The interplay between civil procedure and arbitration law often raises nuanced questions related to jurisdiction and maintainability. A recurring concern is the attempt to seek rejection of a plaint on the ground that the dispute is governed by a legally valid and subsisting arbitration agreement.
This engages the interplay between (i) Order VII, Rule
Summary: In EPC Constructions India Ltd. v. Matix Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd., the Supreme Court addressed whether holders of non-cumulative redeemable preference shares can initiate insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC, as financial creditors. The Court held that preference shareholders are not creditors and cannot trigger insolvency proceedings, as preference shares remain part of the share capital even upon maturity, and conversion of debt into preference shares permanently extinguishes the original creditor relationship. This landmark judgement reinforces the fundamental distinction between debt and equity, clarifying that IBC remedies are available only to creditors and not shareholders.Continue Reading Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shareholders Cannot Trigger Insolvency Proceedings: Supreme Court
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?
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), was enacted to inter alia provide a consolidated framework to resolve insolvency in a time-bound manner and to maximise the value of assets. This objective is further aided by a moratorium under Section 14 that halts legal proceedings against the corporate debtor, and the immunity provision under Section 32A, which offers a fresh slate to resolution applicants upon plan approval.Continue Reading IBC vs. PMLA: Supreme Court Reinforces Jurisdictional Boundaries in Kalyani Transco Case
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 intersection between the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), and the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”), has caused significant judicial deliberation, particularly concerning creditor rights, financial discipline, and the resolution of financial distress. Section 138 of the NI Act holds the drawer of the cheque liable in case of dishonour of cheque due to insufficient funds. The provision imposes penal consequences on the drawer, serving as a deterrent against indiscriminate issuances of cheques and safeguarding creditors’ interests.[1]Continue Reading Navigating Legal Crossroads: Interplay between IBC and NI Act
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
The Supreme Court of India (“SC”) in its landmark decision in Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Micromax Informatics FZE[1] (“Arif Azim”)[2] has once again reiterated the distinction between ‘seat’ and ‘venue’ in an arbitration agreement and its jurisdictional implication. The judgment addresses the contentious issue of whether a location designated in an arbitration agreement serves merely as ‘venue’ (a place where proceedings may occur) or as juridical ‘seat’ (which grants a court jurisdictional oversight). This distinction has immense implications, especially for cross-border commercial agreements, where different interpretations can lead to divergent legal outcomes.Continue Reading Decoding Supreme Court’s Landmark Decision on ‘Seat’ vs. ‘Venue’ in Arbitration