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: The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) circular dated January 12, 2026, provides that arbitration will not be available for disputes exceeding INR 10 crore in BOT, HAM, and EPC contracts, purporting to replace existing dispute resolution clauses with immediate effect. This raises critical questions: Can a government circular unilaterally amend signed contracts that expressly require written consent for modifications? While prospective application may be defensible, retrospective substitution of dispute resolution mechanism, without mutual consent, presents serious enforceability concerns and challenges fundamental principles of contractual sanctity. The circular’s ambiguous carve-out for “ongoing arbitrations” adds further uncertainty, particularly about disputes at pre-arbitral stages. This development marks a significant departure from India’s pro-arbitration stance and warrants careful legal and policy scrutiny.Continue Reading The MoRTH Circular to end arbitration in disputes over 10 crores: Unilateral Change or Contractual Overreach?
Summary: The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in HCC v. BRPNNL has reset India’s arbitration landscape by emphasising that Section 11 appointments are definitive and not subject to further review, thereby slamming the brakes on procedural sabotage. In a case where three years of hearings were derailed by a belated challenge, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reaffirmed that arbitration agreements must be honoured, defects in appointment mechanisms must be cured without killing the clause, and participation without timely objection amounts to waiver. By insulating advanced arbitrations from endless detours, the judgment restores speed, reliability, and commercial focus to India’s dispute resolution framework, especially vital for the construction sector where delays and escalation claims are endemic.Continue Reading No Turning Back: Supreme Court’s HCC v. BRPNNL Ruling Shuts the Door on Arbitration Sabotage
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.Continue Reading Does mere existence of an Arbitration Agreement Sink a Plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC?
Summary: India and the UK have taken opposite paths on determining the law governing arbitration agreements. India’s Supreme Court has embraced the three-stage Enka framework in Disortho S.A. v. Meril Life Sciences (2025), while the UK’s Arbitration Act 2025 establishes a bright-line rule defaulting to the law of the seat. This article examines both approaches and why precise drafting of dispute resolution clauses has become essential risk management in cross-border arbitration.Continue Reading Law Governing the Arbitration Agreement Part II: India Aligns, UK Departs—Or Is It the Other Way Round?
Summary: When a foreign arbitral award hits a snag, should the entire award sink or can the enforceable part still sail through? Indian law is clear on severability for domestic awards, but foreign awards remain in a grey zone. While global practice leans toward partial enforcement to protect legitimate claims, India risks being an outlier. It’s time for a pragmatic shift that aligns with international norms and safeguards commercial certainty.Continue Reading The “all or nothing” problem: Partial Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards
Summary: When a company is struck off from the Register of Companies (ROC), it is deemed dissolved under the Companies Act, 2013, but this does not nullify its legal rights, including those arising from arbitral awards. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not recognise striking off as a ground to set aside or resist enforcement of an award. Section 250 of the Companies Act explicitly allows dissolved companies to continue operating for the purpose of realising dues and settling liabilities. Indian courts, including in Exotic Buildcon, Value Advisory, and AB Creations, have affirmed that arbitral awards remain enforceable even if the company is struck off, provided it is restored to the register. Restoration retroactively validates the company’s existence, enabling it to pursue claims and enforce awards, making dissolution a procedural pause rather than a termination of justice.Continue Reading Dissolved but Not Defeated: How Struck-Off Companies Enforce Arbitral Wins
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
Summary: In Krishna Devi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the limitation period to challenge an arbitral award begins when a party becomes aware of the award — not when formal notice is received. This ruling curbs delaying tactics and prioritises substance over procedure. Though rooted in the 1940 Act, it signals a shift in interpreting timelines under the 1996 regime, urging parties to act on knowledge, not wait for paperwork.Continue Reading Knowledge Over Notice: Rethinking Arbitration Timelines in India “Justice delayed is justice denied — but what if delay is disguised as procedure?”
Summary: In a recent ruling, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that (a) non-signatories cannot attend arbitration proceedings, re-affirming the confidentiality mandate under Section 42A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”); and (b) a court becomes functus officio once an arbitrator is appointed under Section 11(6) of the Act. With Section 42A as its shield and the doctrine of functus officio as its sword, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has once again underscored that arbitration is not a spectator sport.Continue Reading Beyond the Signature: Who Gets a Seat at the Arbitration Table?