Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (“Arbitration Act”)[1] deals with the powers of courts to grant interim reliefs, before or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced, to parties in order to safeguard the subject matter
The Supreme Court of India (“SC”) in its landmark decision in Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Micromax Informatics FZE[1] (“Arif Azim”)[2] has once again reiterated the distinction between ‘seat’ and ‘venue’ in an arbitration agreement and its jurisdictional implication. The judgment addresses the contentious issue of whether a location designated in an arbitration agreement serves merely as ‘venue’ (a place where proceedings may occur) or as juridical ‘seat’ (which grants a court jurisdictional oversight). This distinction has immense implications, especially for cross-border commercial agreements, where different interpretations can lead to divergent legal outcomes.
Continue Reading Decoding Supreme Court’s Landmark Decision on ‘Seat’ vs. ‘Venue’ in Arbitration
Party autonomy is undoubtedly a cornerstone of arbitration proceedings, allowing parties substantial freedom to shape the contours of their dispute resolution process. This freedom extends to choosing arbitrators and defining procedural rules, reflecting a central appeal of arbitration over litigation. However, this autonomy has limits, particularly where it intersects with the mandatory provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act / Act”), designed to uphold fairness, impartiality and transparency.
Continue Reading Revisiting Unilateral Arbitrator Appointments: The Supreme Court’s New Stance on Fairness and Equality
The ongoing tensions surrounding the Russia-Ukraine conflict have led to significant geopolitical shifts, particularly in the realm of international sanctions. In response to Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine, the United States (U.S.) had implemented a series of sanctions to curtail Russian influence and capabilities. A pivotal moment in this effort was the issuance of Executive Order 14024 (“EO 14024”) on April 15, 2021, by President Joe Biden.
Continue Reading Ripple Effect of Sanctions: How US Measures against Russia affect Indian Businesses
A recent decision rendered by the Madras High Court in S. Srinivasan v. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai[1], has held that being in possession of the proceeds of crime and claiming it to be untainted property can independently be perceived as money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”).
Although the said decision is in line with the principles previously enunciated by various courts while interpreting the PMLA provisions, such a simple interpretation may possibly lead to unintended situations. The primary reason being that anyone who is merely in possession of proceeds of crime without any genuine knowledge or any involvement therein can be prosecuted under PMLA. This perspective may prove to be counterproductive to the principle of presumption of innocence in criminal law.
Continue Reading Is mere possession of proceeds of crime sufficient for trigerring PMLA?
A single judge bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi delivered a significant ruling in the matter of Adnan Nisar v. Directorate of Enforcement and other connected matters[1], on September 17, 2024, holding that an offence committed in a foreign country can be classified as Predicate Offence, under the Prevention of
In Part I of this series, we had discussed the ambiguities surrounding the rectification of non-compliances under the Companies Act, 2013 (“Act”). In Part II, we seek to address another critical aspect of the Act – the imposition of liability on a company’s officer for offences and non-compliances by the Company.[1]
Continue Reading Critiquing the Regulatory Threshold for an ‘Officer Who is in Default’ under the Companies Act, 2013
A criminal trial is nearing its conclusion. The evidence has been led, and witnesses examined and cross examined. Only the final arguments remain. Yet, for “the pursuit of truth”, would a “further investigation” be permissible at such a belated stage? In several judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has answered this question in the affirmative, subject to there being compelling facts justifying such an extraordinary measure.
Continue Reading When Further Investigation Under Section 173(8) CRPC is Impermissible
The question of incorporation of arbitration clauses referred to in another document has been a bone of contention between parties, in view of the absence of statutory guidance under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”). Although the principle of incorporating an arbitration clause, referred to in another document is a well-established principle in arbitral jurisprudence,[1] Section 7(5) only provides that the reference should be “such as to make that arbitration clause part of the contract”. Hence, it has been left to the courts to determine the conditions that need to be satisfied for the same.
Continue Reading Unlocking Arbitration Clauses: Incorporation by reference in digital contracts
The Supreme Court’s (“SC”) recent[1]interpretation of the intent and scope of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act” or “Arbitration Act”) has sent ripples through the Indian arbitration landscape. In this landmark verdict, Justices Sanjiv Khanna and R. Mahadevan have provided much-needed clarity and guidance on the extension of time limits for arbitral awards beyond the stipulated timeframe under Section 29A of the Act.
Continue Reading Rohan Builders Judgment: A Watershed Moment in Indian Arbitration Law