The Hon’ble Supreme Court (“SC”)[1] debated on the seminal question of maintainability of writ petitions against an order/ award under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSME Act”). In M/s Tamil Nadu Cements Corporate Limited v. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Another[2] (“
The seventh edition of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”) arbitration rules (“2025 Rules”) came into force on January 1, 2025. The 2025 Rules are considerably longer than the previous edition, but SIAC’s very helpful summary of all its key features is available here. This piece discusses some of these key features and their implications for India-related arbitrations.Continue Reading Some Key Features of the SIAC rules 2025 and their implications for India-related Arbitrations
Recently, the Delhi High Court (“DHC”) has reiterated that Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”), empowers courts to partially set aside an arbitral award and it would not amount to a modification, as an arbitral award consists of distinct components independent of each other.Continue Reading Court’s power to partially set aside arbitral awards: An Indian perspective
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (“Arbitration Act”)[1] deals with the powers of courts to grant interim reliefs, before or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced, to parties in order to safeguard the subject matter
Party autonomy is undoubtedly a cornerstone of arbitration proceedings, allowing parties substantial freedom to shape the contours of their dispute resolution process. This freedom extends to choosing arbitrators and defining procedural rules, reflecting a central appeal of arbitration over litigation. However, this autonomy has limits, particularly where it intersects with the mandatory provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act / Act”), designed to uphold fairness, impartiality and transparency.Continue Reading Revisiting Unilateral Arbitrator Appointments: The Supreme Court’s New Stance on Fairness and Equality
The question of incorporation of arbitration clauses referred to in another document has been a bone of contention between parties, in view of the absence of statutory guidance under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”). Although the principle of incorporating an arbitration clause, referred to in another document is a well-established principle in arbitral jurisprudence,[1] Section 7(5) only provides that the reference should be “such as to make that arbitration clause part of the contract”. Hence, it has been left to the courts to determine the conditions that need to be satisfied for the same.Continue Reading Unlocking Arbitration Clauses: Incorporation by reference in digital contracts
The Supreme Court’s (“SC”) recent[1]interpretation of the intent and scope of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act” or “Arbitration Act”) has sent ripples through the Indian arbitration landscape. In this landmark verdict, Justices Sanjiv Khanna and R. Mahadevan have provided much-needed clarity and guidance on the extension of time limits for arbitral awards beyond the stipulated timeframe under Section 29A of the Act.Continue Reading Rohan Builders Judgment: A Watershed Moment in Indian Arbitration Law
The recent ruling by the Supreme Court of India in Pam Developments Private Limited v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.[1] has reignited discussions on awarding pre-reference interest in arbitration proceedings. The case had arisen from a dispute over delays in a road construction project. Marking a significant development in the evolution of the Indian arbitration law, particularly on granting interest, the Court upheld the arbitrator’s authority to award interest on the awarded sum from the date of the cause of action until the date of the award, even when the contract was silent on the matter. While analysing the Pam Developments case, this blog delves into the nuances of pre-reference interest in light of the existing legal framework and relevant jurisprudence.Continue Reading The Evolving Landscape of Pre-Reference Interest in Indian Arbitration Regime
Introduction of Section 29A to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the “Act”), by way of an amendment in 2015, marked a significant event in the arbitration regime in India. It recognised the sluggishness that had crept into arbitration proceedings and provided for strict timelines for making of an award. The section was further amended in 2019, pursuant to recommendations of Justice B N Srikrishna committee.Continue Reading Can an Arbitral Tribunal’s Mandate be Extended Post Award?
A division bench of the Delhi High Court in Cobra Instalaciones Y Servicios, S.A. & Shyam Indus Power Solution Pvt Ltd. v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (“HVPNL”)[1] (“Cobra Case”)upheld the quantification of damages by an arbitrator through “honest guesswork” or a “rough and ready method” since it was difficult to quantify the precise amount of loss suffered by the party.
In this blog, we examine the rough and ready approach under Indian law for quantifying damages.Continue Reading Can damages be awarded based on a guess?