Final Word on Enforceability of Unstamped Arbitration Agreements

“It [law of arbitration] is to be expeditious where the law is slow, cheap where the law is costly, simple where the law is technical, a peacemaker instead of a stirrer-up of strife.”[1]

Are arbitration clauses in unstamped or inadequately stamped agreements enforceable? This is a question that has been under legal scrutiny and has seen conflicting views from various constitutional benches of the Supreme Court for over half a decade.Continue Reading Final Word on Enforceability of Unstamped Arbitration Agreements

Pending Section 37 Appeal under Arbitration Act: Not a Legitimate Ground for Entertaining Belated Claim under IBC

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark RPS Infrastructure Ltd vs. Mukul Sharma[1] judgement, once again delved into the issue of claims being made beyond the statutorily prescribed timelines in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”). In this case, an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), was pending against a Section 34 award and the Appellant submitted a claim for the same subsequent to the committee of creditors (“COC”) approving the resolution plan. Continue Reading Pending Section 37 Appeal under Arbitration Act: Not a Legitimate Ground for Entertaining Belated Claim under IBC

Arbitral clause contemplating ambiguous pre-deposit condition is violative of Article 14: Supreme Court holds in a Section 11(6) application

Introduction

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its recent judgment in Lombardi Engineering Ltd. v. State of Uttarakhand[1] adjudicated inter alia upon whether, when deciding an application under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996[2] (“1996 Act”), for appointment of a sole arbitrator, the validity of a pre-deposit condition can be looked into on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution of India?Continue Reading Arbitral clause contemplating ambiguous pre-deposit condition is violative of Article 14: Supreme Court holds in a Section 11(6) application

The Bombay High Court was recently called upon to decide an application filed by Anupam Mittal (“Applicant”), the founder of shaadi.com, seeking to restrain Westbridge Ventures II Investment Holdings and other directors of People Interactive (India) Private Limited (“Respondents”) from enforcing an anti-suit injunction granted by the High Court of Singapore. The anti-suit injunction restrained the Applicant from proceeding with his oppression and mismanagement petition before the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) on the ground that parties had agreed to resolve their disputes via arbitration seated in Singapore and disputes pertaining to oppression and mismanagement were arbitrable under Singapore law.Continue Reading Party Autonomy Restrained? Dissecting Bombay High Court’s Anti-Enforcement Injunction Order in Anupam Mittal v. People Interactive (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Disputes

Introduction

The Government of India (“Government”) had announced a one-time voluntary settlement scheme through the Union Budget 2023-24 to settle contractual disputes involving the Government of India or its undertakings. This voluntary settlement process would also be applicable to disputes that have resulted in arbitral awards or court decrees or court orders upholding arbitral awards (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Award”) under challenge. The scheme is called Vivad se Vishwas II (Contractual Disputes). A draft scheme was published for circulation and was open for public comments till March 8, 2023.Continue Reading Execution meeting spirit of the text will determine success of Vivad se Vishwas II