Dispute resolution

Delhi High Court Clarifies Scope of Anti-Arbitration Injunctions in Foreign-Seated Proceedings

Summary: In a landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court in Engineering Projects (India) Ltd v. MSA Global LLC clarified that Indian civil courts retain limited but real jurisdiction to stay foreign-seated arbitrations if the proceedings are shown to be vexatious or abusive. The decision strengthens procedural safeguards for parties, by reaffirming the courts’ power to intervene in cases of deliberate non-disclosure and procedural misconduct, notwithstanding the “minimal intervention” principle under Indian arbitration law.Continue Reading Delhi High Court Clarifies Scope of Anti-Arbitration Injunctions in Foreign-Seated Proceedings

Summary: This blog examines the increased compliance challenges faced by Indian companies due to the introduction of EU sanctions. European financial institutions and trading partners strictly enforce these measures, often adopting a zero-tolerance approach to secondary exposure. Consequently, Indian businesses with links to European markets must conduct rigorous due diligence as they face the risk of being cut off from euro-denominated transactions or even delisted from European stock exchanges.Continue Reading Emergence of the EU sanctions regime and their wide-reaching cross-border impact

Waste of an ODR process

Summary: The methods for appointment of arbitrators, as laid down by the Supreme Court, namely, mutual consent of the parties or pursuant to Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, were reiterated by the Bombay High Court in a Section 34 challenge. The petition relates to a financial institution unilaterally appointing arbitrator(s) through an ODR platform. The Bombay High Court sought statements from two ODR platforms, namely, Presolv360 and ADReS Now, on steps taken to ascertain whether the request for the appointment is lawful. It is imperative to have a carefully drafted arbitration clause to ensure that the outcome of arbitral proceedings involving an ODR platform aren’t nullified.Continue Reading Waste of an ODR process

Is SEBI obligated to provide only the documents it relies upon?

Summary: This blog analyses the duty of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) to disclose documents during regulatory proceedings. It traces the judicial evolution of SEBI’s disclosure obligations and discusses contrasting judicial views on the extent and limits of such obligation.

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”), as a regulator and a quasi-judicial body, is dutybound to act fairly and adhere to the principles of natural justice while conducting proceedings against parties. One such duty is to grant noticees access to the material that form the basis of the findings/ allegations made against them in the show cause notice.Continue Reading Is SEBI obligated to provide only the documents it relies upon?

Exclusive Jurisdiction vs Seat Conundrum: Delhi High Court Expands Jurisprudence

Summary: This article examines the evolving jurisprudence on the interplay between “exclusive jurisdiction” and “seat of arbitration” clauses in Indian arbitration landscape. The Delhi High Court’s decision in Viva Infraventure v. NOIDA highlights that an express exclusive jurisdiction clause will override a seat determined by the arbitrator. The judgment underscores the primacy of party autonomy and contractual intent. It also reinforces the importance of precise drafting in arbitration clauses to avoid jurisdictional conflicts and ensuring legal clarity.Continue Reading Exclusive Jurisdiction vs Seat Conundrum: Delhi High Court Expands Jurisprudence

Breaking the Hierarchy – Power of the Trial Courts to Cancel Bail Granted by Higher Courts

Summary: In this article, we discuss the concept of cancellation of bail in the backdrop of a recent judgment of the Supreme Court that trial courts are empowered to cancel bail granted by higher courts if bail conditions are violated.Continue Reading Breaking the Hierarchy – Power of the Trial Courts to Cancel Bail Granted by Higher Courts

Criminal Liability of Non-Executive Directors: A New Ray of Hope

Summary: This blog compares Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), with Section 200 of the erstwhile Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“CrPC”). The analysis highlights how the new provision introduces an additional safeguard against prosecution for non-executive directors.Continue Reading Criminal Liability of Non-Executive Directors: A New Ray of Hope

Summary: This article highlights the Bombay High Court’s reaffirmation of limited appellate review for temporary injunctions. For litigants, this means a clearer understanding of the narrow grounds for appeal, fostering more strategic and efficient approaches to dispute resolution involving interim reliefs.Continue Reading Full Bench of Bombay High Court Clarifies Scope of Appellate Review of Temporary Injunction Orders

Summary: This article aims to examine the contours of Section 223 of the BNSS, with a special focus on courts’ interpretation of the proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS and its practical implications.

Introduction

On December 25, 2023, India enacted a transformative triumvirate of laws – the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. These new criminal laws became effective on July 1, 2024, repealing and replacing the long-standing pillars of criminal law – Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, respectively.Continue Reading Demystifying Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023