Summary: A key procedural question in Indian arbitration law concerns the trigger for the commencement of the limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, where a party files a Section 33 application before challenging an arbitral award. Conflicting judicial precedents had created uncertainty on whether an application that was misconceived in scope
Summary: The Supreme Court in Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule resolved conflicting High Court views on whether Section 29A application to extend an arbitral tribunal’s mandate lies before the High Court or the Civil Court. Drawing a clear and principled distinction between appointment jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction, it held that jurisdiction under Section 29A
Summary: The article examines the Indian Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in C. Velusamy v. K. Indhera, which confirms that courts retain the power under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to extend an arbitrator’s mandate even after an award has been passed following the expiry of that mandate. Crucially, the Court clarified that such a post-mandate award is unenforceable, and any extension of the mandate does not validate the defective award. Instead, the tribunal may resume proceedings from the point at which the mandate expired and deliver a fresh, valid award within the extended period. The judgment clarifies that an award delivered after the expiry of mandate of the tribunal is not fatal to the arbitration itself, and procedural steps may be taken to revive and resume the arbitration so that a valid award may be delivered to bring the arbitration to conclusion.
Continue Reading When the Clock Runs Out: The Supreme Court Reaffirms Courts’ Power to Extend Arbitrator’s Mandate Post Award
Summary: This article analyses the Bombay High Court’s decision in Ningbo Aux Imp and Exp Co Ltd v. Amstrad Consumer India Pvt Ltd & Anr., which held that enforcement of a foreign arbitral award under Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is confined to persons between whom the award was made, and directed deletion of a non-party guarantor from enforcement proceedings. The article also examines the subsequent Section 9 petition, dismissed on the ground that interim measures cannot be directed against a party against whom the award is not enforceable.
Continue Reading Bombay High Court Closes the Door on Enforcing Foreign Awards Against Non-Parties
Summary: This article examines the necessity of furnishing an electronic evidence certificate for proving the contents of documents in electronic form during arbitration proceedings. While an electronic evidence certificate has been held as a mandatory requirement in court proceedings, some courts have relaxed the said requirement for arbitrations. However, in certain cases, it has been observed that arbitrators have considered the absence of such an electronic evidence certificate as a factor for holding certain documents as inadmissible. Subsequently, given the restricted scope of judicial review concerning arbitral awards, such observations are typically insulated from challenge, thereby raising risks during litigation.
Continue Reading Navigating the Muddled Requirement of an Electronic Evidence Certificate in Arbitration Proceedings
Summary: This article analyses the Supreme Court’s decision in Ankhim Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Zaveri Construction Pvt. Ltd., which reiterates the limited role of courts under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Supreme Court held that substitution of an arbitrator does not permit courts to revisit or nullify prior arbitral proceedings, reaffirming the Act’s self‑contained structure and its emphasis on minimal judicial intervention.
Continue Reading Judicial Restraint In Arbitral Substitution: Key Takeaways From Ankhim Holdings V. Zaveri Construction
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.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Clarifies the Trigger Point for Commencement of Arbitration under Indian 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?