Arbitration Act

Court Deposit Not Payment: Delhi HC’s Key Ruling on Arbitration and Insolvency Intersection

Summary: The Delhi High Court, in McNally Bharat Engineering Company Limited v. Metso India Pvt. Ltd., has held that an amount deposited in court as a condition for stay of an arbitral award, pending a challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, does not amount to payment to the award-holder and remains an asset of the award-debtor. Therefore, upon the award-debtor going into CIRP under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code during the pendency of such challenge, if a claim is not submitted to the Resolution Professional and does not form part of an approved resolution plan, it stands extinguished. Consequently, the pending Section 34 petition challenging the underlying arbitral award is rendered infructuous, and the deposited amount is to be refunded to the award-debtor turned corporate debtor.

Continue Reading Court Deposit Not Payment: Delhi HC’s Key Ruling on Arbitration and Insolvency Intersection
Gujarat High Court Upholds Supremacy Of Gujarat Public Works Tribunal Arbitration Act, 1992 Over Arbitration Act, 1996

Summary: What happens when a contract says “arbitration”, but the law says “tribunal”? The Gujarat High Court, on an issue of disputes arising from public works, gave precedence to the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 (“Gujarat Public Works Tribunal Act”)over the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“1996 Act”). This decision concerning the infrastructure sector, specifically public works contractors, clarifies that irrespective of a contractual obligation clause, state legislation shall prevail over the provisions of the contract, hence making dispute planning, and risk assessment critical for contractors as well as government bodies.

Continue Reading Gujarat High Court Upholds Supremacy Of Gujarat Public Works Tribunal Arbitration Act, 1992 Over Arbitration Act, 1996

Summary: Part I of this article examined the interplay between admiralty and insolvency law in India, particularly the effect of insolvency proceedings against a corporate debtor on in rem proceedings against its vessels. Part II turns to the conflict between in rem admiralty actions and in personam arbitration proceedings. It traces how Indian courts have…

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

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  
Navigating the Muddled Requirement of an Electronic Evidence Certificate in Arbitration Proceedings

Summary: This article examines the necessity of furnishing an electronic evidence certificate for proving the contents of documents in electronic form during arbitration proceedings. While an electronic evidence certificate has been held as a mandatory requirement in court proceedings, some courts have relaxed the said requirement for arbitrations. However, in certain cases, it has been observed that arbitrators have considered the absence of such an electronic evidence certificate as a factor for holding certain documents as inadmissible. Subsequently, given the restricted scope of judicial review concerning arbitral awards, such observations are typically insulated from challenge, thereby raising risks during litigation.

Continue Reading Navigating the Muddled Requirement of an Electronic Evidence Certificate in Arbitration Proceedings
Does mere existence of an Arbitration Agreement Sink a Plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC?

Introduction

The interplay between civil procedure and arbitration law often raises nuanced questions related to jurisdiction and maintainability. A recurring concern is the attempt to seek rejection of a plaint on the ground that the dispute is governed by a legally valid and subsisting arbitration agreement.

Continue Reading Does mere existence of an Arbitration Agreement Sink a Plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC?
Law Governing the Arbitration Agreement Part II: India Aligns, UK Departs—Or Is It the Other Way Round?

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?
The “all or nothing” problem: Partial Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards

Summary: When a foreign arbitral award hits a snag, should the entire award sink or can the enforceable part still sail through? Indian law is clear on severability for domestic awards, but foreign awards remain in a grey zone. While global practice leans toward partial enforcement to protect legitimate claims, India risks being an outlier. It’s time for a pragmatic shift that aligns with international norms and safeguards commercial certainty.

Continue Reading The “all or nothing” problem: Partial Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards