Summary: A key procedural question in Indian arbitration law concerns the trigger for the commencement of the limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, where a party files a Section 33 application before challenging an arbitral award. Conflicting judicial precedents had created uncertainty on whether an application that was misconceived in scope
Summary: The Securities Appellate Tribunal and Supreme Court recently had the occasion to examine what amounts to securities fraud. While in BDMCL, the SAT examined whether the essential ingredients of fraud were satisfied, in Terrascope, the Supreme Court ruled that false promises in fundraising documents amount to fraud and the same cannot be ratified subsequently by shareholders. Together, these rulings highlight the critical role of transparency and accountability in corporate disclosures.
Continue Reading Where Does Indian Law on Securities Fraud Stand?
Summary: The Supreme Court in Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule resolved conflicting High Court views on whether Section 29A application to extend an arbitral tribunal’s mandate lies before the High Court or the Civil Court. Drawing a clear and principled distinction between appointment jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction, it held that jurisdiction under Section 29A
Summary: The article examines the Indian Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in C. Velusamy v. K. Indhera, which confirms that courts retain the power under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to extend an arbitrator’s mandate even after an award has been passed following the expiry of that mandate. Crucially, the Court clarified that such a post-mandate award is unenforceable, and any extension of the mandate does not validate the defective award. Instead, the tribunal may resume proceedings from the point at which the mandate expired and deliver a fresh, valid award within the extended period. The judgment clarifies that an award delivered after the expiry of mandate of the tribunal is not fatal to the arbitration itself, and procedural steps may be taken to revive and resume the arbitration so that a valid award may be delivered to bring the arbitration to conclusion.
Continue Reading When the Clock Runs Out: The Supreme Court Reaffirms Courts’ Power to Extend Arbitrator’s Mandate Post Award
Summary: Recent Indian jurisprudence confirms that depositing an arbitral award amount with the court during Section 34 proceedings stops interest from running, but only if the deposit is full, unconditional, and properly notified. Partial payments made over time do not attract this benefit. This clarity provides judgment debtors with a powerful tool to limit their exposure while awards remain under challengeand gives decree holders certainty about their entitlements.
Continue Reading Does Interest Stop Running When Award Amounts Are Deposited In Court?
Summary: This article traces the Supreme Court’s resolution of the long-standing conflict between State rent control legislations and the Public Premises Act (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (“PP Act”). In 2014 a division bench of the Supreme Court in Suhas H. Pophale v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and its Estate Officer (2014) 4 SCC 657 created specific carve-outs of a Constitution Bench decision that held the PP Act had overriding effect over State rent control legislation. Following a reference to resolve the conflict, the Supreme Court has, in Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. v. Vita, 2025 INSC 1419, settled the position and set aside Suhas Pophale. The ruling restores clarity and marks a significant reaffirmation of stare decisis as a cornerstone of judicial consistency.
Continue Reading Settling The Clash Between The Public Premises Act And State Rent Control Laws
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
Summary: The Supreme Court has held that entries in a corporate debtor’s balance sheet, when read alongside corroborative materials including cash flow statements, constitute a valid acknowledgement of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, thereby resetting the period of limitation for creditors to initiate insolvency proceedings. This ruling strengthens the position of creditors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, ensuring that procedural technicalities do not frustrate their rights to take recourse through insolvency proceedings. It also places greater responsibility on auditors and accountants, as financial statements may now carry significant consequences for both debtors and creditors by operating as binding acknowledgements of liability.
Continue Reading Fresh Start: Balance Sheet Entries Read With Supporting Records Constitute Debt Acknowledgement, Resets Limitation
Summary: This article examines the Bombay High Court’s ruling that foreign decrees from reciprocating territories are executable as domestic decrees, provided they satisfy Section 13 of the CPC, affirming the position that executing courts retain discretion to permit evidence in ‘exceptional’ cases.
Continue Reading Efficiency Versus Procedural Fairness – Bombay High Court Reaffirms Governing Principles for Execution of Foreign Decrees
The Companies Act, 2013 (“CA 2013”), and the Companies (Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016 (“2016 Rules”), allow companies to jointly or separately file an application for merger or amalgamation before the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”). However, companies with registered offices in two different States must file two separate applications (unless a specific exemption has been obtained to file a joint petition) as the scheme will have to be approved by the two NCLTs having jurisdiction over the companies.
Continue Reading Two States: Stamp Duty On Merger Orders Passed By Two Different Tribunals