arbitration agreement

No Turning Back: Supreme Court’s HCC v. BRPNNL Ruling Shuts the Door on Arbitration Sabotage

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

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.

This engages the interplay between (i) Order VII, Rule…

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?

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

Supreme Court affirms arbitrators’ power to implead non-signatories: Another pro-arbitration ruling or a step too far?

In Adavya Projects Pvt. Ltd. v M/s Vishal Structurals Pvt. Ltd.[1](“Judgment”), the Supreme Court of India (“Court”) has held that the arbitral tribunal has the power to implead parties to arbitration proceedings even where the said parties were neither issued an arbitration notice nor made party to court proceedings seeking appointment of arbitrators. The Judgment is significant because it holds that even if the claimant issues an arbitration notice to only one counterparty initially, it can subsequently include additional counterparties when filing its statement of claim before the arbitral tribunal. The Judgment reconciles the divergent views taken by the Delhi High Court[2] and the Bombay High Court[3] on the issue, but the implications for additional counterparties, who may be joined after the arbitral tribunal has been constituted, could be significant.Continue Reading Supreme Court affirms arbitrators’ power to implead non-signatories: Another pro-arbitration ruling or a step too far?

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India (“SC”) in its landmark decision in Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Micromax Informatics FZE[1] (“Arif Azim”)[2] has once again reiterated the distinction between ‘seat’ and ‘venue’ in an arbitration agreement and its jurisdictional implication. The judgment addresses the contentious issue of whether a location designated in an arbitration agreement serves merely as ‘venue’ (a place where proceedings may occur) or as juridical ‘seat’ (which grants a court jurisdictional oversight). This distinction has immense implications, especially for cross-border commercial agreements, where different interpretations can lead to divergent legal outcomes.Continue Reading Decoding Supreme Court’s Landmark Decision on ‘Seat’ vs. ‘Venue’ in Arbitration

Revisiting Unilateral Arbitrator Appointments: The Supreme Court’s New Stance on Fairness and Equality

Introduction

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

Novation of Contract and Section 11 Of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

The doctrine of severability dictates that the arbitration clause (arbitration agreement) is deemed to be separate or independent from the overarching contract. Therefore, even when a contract’s legality is challenged, the arbitration agreement remains unaffected. However, the novation of a contract, by way of a supplemental/amended agreement, raises an interesting question regarding the validity of the arbitration clause in the original agreement entered into between the parties, which resultantly stands amended or superseded.  The issue about the extent to which the courts can intervene to determine this also requires judicial consideration.Continue Reading Novation of Contract and Section 11 Of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Law Governing Arbitration Agreement: Which Way are Indian Courts Headed?

The process and outcome of arbitration is largely governed by the following laws: (a) law governing the contract referring to the substantive law that parties choose to govern the main contract and any disputes arising thereunder; (b) law governing the arbitration agreement referring to the law that parties choose to govern arbitration agreement (it governs issues like validity, arbitrability, etc.); (c) law governing conduct of arbitral proceedings and forum for related court proceedings (i.e. law of the seat) and (d) Institutional rules (if chosen), governing the form and procedure of arbitration.Continue Reading Law Governing Arbitration Agreement: Which Way are Indian Courts Headed?