Summary: The Supreme Court has addressed a long-standing issue in arbitration law, holding that the receipt of the arbitration notice marks the commencement of arbitral proceedings for the purposes of limitation period, interim reliefs, and procedural laws.
Summary: The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) circular dated January 12, 2026, provides that arbitration will not be available for disputes exceeding INR 10 crore in BOT, HAM, and EPC contracts, purporting to replace existing dispute resolution clauses with immediate effect. This raises critical questions: Can a government circular unilaterally amend signed contracts that expressly require written consent for modifications? While prospective application may be defensible, retrospective substitution of dispute resolution mechanism, without mutual consent, presents serious enforceability concerns and challenges fundamental principles of contractual sanctity. The circular’s ambiguous carve-out for “ongoing arbitrations” adds further uncertainty, particularly about disputes at pre-arbitral stages. This development marks a significant departure from India’s pro-arbitration stance and warrants careful legal and policy scrutiny.Continue Reading The MoRTH Circular to end arbitration in disputes over 10 crores: Unilateral Change or Contractual Overreach?
Summary: The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in HCC v. BRPNNL has reset India’s arbitration landscape by emphasising that Section 11 appointments are definitive and not subject to further review, thereby slamming the brakes on procedural sabotage. In a case where three years of hearings were derailed by a belated challenge, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reaffirmed that arbitration agreements must be honoured, defects in appointment mechanisms must be cured without killing the clause, and participation without timely objection amounts to waiver. By insulating advanced arbitrations from endless detours, the judgment restores speed, reliability, and commercial focus to India’s dispute resolution framework, especially vital for the construction sector where delays and escalation claims are endemic.Continue Reading No Turning Back: Supreme Court’s HCC v. BRPNNL Ruling Shuts the Door on Arbitration Sabotage
Summary: India and the UK have taken opposite paths on determining the law governing arbitration agreements. India’s Supreme Court has embraced the three-stage Enka framework in Disortho S.A. v. Meril Life Sciences (2025), while the UK’s Arbitration Act 2025 establishes a bright-line rule defaulting to the law of the seat. This article examines both approaches and why precise drafting of dispute resolution clauses has become essential risk management in cross-border arbitration.Continue Reading Law Governing the Arbitration Agreement Part II: India Aligns, UK Departs—Or Is It the Other Way Round?
Summary: The seat of arbitration determines the supervisory jurisdiction of courts over arbitral proceedings. But is the situation always so straightforward? More often than not, the seat is not specified and is coupled with vague references to venue or place, along with conflicting exclusive jurisdiction clauses. What happens in such cases? How is the supervisory jurisdiction of courts determined? Courts have developed nuanced approaches to resolve these conflicts, establishing clearer principles for determining supervisory jurisdiction. This article examines six key and frequently encountered scenarios with recent judicial trend to provide clarity on this complex area of law.Continue Reading Seat, Venue, Place, and Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses: Analysing the Different Complex Combinations with Recent Judicial Trends
Summary: The recent decision in GEA Westfalia highlights the importance of an exclusive jurisdiction clause in contracts involving MSMEs, particularly for determining the court with the jurisdiction to hear challenges to awards passed as part of the mandatory statutory arbitration under the MSMED Act.Continue Reading Navigating the MSME Minefield: When Party Autonomy Meets Statutory Reality
Summary: In a recent ruling, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that (a) non-signatories cannot attend arbitration proceedings, re-affirming the confidentiality mandate under Section 42A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”); and (b) a court becomes functus officio once an arbitrator is appointed under Section 11(6) of the Act. With Section 42A as its shield and the doctrine of functus officio as its sword, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has once again underscored that arbitration is not a spectator sport.Continue Reading Beyond the Signature: Who Gets a Seat at the Arbitration Table?
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: This article examines the evolving jurisprudence on the interplay between “exclusive jurisdiction” and “seat of arbitration” clauses in Indian arbitration landscape. The Delhi High Court’s decision in Viva Infraventure v. NOIDA highlights that an express exclusive jurisdiction clause will override a seat determined by the arbitrator. The judgment underscores the primacy of party autonomy and contractual intent. It also reinforces the importance of precise drafting in arbitration clauses to avoid jurisdictional conflicts and ensuring legal clarity.Continue Reading Exclusive Jurisdiction vs Seat Conundrum: Delhi High Court Expands Jurisprudence
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?