Dispute resolution

When Policy Isn’t Law: Why Press Releases Don’t Trigger “Change in Law” Compensation

Summary: The Supreme Court’s ruling in Nabha Power v. PSPCL makes a clear distinction: government press releases and policy clarifications, even if they affect project economics, do not qualify as “Change in Law” under Power Purchase Agreements. Only formal legal instruments like statutes, rules, regulations, or gazette notifications carry the weight needed to trigger compensation. This brings greater certainty for regulators and distribution companies, but it also means developers must be more cautious when bidding, since informal policy signals can no longer be relied upon for relief. The decision ultimately reinforces contractual discipline while reminding the sector that policy announcements must be formally notified to have legal effect.Continue Reading When Policy Isn’t Law: Why Press Releases Don’t Trigger “Change in Law” Compensation

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

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.Continue Reading Does mere existence of an Arbitration Agreement Sink a Plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC?

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