Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Nani Palkhivala Arbitration Centre (‘NPAC’) conducted 14th Annual International Conference 2023 on ‘Recent Advances and Developments in Global Arbitration’ on September
A party cannot simply raise an objection on the ground of patent illegality if the Award is against them. Patent illegality requires a distinct transgression of law, the clear lack of which makes the petition a pointless effort of objection towards an Award passed by a competent Arbitral Tribunal.
Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is a clear and unequivocal embodiment of the Legislature‘s intent to balance the competing facets of arbitration, I.e., on one hand, while courts are enjoined to follow the minimalist intervention route, it would clearly be a travesty of justice if they were to fail to intervene where circumstances warrant, and demand corrective measures being adopted.
Calcutta High Court held that all the reliefs sought by the petitioner is to protect the subject matter of the arbitration and to preserve the rights of the parties under the Share Purchase Agreement (SPA).
“District Court, Karnal where the first petition was filed pertaining to the Agreement in question alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of the Licence Agreement. No other Court can entertain any subsequent application.
“The interest awarded for that period could not have been subjected to a further levy of interest running through the period during which proceedings remained pending before the tribunal.”
India International Arbitration Centre (‘IIAC’) organized an International Arbitration Dialogues on 22-08-2023 powered by Alvarez & Marsal and EBC and SCC Online
The MSMED Act, 2006 is a beneficial legislation for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises and ought to be construed in a manner that is beneficial to such enterprises.
“The consensus of the parties in proceeding with the arbitration case beyond twelve months without raising any objection to the continuation of proceeding does amount to consent. On the basis of such consent, the arbitral award if passed after six months would be a valid award.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the Trial Court failed to properly adjudicate the issue related to calculation of limitation period.
Indian Railway’s has failed to substantiate its grounds for setting aside the impugned Arbitral Award that the impugned award suffers from patent illegality and the findings therein are perverse and would shock the conscience of this Court.
“It is palpably clear that the language of the purported arbitration clause must evidence an unambiguous, explicit and unequivocal intention to refer the disputes to arbitration, leaving no room for doubt that parties chose arbitration as their only mode of resolution of disputes.”
“Award-holder must be given the fruits of the victory unless the Court finds that the enjoyment may be deferred subject to the award-debtor securing the award pending a shot at having the award set aside.”
On 31-7-2023, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI') introduced a common Online Dispute Resolution Portal (‘ODR Portal') which will harness
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from Tribunals, Regulatory Bodies, Commissions this month
The present case is an example where substantial liability has sought to be fastened on one of the contracting parties based on specious paper calculations. It cannot be overemphasized that arbitral tribunals must exercise due care and caution while dealing with such claims.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
The concession agreement is neither a statute, nor is it a law which protects the national interests of this nation and a mere failure of the arbitral tribunal to consider an argument on the same would not render the arbitral award in contravention of the fundamental policy of Indian law.
Calcutta High Court dismissed the present petition on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.
Calcutta High Court held that Court should not substitute its own view, replacing that of the arbitrator, unless it is manifestly evident that there existed no agreement.