Dispute resolution

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…

Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shareholders Cannot Trigger Insolvency Proceedings: Supreme Court

Summary: In EPC Constructions India Ltd. v. Matix Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd., the Supreme Court addressed whether holders of non-cumulative redeemable preference shares can initiate insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC, as financial creditors. The Court held that preference shareholders are not creditors and cannot trigger insolvency proceedings, as preference shares remain part of the share capital even upon maturity, and conversion of debt into preference shares permanently extinguishes the original creditor relationship. This landmark judgement reinforces the fundamental distinction between debt and equity, clarifying that IBC remedies are available only to creditors and not shareholders.Continue Reading Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shareholders Cannot Trigger Insolvency Proceedings: Supreme Court

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?

Arif Azim or Offshore Infrastructures? Analysing SC’s Divergent Takes on Commencement of Limitation for Section 11(6) Applications

Summary: The Supreme Court has created an interesting puzzle over when limitation begins for applications under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of arbitrators. While in Arif Azim, the Supreme Court established that limitation begins only after the other party refuses the request for appointment, in Offshore Infrastructures it decided that limitation starts when the final bill becomes due, i.e., when the substantive cause of action arises, conflating two distinct limitation periods. The article analyses this judicial divergence and highlights the need for legislative clarity to resolve the uncertainty.Continue Reading Arif Azim or Offshore Infrastructures? Analysing SC’s Divergent Takes on Commencement of Limitation for Section 11(6) Applications

Appellate Restraint And Equity In Specific Performance: Key Takeaways From Annamalai V. Vasanthi

Summary: This article examines the Supreme Court’s reinforcement of strict limits on second appeals and the equitable principles governing specific performance. For litigants, this clarifies that courts prioritise parties’ conduct and contractual good faith over rigid procedural requirements, fostering the need for a strategic approach to property dispute resolution.Continue Reading Appellate Restraint And Equity In Specific Performance: Key Takeaways From Annamalai V. Vasanthi

The “all or nothing” problem: Partial Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards

Summary: When a foreign arbitral award hits a snag, should the entire award sink or can the enforceable part still sail through? Indian law is clear on severability for domestic awards, but foreign awards remain in a grey zone. While global practice leans toward partial enforcement to protect legitimate claims, India risks being an outlier. It’s time for a pragmatic shift that aligns with international norms and safeguards commercial certainty.Continue Reading The “all or nothing” problem: Partial Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards

SEBI’s power to revisit penalty orders, including Nil penalties, under Section 15-I (3) of the SEBI Act, 1992

Summary: Section 15-I (3) of the SEBI Act, 1992, empowers SEBI to revisit and enhance penalties imposed by the adjudicating officer, including orders where no penalty is imposed, within a period of three months from the date of passing of the order. However, this power can be exercised only if the order passed by the adjudicating officer is erroneous and not in the interests of the securities market. This revisionary power represents a critical component of SEBI’s regulatory framework — it allows the market regulator to modify orders passed by the adjudicating officer.Continue Reading SEBI’s power to revisit penalty orders, including Nil penalties, under Section 15-I (3) of the SEBI Act, 1992

A closer look at whether tighter security means better roads or fewer bidders

Barriers or Bridges? Unpacking India’s 2025 APS Mandate and its Ripple Effect on Road Projects

Summary: India’s 2025 APS Circular marks a pivotal shift in public procurement, tightening financial safeguards against underbidding in road projects. By mandating tiered performance securities for bids even marginally below estimated costs, the policy aims to enhance accountability and execution quality. However, its one-size-fits-all approach risks sidelining efficient contractors, inflating bid prices, and dampening competition. A more calibrated framework—with capped guarantees, milestone-based deposits, and carve-outs for proven performers—could transform APS from a blunt compliance tool into a strategic enabler of innovation, fiscal discipline, and infrastructure excellence.Continue Reading Barriers or Bridges? Unpacking India’s 2025 APS Mandate and its Ripple Effect on Road Projects

Milestone Payments vs Retention Money: The Fine Line That Can Decide Multi-Million Dollar Claims in Construction Disputes

Summary: Milestone payments and retention money serve distinct purposes in construction contracts—one drives progress, the other secures performance. Milestone payments become due only upon achieving defined stages, while retention is money already earned but withheld until final completion or defect rectification. Misconstruing these concepts can lead to costly disputes, making precise drafting and clear nomenclature critical for risk management and claim success.Continue Reading Milestone Payments vs Retention Money: The Fine Line That Can Decide Multi-Million Dollar Claims in Construction Disputes