Disputes

Navigating the Muddled Requirement of an Electronic Evidence Certificate in Arbitration Proceedings

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

Efficiency Versus Procedural Fairness – Bombay High Court Reaffirms Governing Principles

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

Two States: Stamp Duty On Merger Orders Passed By Two Different Tribunals

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

Judicial Restraint In Arbitral Substitution: Key Takeaways From Ankhim Holdings V. Zaveri Construction

Summary: This article analyses the Supreme Court’s decision in Ankhim Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Zaveri Construction Pvt. Ltd., which reiterates the limited role of courts under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Supreme Court held that substitution of an arbitrator does not permit courts to revisit or nullify prior arbitral proceedings, reaffirming the Act’s self‑contained structure and its emphasis on minimal judicial intervention.Continue Reading Judicial Restraint In Arbitral Substitution: Key Takeaways From Ankhim Holdings V. Zaveri Construction

BNSS and the pre-cognizance imperative: Procedural safeguard u/s 223 applies even to PMLA Complaints

Summary: The proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS, 2023, stipulates that a Magistrate shall not take cognizance of an offence without first affording the accused an opportunity to be heard. By its judgement in Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement[1] (“Kushal Kumar”),the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that this safeguard under the BNSS shall also apply to complaints filed under Section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”), after July 1, 2024, viz. the date BNSS came into force. The ratio from Kushal Kumar has since been followed inter alia by the High Courts of Delhi and Kerala. These judgements reinforce a significant procedural safeguard for accused persons even under the stringent PMLA, while highlighting a marked departure from the regime under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”). An associated issue is whether cognizance on a supplementary complaint under the PMLA, filed after July 1, 2024, will also be bound by the safeguard of Section 223(1) of the BNSS, if cognizance on the main complaint was taken prior to July 1, 2024.Continue Reading BNSS and the pre-cognizance imperative: Procedural safeguard u/s 223 applies even to PMLA Complaints

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?

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