Summary: The recent decision in GEA Westfalia highlights the importance of an exclusive jurisdiction clause in contracts involving MSMEs, particularly for determining the court with the jurisdiction to hear challenges to awards passed as part of the mandatory statutory arbitration under the MSMED Act.
Continue Reading Navigating the MSME Minefield: When Party Autonomy Meets Statutory Reality
Summary: In the case of Glencore International AG v. Shree Ganesh Metals, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether an unsigned arbitration agreement could bind parties based on their conduct and correspondence. Answering in affirmative, the Court held that such agreements are enforceable if parties are ad idem and have acted upon the contract terms, including arbitration clauses. The ruling affirms India’s pro-arbitration stance, ensuring legal certainty for modern commercial transactions involving conclusion via electronic communication and performance.
Continue Reading Arbitration without signatures no bar to refer dispute to arbitration: Supreme Court reinforces enforcement of arbitration agreements through performance
Summary: In Krishna Devi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the limitation period to challenge an arbitral award begins when a party becomes aware of the award — not when formal notice is received. This ruling curbs delaying tactics and prioritises substance over procedure. Though rooted in the 1940 Act, it signals a shift in interpreting timelines under the 1996 regime, urging parties to act on knowledge, not wait for paperwork.
Continue Reading Knowledge Over Notice: Rethinking Arbitration Timelines in India “Justice delayed is justice denied — but what if delay is disguised as procedure?”
Summary: In a recent ruling, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that (a) non-signatories cannot attend arbitration proceedings, re-affirming the confidentiality mandate under Section 42A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”); and (b) a court becomes functus officio once an arbitrator is appointed under Section 11(6) of the Act. With Section 42A as its shield and the doctrine of functus officio as its sword, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has once again underscored that arbitration is not a spectator sport.
Continue Reading Beyond the Signature: Who Gets a Seat at the Arbitration Table?
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
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
Summary: This article examines the evolving jurisprudence on the interplay between “exclusive jurisdiction” and “seat of arbitration” clauses in Indian arbitration landscape. The Delhi High Court’s decision in Viva Infraventure v. NOIDA highlights that an express exclusive jurisdiction clause will override a seat determined by the arbitrator. The judgment underscores the primacy of party autonomy and contractual intent. It also reinforces the importance of precise drafting in arbitration clauses to avoid jurisdictional conflicts and ensuring legal clarity.
Continue Reading Exclusive Jurisdiction vs Seat Conundrum: Delhi High Court Expands Jurisprudence
The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSME Act”), aims to promote, develop and enhance the competitiveness of MSMEs. To address the issue of delayed payments, several provisions of the MSME Act provide additional safeguards and benefits to MSMEs. One such safeguard is Section 15, which outlines the buyer’s liability to make payments due to MSMEs once the goods or services are accepted/ deemed to be accepted.[1] Similarly, Section 16, read with Section 17, states that delays in payments for goods supplied or services rendered by MSMEs, shall attract a compound interest rate of three times the bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank of India.[2] Further, reference to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (“MSEFC”) for any amount due under Section 17 can be made under Section 18. However, questions on the applicability of this statutory provision are raised, when parties to a dispute do not invoke the MSEFC mechanism and go under the pre-existing arbitration agreements.
Continue Reading Arbitration Agreements v. MSME Act: Can interest rates under MSME Act survive outside of Section 18 proceedings?
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, on 30 April 2025, in a landmark judgment in Gayatri Balasamy v. M/s ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited,[1] addressed questions surrounding the power of courts to modify arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”).
Continue Reading To modify or not – Supreme Court resolves quandary faced by 34 courts
The evolution of arbitration in India has been marked by a steadfast judicial commitment to enhancing its merits, particularly its efficiency, speed, and limited judicial intervention. This development offers a credible alternative to the overburdened judicial system. However, courts have remained the cornerstone of supervisory jurisdiction, ensuring that arbitral awards adhere to the principles enshrined in Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”).[2] Among the grounds for challenging awards, “patent illegality” under Section 34(2A) of the Act, initially conceived as a subset of “public policy”, was introduced as a distinct ground to address blatant legal errors visible on the face of an award by way of Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015.[3] Today, patent illegality stands as one of the widely employed grounds for challenge, yet its contours remain vague.
Continue Reading DMRC V. DAMEPL and the 2024 Amendment Bill: Where Patent illegality stands in Arbitration?