Arbitration

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
Bombay High Court considers interim relief jurisprudence in foreign seated arbitrations

Summary: The Bombay High Court has recently, in Norvic Shipping Asia PTE Limited v. Zigma International and Malaney Trading & Services LLP v. Uzer Makina VE Kalip Sanayi A.S. granted interim relief in foreign seated arbitrations. Providing guidance on the requirements for obtaining such interim protection, the Court has reiterated that parties to foreign seated arbitrations have the option of approaching Indian Courts to preserve the underlying subject matter of their dispute. This approach upholds party autonomy, which is the very basis of arbitration, and is in line with the UNCITRAL Model Law. This post draws upon past experiences to highlight key takeaways for parties seeking such relief.

Continue Reading Bombay High Court considers interim relief jurisprudence in foreign seated arbitrations

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…

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
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
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
The MoRTH Circular to end arbitration in disputes over 10 crores: Unilateral Change or Contractual Overreach?

Summary: The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) circular dated January 12, 2026, provides that arbitration will not be available for disputes exceeding INR 10 crore in BOT, HAM, and EPC contracts, purporting to replace existing dispute resolution clauses with immediate effect. This raises critical questions: Can a government circular unilaterally amend signed contracts that expressly require written consent for modifications? While prospective application may be defensible, retrospective substitution of dispute resolution mechanism, without mutual consent, presents serious enforceability concerns and challenges fundamental principles of contractual sanctity. The circular’s ambiguous carve-out for “ongoing arbitrations” adds further uncertainty, particularly about disputes at pre-arbitral stages. This development marks a significant departure from India’s pro-arbitration stance and warrants careful legal and policy scrutiny.

Continue Reading The MoRTH Circular to end arbitration in disputes over 10 crores: Unilateral Change or Contractual Overreach?
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
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?

Summary: The seat of arbitration determines the supervisory jurisdiction of courts over arbitral proceedings. But is the situation always so straightforward? More often than not, the seat is not specified and is coupled with vague references to venue or place, along with conflicting exclusive jurisdiction clauses. What happens in such cases? How is the supervisory jurisdiction of courts determined? Courts have developed nuanced approaches to resolve these conflicts, establishing clearer principles for determining supervisory jurisdiction. This article examines six key and frequently encountered scenarios with recent judicial trend to provide clarity on this complex area of law.

Continue Reading Seat, Venue, Place, and Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses: Analysing the Different Complex Combinations with Recent Judicial Trends