Fraud-Related Disputes Arbitrable: Bombay High Court

Arbitrability of a dispute is a key factor in any arbitration, as it establishes the jurisdictional reach of an arbitral tribunal. In Booze Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd.,[1] the Supreme Court stated that the disputes dealing with rights in personam are arbitrable, but those pertaining to rights in rem are not as they can affect the public.Continue Reading Fraud-Related Disputes Arbitrable: Bombay High Court

CONUNDRUM SURROUNDING SECTION 42 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996

INTRODUCTION

India’s arbitration law is thorough and organic because of its ever-evolving nature, through several amendments and decisions of the courts from time to time. However, the strict wordings of certain provisions contained in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”),have caused a stir, for which courts have had to step in and use the tools of interpretation to resolve such practical dilemmas. Continue Reading Conundrum Surrounding Section 42 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitral clause contemplating ambiguous pre-deposit condition is violative of Article 14: Supreme Court holds in a Section 11(6) application

Introduction

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its recent judgment in Lombardi Engineering Ltd. v. State of Uttarakhand[1] adjudicated inter alia upon whether, when deciding an application under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996[2] (“1996 Act”), for appointment of a sole arbitrator, the validity of a pre-deposit condition can be looked into on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution of India?Continue Reading Arbitral clause contemplating ambiguous pre-deposit condition is violative of Article 14: Supreme Court holds in a Section 11(6) application

Background

  • SEBI recently notified the SEBI (Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism) (Amendment) Regulations, 2023, and issued a Master Circular for Online Resolution of Disputes in the Indian Securities Market (‘ODR Master Circular’), extending the conciliation and arbitration mechanism administered by Market Infrastructure Intermediaries (‘MII’) to all specified intermediaries/ regulated entities. Prior to this, MII’s dispute resolution mechanism only covered stock-brokers, depository participants, listed companies and registrars and transfer agents. Investors embroiled in disputes with any other intermediary did not have recourse to this mechanism, but the ODR Master Circular extends it to other intermediaries to streamline the dispute resolution process. Further, the erstwhile system was largely physical, with some online adaptations brought about during the COVID-19 pandemic. As a progressive measure and in line with the recommendations of the committee constituted by the Niti Aayog under Justice Sikri, the dispute resolution process will now be online.

Continue Reading Resolving Securities Disputes in the Digital Age: A Primer on SEBI’s Master Circular for Online Resolution of Disputes in the Indian Securities Market

EXISTENCE AND VALIDITY OF AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE: A DEEP DIVE INTO THE CHANGING PERSPECTIVE ON THE COURT’S INTERVENTION AT THE PRE-ARBITRAL STAGE: PART-II

Duro revalidated in Mayavati Trading

The Supreme Court in a three-Judge Bench decision of Mayavati Trading (P) Ltd. v. Pradyuat Deb Burman[i] (“Mayavati Trading”), considered the impending omission of Section 11(6A) of the Act vide the Amendment Act of 2019. It was conclusively stated that Section 11(6A) is confined to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement and is to be understood in the narrow sense as has been laid down in Duro. The Supreme Court also expressly overruled Antique Exports, recognising that its reasoning relied on the pre-amended position, i.e., before Amendment Act of 2015 introduced Section 11(6A).Continue Reading Existence and Validity of an Arbitration Clause: A Deep Dive into the Changing Perspective on the Court’s Intervention at the Pre-Arbitral Stage: Part 2

The immunity granted under Section 79(1) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“the Act”) to intermediaries, commonly referred to a ‘safe harbour provision’, is not absolute.  Non-compliance with an order under Section 69A is one such instance when the immunity erodes[1].

Section 69A empowers the government to issue directions to government agencies or intermediaries to block public access to any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource, if it falls under any of the grounds of concern mentioned in Section 69A itself (discussed below in detail).Continue Reading The Twitter Verdict: Examining The Efficacy Of Section 69a In The Background Of Karnataka High Court’s Latest Decision