Arbitral Tribunal

Bombay High Court considers interim relief jurisprudence in foreign seated arbitrations

Summary: The Bombay High Court has recently, in Norvic Shipping Asia PTE Limited v. Zigma International and Malaney Trading & Services LLP v. Uzer Makina VE Kalip Sanayi A.S. granted interim relief in foreign seated arbitrations. Providing guidance on the requirements for obtaining such interim protection, the Court has reiterated that parties to foreign seated arbitrations have the option of approaching Indian Courts to preserve the underlying subject matter of their dispute. This approach upholds party autonomy, which is the very basis of arbitration, and is in line with the UNCITRAL Model Law. This post draws upon past experiences to highlight key takeaways for parties seeking such relief.

Continue Reading Bombay High Court considers interim relief jurisprudence in foreign seated arbitrations

Summary: A common misconception is that arbitral tribunals must decide every jurisdictional challenge under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, at the threshold before proceeding with the arbitration. This article explains why neither Section 16 nor the judicial precedents interpreting it mandate such a requirement and highlights the tribunal’s discretion to decide judicial issues when appropriate. Many jurisdictional challenges involve disputed facts or evidence, making an early determination impractical. Understanding this helps parties manage procedural expectations and avoid misplaced comparisons with Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

Continue Reading Raise the Objection, Not the Expectation: Arbitral Tribunal need not decide Section 16 application first
Abandonment of Claims in Arbitration

Summary: This blog examines two recent decisions, Rajiv Gaddh v. Subodh Prakash (Supreme Court) (2026 INSC 302) and Nalin Vallabhbhai Patel v. Atharva Realtors (Bombay High Court)(2026:BHC-OS:7780), which reinforce a practical message for businesses: If a party lets an arbitration lapse through its own inaction (or withdraws a Section 11 request without liberty), courts are unlikely to allow a “reset” by filing a fresh Section 11 application for the same disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Continue Reading Abandonment of Claims in Arbitration

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, or unsuccessful in outcome, could nonetheless shift the limitation trigger from the date of receipt of the award to the date of disposal of the Section 33 request. The Supreme Court in Geojit Financial Services v. Sandeep Gurav (2025) has resolved this conflict by holding that any proper and timely Section 33 application, regardless of outcome or scope, defers limitation to the date of its disposal.

Continue Reading When Does the Clock Start? Section 33 Applications and the Limitation Trigger Under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act

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  
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
Expert Witnesses in International Arbitration: Untangling Complexity or Adding to the Cacophony?

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?
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
To modify or not - Supreme Court resolves quandary faced by 34 courts

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