Arbitration and Conciliation Act

Summary: The Bombay High Court, in Osterreichischer Lloyd v. Victore Ships, has held that a party seeking to enforce a foreign arbitral award in India does not lose its right to seek interim protective relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, merely by filing a petition for recognition and enforcement under Part II. Such relief remains available at least until the award is recognised as an enforceable decree under Section 49. This ruling strengthens the hand of award-creditors seeking to prevent dissipation of assets while enforcement is pending. It also reaffirms India’s pro-enforcement stance towards foreign awards. However, the judgement leaves open the more difficult question of whether Section 9 relief continues to be available even after the award is recognised as a decree, during the execution stage. High Courts remain divided on it and may require clarification from the Supreme Court.

Continue Reading Section 9 and Foreign Award Enforcement: Jurisdictional Question Settled, but Boundaries Still Uncertain
Navigating Legal Waters: Interplay between the Admiralty Act, Insolvency and Arbitration Regime of India - Part I

Summary: The Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, brought much needed reform to India’s maritime legal framework. Though its coexistence with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has given rise to contentious jurisdictional issues that Indian courts continue to navigate. The article discusses judicial efforts to reconcile these legislative frameworks.

Continue Reading Navigating Legal Waters: Interplay between the Admiralty Act, Insolvency and Arbitration Regime of India – Part I

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
From Discovery to Determination: When Orders on Discovery Applications Become Interim Awards

Summary: In its recent decision in APTEC Advanced Protective Technologies AG v. Union of India, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed a fundamental principle of arbitral jurisprudence: the legal character of an arbitral order is determined by its substantive effect, not its procedural label. The case arose from a contract dispute involving the supply of mountaineering boots to the Indian Defence Forces, during which a Sole Arbitrator dismissed four discovery applications filed by APTEC, yet, in doing so, made definitive findings on the quality and compatibility of the equipment in question, effectively extinguishing a key defence available to APTEC. The Division Bench held that such an order, despite being framed as a procedural ruling, amounted to an interim arbitral award challengeable under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, since it conclusively determined a substantive issue between the parties. The judgment carries important practical implications: arbitrators must exercise restraint in reasoning beyond what is strictly necessary when deciding interlocutory applications, and practitioners must remain vigilant to the possibility that procedural rulings, depending on how they are reasoned may crystallise rights or foreclose defences in a manner that warrants immediate legal recourse.

Continue Reading From Discovery to Determination: When Orders on Discovery Applications Become Interim Awards
After the Gavel Falls: Can the Losing Party Still Seek Interim Relief under Section 9?

Summary: In a landmark 2026 ruling, the Supreme Court of India has decisively reshaped the contours of post‑award interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Departing from the long‑held view that such protection lies only with the winning party, the Court held that even an unsuccessful party may seek interim measures after an arbitral award, provided the case is rare, compelling, and demands judicial restraint. By rejecting the “fruits of the award” doctrine and reaffirming the plain statutory language of “any party,” the judgment restores Section 9 to its full amplitude while carefully safeguarding arbitral finality. This decision marks a pivotal shift in Indian arbitration law, balancing textual fidelity with commercial and procedural realism.

Continue Reading After the Gavel Falls: Can the Losing Party Still Seek Interim Relief under Section 9?
Abandonment of Claims in Arbitration

Summary: This blog examines two recent decisions, Rajiv Gaddh v. Subodh Prakash (Supreme Court) (2026 INSC 302) and Nalin Vallabhbhai Patel v. Atharva Realtors (Bombay High Court)(2026:BHC-OS:7780), which reinforce a practical message for businesses: If a party lets an arbitration lapse through its own inaction (or withdraws a Section 11 request without liberty), courts are unlikely to allow a “reset” by filing a fresh Section 11 application for the same disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Continue Reading Abandonment of Claims in Arbitration

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  
Bombay High Court Closes the Door on Enforcing Foreign Awards Against Non-Parties

Summary: This article analyses the Bombay High Court’s decision in Ningbo Aux Imp and Exp Co Ltd v. Amstrad Consumer India Pvt Ltd & Anr., which held that enforcement of a foreign arbitral award under Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is confined to persons between whom the award was made, and directed deletion of a non-party guarantor from enforcement proceedings. The article also examines the subsequent Section 9 petition, dismissed on the ground that interim measures cannot be directed against a party against whom the award is not enforceable.

Continue Reading Bombay High Court Closes the Door on Enforcing Foreign Awards Against Non-Parties
Judicial Restraint In Arbitral Substitution: Key Takeaways From Ankhim Holdings V. Zaveri Construction

Summary: This article analyses the Supreme Court’s decision in Ankhim Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Zaveri Construction Pvt. Ltd., which reiterates the limited role of courts under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Supreme Court held that substitution of an arbitrator does not permit courts to revisit or nullify prior arbitral proceedings, reaffirming the Act’s self‑contained structure and its emphasis on minimal judicial intervention.

Continue Reading Judicial Restraint In Arbitral Substitution: Key Takeaways From Ankhim Holdings V. Zaveri Construction
Supreme Court Clarifies the Trigger Point for Commencement of Arbitration under Indian Laws

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.

Continue Reading Supreme Court Clarifies the Trigger Point for Commencement of Arbitration under Indian Laws