-03-2017 for calculation of pre-litigation interest was contrary to the express terms in the Agreement made between the parties.
by Vasanth Rajasekaran* and Harshvardhan Korada**
Due to the respondent 1’s brazen disregard for the status quo order, the Court in absence of a Section 17 remedy, had to grant an interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
In the instant appeal, the Court had to consider the interplay of Sections 9 and 37 of the A&C Act; Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and Rule 9 of High Court of Karnataka Arbitration (Proceedings before the Courts) Rules, 2001.
Since AISPL and the ASF Group had assumed responsibility for payments to be made to SPCPL, their impleadment was necessary for a comprehensive adjudication of the matter.
by Dinesh Pardasani†, Bibin Kurian†† and Raghav Mudgal†††
There is nothing to show that there is any inconsistency or repugnancy between the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and arbitration as an alternative. The parties have agreed to arbitration clause provided in contract agreement for settlement of disputes including the issue raised by petitioners.