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
In the previous blog published on November 19, 2024, we had discussed the United States (“US”) Office of foreign Asset Control (“OFAC”) sanctioning nearly 400 entities and individuals for their contribution to Russia’s efforts against Ukraine and the implications of this action on Indian businesses. The US has since imposed sanctions on several entities under its Russia-related sanctions program as well as under its other sanctions programs. There has also been a major focus on the Iran-related sanctions program.
Continue Reading Ripple Effect of Sanctions- II: Recent Iran-related sanctions imposed by the United States
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
Party autonomy is undoubtedly a cornerstone of arbitration proceedings, allowing parties substantial freedom to shape the contours of their dispute resolution process. This freedom extends to choosing arbitrators and defining procedural rules, reflecting a central appeal of arbitration over litigation. However, this autonomy has limits, particularly where it intersects with the mandatory provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act / Act”), designed to uphold fairness, impartiality and transparency.
Continue Reading Revisiting Unilateral Arbitrator Appointments: The Supreme Court’s New Stance on Fairness and Equality
The ongoing tensions surrounding the Russia-Ukraine conflict have led to significant geopolitical shifts, particularly in the realm of international sanctions. In response to Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine, the United States (U.S.) had implemented a series of sanctions to curtail Russian influence and capabilities. A pivotal moment in this effort was the issuance of Executive Order 14024 (“EO 14024”) on April 15, 2021, by President Joe Biden.
Continue Reading Ripple Effect of Sanctions: How US Measures against Russia affect Indian Businesses
The legal landscape governing insolvency resolution in India has undergone significant transformation since the advent of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). One of the contentious issues in this evolving framework is whether simultaneous insolvency proceedings can be initiated against both the corporate debtor and its corporate guarantor for the same debt. The recent Supreme Court judgment in BRS Ventures Investments Ltd. v. SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd. (2024 INSC 548) offers clarity on the treatment of such proceedings and reinforces key principles governing the relationship between creditors, debtors, and guarantors.
Continue Reading Simultaneous IBC Proceedings against Corporate Debtor and Corporate Guarantor: Critical Takeaways from BRS Ventures Case
As per the scheme of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), an application for initiation of corporate initiation resolution process (“CIRP”) can be filed by the debtor itself or by a financial or operational creditor. The Code provides for filing of record of default recorded with the Information Utility (“IU”) as evidence of default, along with other specified documents.
Continue Reading Proving default: IU reports not the be-all and end-all
A criminal trial is nearing its conclusion. The evidence has been led, and witnesses examined and cross examined. Only the final arguments remain. Yet, for “the pursuit of truth”, would a “further investigation” be permissible at such a belated stage? In several judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has answered this question in the affirmative, subject to there being compelling facts justifying such an extraordinary measure.
Continue Reading When Further Investigation Under Section 173(8) CRPC is Impermissible
The question of incorporation of arbitration clauses referred to in another document has been a bone of contention between parties, in view of the absence of statutory guidance under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”). Although the principle of incorporating an arbitration clause, referred to in another document is a well-established principle in arbitral jurisprudence,[1] Section 7(5) only provides that the reference should be “such as to make that arbitration clause part of the contract”. Hence, it has been left to the courts to determine the conditions that need to be satisfied for the same.
Continue Reading Unlocking Arbitration Clauses: Incorporation by reference in digital contracts
The Supreme Court’s (“SC”) recent[1]interpretation of the intent and scope of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act” or “Arbitration Act”) has sent ripples through the Indian arbitration landscape. In this landmark verdict, Justices Sanjiv Khanna and R. Mahadevan have provided much-needed clarity and guidance on the extension of time limits for arbitral awards beyond the stipulated timeframe under Section 29A of the Act.
Continue Reading Rohan Builders Judgment: A Watershed Moment in Indian Arbitration Law