Arbitration

Delhi High Court Clarifies Scope of Anti-Arbitration Injunctions in Foreign-Seated Proceedings

Summary: In a landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court in Engineering Projects (India) Ltd v. MSA Global LLC clarified that Indian civil courts retain limited but real jurisdiction to stay foreign-seated arbitrations if the proceedings are shown to be vexatious or abusive. The decision strengthens procedural safeguards for parties, by reaffirming the courts’ power to intervene in cases of deliberate non-disclosure and procedural misconduct, notwithstanding the “minimal intervention” principle under Indian arbitration law.Continue Reading Delhi High Court Clarifies Scope of Anti-Arbitration Injunctions in Foreign-Seated Proceedings

Waste of an ODR process

Summary: The methods for appointment of arbitrators, as laid down by the Supreme Court, namely, mutual consent of the parties or pursuant to Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, were reiterated by the Bombay High Court in a Section 34 challenge. The petition relates to a financial institution unilaterally appointing arbitrator(s) through an ODR platform. The Bombay High Court sought statements from two ODR platforms, namely, Presolv360 and ADReS Now, on steps taken to ascertain whether the request for the appointment is lawful. It is imperative to have a carefully drafted arbitration clause to ensure that the outcome of arbitral proceedings involving an ODR platform aren’t nullified.Continue Reading Waste of an ODR process

Exclusive Jurisdiction vs Seat Conundrum: Delhi High Court Expands Jurisprudence

Summary: This article examines the evolving jurisprudence on the interplay between “exclusive jurisdiction” and “seat of arbitration” clauses in Indian arbitration landscape. The Delhi High Court’s decision in Viva Infraventure v. NOIDA highlights that an express exclusive jurisdiction clause will override a seat determined by the arbitrator. The judgment underscores the primacy of party autonomy and contractual intent. It also reinforces the importance of precise drafting in arbitration clauses to avoid jurisdictional conflicts and ensuring legal clarity.Continue Reading Exclusive Jurisdiction vs Seat Conundrum: Delhi High Court Expands Jurisprudence

Introduction

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?

Emergency Arbitration: A Legal Lifeline or a Paper Tiger?

Introduction

Emergency arbitration (“EA”) is a pre-cursory mechanism in the arbitration process that allows parties to seek urgent interim reliefs prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. To invoke EA, the party invoking the process must establish that it would face irreparable harm if the protection/ measures sought in the EA are not granted before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal.Continue Reading Emergency Arbitration: A Legal Lifeline or a Paper Tiger?

Supreme Court affirms arbitrators’ power to implead non-signatories: Another pro-arbitration ruling or a step too far?

In Adavya Projects Pvt. Ltd. v M/s Vishal Structurals Pvt. Ltd.[1](“Judgment”), the Supreme Court of India (“Court”) has held that the arbitral tribunal has the power to implead parties to arbitration proceedings even where the said parties were neither issued an arbitration notice nor made party to court proceedings seeking appointment of arbitrators. The Judgment is significant because it holds that even if the claimant issues an arbitration notice to only one counterparty initially, it can subsequently include additional counterparties when filing its statement of claim before the arbitral tribunal. The Judgment reconciles the divergent views taken by the Delhi High Court[2] and the Bombay High Court[3] on the issue, but the implications for additional counterparties, who may be joined after the arbitral tribunal has been constituted, could be significant.Continue Reading Supreme Court affirms arbitrators’ power to implead non-signatories: Another pro-arbitration ruling or a step too far?

Arbitration jurisprudence in India continues to vacillate when it comes to the interplay between exclusive jurisdiction clause and arbitration clause, particularly in the realm of domestic arbitration. A key challenge lies in determining which Court will have supervisory jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings — especially when the arbitration clause and jurisdiction clause are not in harmony.Continue Reading Reconciling Conflict in Arbitration Clause and Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause

INTRODUCTION

The evolution of arbitration in India has been marked by a steadfast judicial commitment to enhancing its merits, particularly its efficiency, speed, and limited judicial intervention. This development offers a credible alternative to the overburdened judicial system. However, courts have remained the cornerstone of supervisory jurisdiction, ensuring that arbitral awards adhere to the principles enshrined in Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”).[2] Among the grounds for challenging awards, “patent illegality” under Section 34(2A) of the Act, initially conceived as a subset of “public policy”, was introduced as a distinct ground to address blatant legal errors visible on the face of an award by way of Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015.[3] Today, patent illegality stands as one of the widely employed grounds for challenge, yet its contours remain vague.Continue Reading DMRC V. DAMEPL and the 2024 Amendment Bill: Where Patent illegality stands in Arbitration?

Is writ maintainable against an award passed under the MSME Act? – Part I

Introduction:

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] (“…

After Sunset: Courts on post Rohan Builders

The Supreme Court has resolved the debate on filing for an extension of time period under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the “Act”), after the period for rendering an arbitral award has expired. This judgment was rendered in Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited v. Berger Paints India Private Limited, SLP (C) No. 23320 of 2023 (“Rohan Builders”) on September 12, 2024. Given that several months have passed since the judgment, this blog takes a bird’s eye view on disputes under Section 29A of the Act and how the courts have dealt with them post Rohan Builders. Continue Reading After Sunset: Courts on post Rohan Builders