Dispute Resolution

Statutory Interpretation versus Hierarchical Presumptions: Supreme Court Settles Section 29A Jurisdiction

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 rests exclusively with the “Court” as defined in Section 2(1)(e), irrespective of whether the tribunal was appointed under Section 11(2) or 11(6). Rejecting a hierarchy‑based reasoning, the judgment affirms statutory text as the sole determinant of jurisdiction, thereby bringing clarity and consistency to Indian arbitration jurisprudence. The Court invoked Dicey’s enduring dictum: “however high you may be, the law is above you.”

Continue Reading Statutory Interpretation versus Hierarchical Presumptions: Supreme Court Settles Section 29A Jurisdiction

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  
Does Interest Stop Running When Award Amounts Are Deposited In Court?

Summary: Recent Indian jurisprudence confirms that depositing an arbitral award amount with the court during Section 34 proceedings stops interest from running, but only if the deposit is full, unconditional, and properly notified. Partial payments made over time do not attract this benefit. This clarity provides judgment debtors with a powerful tool to limit their exposure while awards remain under challengeand gives decree holders certainty about their entitlements.

Continue Reading Does Interest Stop Running When Award Amounts Are Deposited In Court?
Bombay High Court Closes the Door on Enforcing Foreign Awards Against Non-Parties

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
Supreme Court Gives Insolvency Claims a Fresh Lease of Life: Debt Restructuring and Substantive Compliance

Summary: The recent decision of the Supreme Court in B. Prashanth Hegde v. State Bank of India recognises that an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), that substantially complies with the requirements cannot be rejected merely due to insignificant errors or omissions. Further, debt restructuring can amount to acknowledgement of debt by the Corporate Debtor, extending the limitation period for filing such an application.

Continue Reading Supreme Court Gives Insolvency Claims a Fresh Lease of Life: Debt Restructuring and Substantive Compliance
Settling The Clash Between The Public Premises Act And State Rent Control Laws

Summary: This article traces the Supreme Court’s resolution of the long-standing conflict between State rent control legislations and the Public Premises Act (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (“PP Act”). In 2014 a division bench of the Supreme Court in Suhas H. Pophale v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and its Estate Officer (2014) 4 SCC 657 created specific carve-outs of a Constitution Bench decision that held the PP Act had overriding effect over State rent control legislation. Following a reference to resolve the conflict, the Supreme Court has, in Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. v. Vita, 2025 INSC 1419, settled the position and set aside Suhas Pophale. The ruling restores clarity and marks a significant reaffirmation of stare decisis as a cornerstone of judicial consistency.

Continue Reading Settling The Clash Between The Public Premises Act And State Rent Control Laws
Frozen Wallets and Fading Trust: Legal Remedies available in cases of Cryptocurrency frauds and data breach

Summary: This two-part series uses the WazirX cyberattack of July 18, 2024, in which crypto assets worth approximately USD 230 million were stolen from a multisig wallet, as a factual anchor to map the full spectrum of legal remedies available to Indian crypto users whose assets have been frozen, eroded, or subjected to proposed “socialisation” haircuts following a platform breach. Part I examines the criminal, cyber law, and data protection remedies available to crypto users following a platform breach and explains how a layered strategy combining these remedies offers the most effective path.

Continue Reading Frozen Wallets and Fading Trust: Legal Remedies available in cases of Cryptocurrency frauds and data breach (Part 1)
Navigating the Muddled Requirement of an Electronic Evidence Certificate in Arbitration Proceedings

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
Fresh Start: Balance Sheet Entries Read With Supporting Records Constitute Debt Aknowledgement, Resets Limitation

Summary: The Supreme Court has held that entries in a corporate debtor’s balance sheet, when read alongside corroborative materials including cash flow statements, constitute a valid acknowledgement of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, thereby resetting the period of limitation for creditors to initiate insolvency proceedings. This ruling strengthens the position of creditors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, ensuring that procedural technicalities do not frustrate their rights to take recourse through insolvency proceedings. It also places greater responsibility on auditors and accountants, as financial statements may now carry significant consequences for both debtors and creditors by operating as binding acknowledgements of liability.

Continue Reading Fresh Start: Balance Sheet Entries Read With Supporting Records Constitute Debt Acknowledgement, Resets Limitation