Summary: The Supreme Court has addressed a long-standing issue in arbitration law, holding that the receipt of the arbitration notice marks the commencement of arbitral proceedings for the purposes of limitation period, interim reliefs, and procedural laws.
Summary: In the case of Glencore International AG v. Shree Ganesh Metals, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether an unsigned arbitration agreement could bind parties based on their conduct and correspondence. Answering in affirmative, the Court held that such agreements are enforceable if parties are ad idem and have acted upon the contract terms, including arbitration clauses. The ruling affirms India’s pro-arbitration stance, ensuring legal certainty for modern commercial transactions involving conclusion via electronic communication and performance.Continue Reading Arbitration without signatures no bar to refer dispute to arbitration: Supreme Court reinforces enforcement of arbitration agreements through performance
The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSME Act”), aims to promote, develop and enhance the competitiveness of MSMEs. To address the issue of delayed payments, several provisions of the MSME Act provide additional safeguards and benefits to MSMEs. One such safeguard is Section 15, which outlines the buyer’s liability to make payments due to MSMEs once the goods or services are accepted/ deemed to be accepted.[1] Similarly, Section 16, read with Section 17, states that delays in payments for goods supplied or services rendered by MSMEs, shall attract a compound interest rate of three times the bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank of India.[2] Further, reference to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (“MSEFC”) for any amount due under Section 17 can be made under Section 18. However, questions on the applicability of this statutory provision are raised, when parties to a dispute do not invoke the MSEFC mechanism and go under the pre-existing arbitration agreements.Continue Reading Arbitration Agreements v. MSME Act: Can interest rates under MSME Act survive outside of Section 18 proceedings?
It is settled law under the mandate of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, that maximum 120 days will be provided for filing of a written statement in a commercial suit. On expiry of 120 days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement, and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record[1]. For regular or non-commercial civil suits, the period for filing the written statement is 90 days from the date of service of summons[2], however, it can be extended at the discretion of the Court. Continue Reading Does time spent in mediation fall outside the timeline for filing Written Statement?
The Hon’ble Supreme Court (“SC”)[1] debated on the seminal question of maintainability of writ petitions against an order/ award under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSME Act”). In M/s Tamil Nadu Cements Corporate Limited v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Another[2] (“
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (“Arbitration Act”)[1] deals with the powers of courts to grant interim reliefs, before or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced, to parties in order to safeguard the subject matter
[Continued from Part I]
In 2019, aiming to solve the conundrum and marking a significant milestone in Indian arbitration, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vidya Drolia and Ors v. Durga Trading Corporation,[1] (“Vidya Drolia”) laid down the contours of arbitrability. While analysing thearbitrability of Landlord-Tenant disputes governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (“TPA”), the Supreme Court elucidated that the mere existence of a special statute dealing with certain disputes does not ipso facto render them non-arbitrable, thereby widening the scope of arbitrability and increasing the access to arbitration in complex legal contexts. Continue Reading Arbitrability of Disputes: Indian Jurisprudence (Part 2)
![Arbitrability of Disputes: Indian Jurisprudence [Part I]](https://disputeresolution.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/894/2024/06/Blog-Image43-656x375.png)
Arbitrability plays a pivotal role in dispute resolution, determining if a particular dispute can be resolved through arbitration. Several key factors, including, among other things, procedural/curial laws, governing law and actual text of the arbitral agreements, identity of the parties, etc., help establish arbitrability.[1] Continue Reading Arbitrability of Disputes: Indian Jurisprudence [Part I]
In Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office,[1] the bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court (“SC”) held on (i) the Enforcement Directorate’s (“ED”) powers of arrest under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002[2] (“PMLA”), once cognizance is taken of a PMLA complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA,[3] and (ii) the applicability of the twin conditions of bail under Section 45 of the PMLA[4] in instances where the accused has furnished a bond in accordance with Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[5] (“CrPC”), for appearance in court following summons. In this significant decision, the SC essentially addresses the extent of the ED’s powers of arrest and applicability of the stringent twin conditions of bail under Section 45 of the PMLA once the Special Court has taken cognizance of a complaint under Section 44 of the PMLA.Continue Reading ED cannot arrest accused once cognizance is taken by the Special Court under PMLA: Supreme Court