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 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 role of expert witnesses in international arbitration, highlighting their potential to clarify complex technical issues and assist tribunals in decision-making. However, it also critiques the challenges posed by party-appointed experts who may lack neutrality, and tribunal-appointed experts who may overstep their roles. The article discusses how expert reports often become overly complex and contradictory, hindering rather than helping the arbitration process. To address these issues, it proposes structured protocols, ethical standards, and innovative practices like “hot tubbing” and “expert teaming” to improve clarity, impartiality, and collaboration, ultimately aiming to make expert involvement a constructive force in arbitration.
Continue Reading Expert Witnesses in International Arbitration: Untangling Complexity or Adding to the Cacophony?
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
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
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, on 30 April 2025, in a landmark judgment in Gayatri Balasamy v. M/s ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited,[1] addressed questions surrounding the power of courts to modify arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”).
Continue Reading To modify or not – Supreme Court resolves quandary faced by 34 courts
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?
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 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