Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
In a panel discussion held at the India Digital ADR Summit 2026, the panellists explored the need for emergency award, landmark cases, judicial activism v. legislative action, and future of emergency arbitration in India.
Speaking at the Summit, Justice Bhargav D. Karia examined the need of emergency arbitration, analysed India’s position on the same, and emphasised the need for a comprehensive statutory framework for enforcement of emergency awards in India regardless of seat.
A cross-border panel including V.K. Rajah SC, Darius Khambata, Thomas Williams KC, Datuk Prof. Sundra Rajoo and Nish Shetty, moderated by Anirudh Krishnan, traces the law governing arbitration agreements across England, Singapore, Australia, Hong Kong, France, Malaysia and India, from Enka v Chubb to England’s new Arbitration Act 2025, and closes with a wide-ranging discussion on institutional reform, backlog and what makes a good arbitral seat.
The opening session of the CADRA International Arbitration Summer School 2026 brought together Gary Born and Kristina Bittner for an introduction to international arbitration, covering cross-border practice, legal cultures, the New York Convention, UNCITRAL Model Law, institutional arbitration, arbitration agreements and career opportunities for young practitioners.
The Court held that the application filed for appointment of presiding arbitrator under Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is maintainable as the place of arbitration referred in Clause 9 MoU becomes the juridical seat of arbitration under Section 20, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Court dismissed a special leave petition challenging the Delhi High Court’s order appointing a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court upheld the view that an exclusive jurisdiction clause, in the context of arbitration proceedings, can be construed as indicative of the seat of arbitration.
“A common reference to the Arbitral Tribunal for resolution of disputes and differences arising out of all such agreements and contracts was requested by the respondent which was agreed upon by the applicant.”
The core controversy centres on the effect of deliberate non-disclosure by a nominee arbitrator, the determination of the juridical seat of arbitration, and the extent of supervisory jurisdiction of Indian courts notwithstanding the fixation of a foreign venue by an arbitral institution.
When parties agree to vest exclusive jurisdiction in a particular court for any dispute arising out of the arbitration clause, it must be presumed that they intended that court only to have supervisory control.
by Milind Sharma*, Abhisaar Bairagi**, and Ausaf Ayyub***
SC Collegium modified its proposal to recommend Justice Rabstan as Chief Justice of his parent High Court of J&K and Ladakh and he took oath of office on 27-9-2024.
by Abhisaar Bairagi*, Milind Sharma** and Ausaf Ayyub***
Top arbitration cases on unilateral appointment, seat of arbitration, limitation period, scope of judicial scrutiny and more.
The Court clarified that the ‘Closest Connection Test’ for determining the seat of arbitration is no longer a viable criterion for determination. The seat of arbitration cannot be determined by formulaic and unpredictable application of choice of law rules based on abstract connecting factors to the underlying contract.
Justice Tashi Rabstan was earlier recommended to be appointed as Chief Justice of Meghalaya High Court; however, the SC Collegium modified its proposal to recommend him as Chief Justice of his parent High Court of J&K and Ladakh.
The Delhi High Court says that the seat of the arbitration is to be determined based on arbitral proceedings and not with cause of action for underlying disputes.
by Jeevan Ballav Panda1 and Satish Padhi2
Cite as: 2024 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 29
As per Section 42 of the Arbitration Act, notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere or in any other law where with respect to an Arbitration Agreement, any application has been made to a Court which had jurisdiction, that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings which was first approached.
“The Court observes that the ‘contrary indicia’ is clearly reflected in the present case, because the seat was mentioned as Bikaner and venue was mentioned as New Delhi.”
Calcutta High Court dismissed the present petition on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.