Arbitration proceedings

Subscribe to Arbitration proceedings via RSS
Some Key Features of the SIAC rules 2025 and their implications for India-related Arbitrations

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

Obviating Hurdles for Swifter Execution of Arbitral Awards

Context

In India, execution of decrees is governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’), and execution of arbitration awards is governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’), and the CPC. For the purposes of enforcement, both domestic and foreign awards (recognition and enforcement thereof) are treated as decree of Court. This legal fiction also applies to consent awards, which are obtained after settlement is entered between parties. Domestic awards, which are basically India-seated arbitral awards, are governed by Part I of the 1996 Act, while foreign awards, which are foreign seated arbitral awards, are governed by Part II of the 1996 Act.Continue Reading Obviating Hurdles for Swifter Execution of Arbitral Awards

Big win for PSBs: SC upholds arbitral award awarding damages for breach of substitution agreement, asks state agency to compensate lenders in full

The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide an order dated December 01, 2023, dismissed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19675 of 2023 (“SLP”), filed by Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (“HSIIDC”), a state government agency, against concurrent judgments of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, upholding an arbitral award rendered in favour of a consortium of public sector banks, led by IDBI Bank Limited (“Senior Lenders”). The Ld. arbitral tribunal, comprising Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) R M Lodha, former Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) K S P Radhakrishnan and Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) J Chelameswar (“Ld. Arbitral Tribunal”), finding favour with the case, pleaded on behalf of the Senior Lenders, awarded INR 1737.11 crore (plus additional interest and costs) as damages for HSIIDC’s breach of substitution agreement entered into between the Senior Lenders, HSIIDC and M/s KMP Expressways Limited, i.e. the concessionaire (“KMP”/ “Concessionaire”) (“Arbitral Award”).Continue Reading Big win for PSBs: SC upholds arbitral award awarding damages for breach of substitution agreement, asks state agency to compensate lenders in full

Can Directors Be Made Parties to Arbitration Proceedings Following the Underlying Rationale of Group of Companies Doctrine? Delhi High Court Explains

Introduction

Agreement to arbitrate – through a clause in a master or a separate agreement – forms the crux of arbitration. Processes like arbitration depend entirely on parties’ written consent to arbitration agreements. Great importance is attached to party autonomy – autonomie de la volonté.[1] This age-old principle continues to be at the centre of any arbitration agreement; however, ascertaining the consent of a party, more specifically a non-signatory party, to an arbitration agreement has been up for debate.Continue Reading Can Directors Be Made Parties to Arbitration Proceedings Following the Underlying Rationale of Group of Companies Doctrine? Delhi High Court Explains

Extension of Mandate of Arbitral Tribunal under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: A Primer for Practitioners

INTRODUCTION

Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”), inserted vide theAmending Act of 2015 (w.e.f. 23.10.2015), was meant to introduce time limit for completion of arbitration proceedings. It prescribed a statutory period of 12 (twelve) months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon reference. Thereafter, vide the Amending Act of 2019 (w.e.f. 30.08.2019), the prescribed time limit was modified, and the Act required arbitration proceedings to be completed within 12 (twelve) months from the date of completion of pleadings. Further, sub-section (3) of Section 29A of the Act allows an extension of 6 (six) months by mutual consent of the parties for passing the award. Similarly, sub-section (4) of Section 29A of the Act provides that in the event the award is not passed in terms of Section 29A(1) or within the extended period of Section 29A(3), the parties can make an application to the court for extension of mandate of the arbitral tribunal.Continue Reading Extension of Mandate of Arbitral Tribunal under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: A Primer for Practitioners

Devas v Antrix: fraud as a ground for setting aside an arbitral award: unique outlier or a sign of things to come?

INTRODUCTION

‘Fraud vitiates all’ is a legal principle firmly embedded in the Indian jurisprudence. An iteration of this principle also finds place in the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”), in Section 34(2)(b)(ii), whereunder an arbitral award can be challenged for being in ‘conflict with public policy of Indian Law’, inter alia if “the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud”.Continue Reading Devas v Antrix: fraud as a ground for setting aside an arbitral award: unique outlier or a sign of things to come?

Arbitration Law

Recently, the Delhi High Court refused to hold a third-party funder liable for furnishing security in enforcement of a foreign award, ruling that the funder — not being either a party to the arbitration agreement, the arbitration, or the eventual award — could not be “mulcted with liability, which they have neither undertaken nor are aware of”. Continue Reading Third party Funding – A funder remains a ‘Third Party” and not a ‘Party’ to the arbitration or award