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?
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
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?
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] (“
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
The seventh edition of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”) arbitration rules (“2025 Rules”) came into force on January 1, 2025. The 2025 Rules are considerably longer than the previous edition, but SIAC’s very helpful summary of all its key features is available here. This piece discusses some of these key features and their implications for India-related arbitrations.
Continue Reading Some Key Features of the SIAC rules 2025 and their implications for India-related Arbitrations
Recently, the Delhi High Court (“DHC”) has reiterated that Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”), empowers courts to partially set aside an arbitral award and it would not amount to a modification, as an arbitral award consists of distinct components independent of each other.
Continue Reading Court’s power to partially set aside arbitral awards: An Indian perspective
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