Disputes

After the Gavel Falls: Can the Losing Party Still Seek Interim Relief under Section 9?

Summary: In a landmark 2026 ruling, the Supreme Court of India has decisively reshaped the contours of post‑award interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Departing from the long‑held view that such protection lies only with the winning party, the Court held that even an unsuccessful party may seek interim measures after an arbitral award, provided the case is rare, compelling, and demands judicial restraint. By rejecting the “fruits of the award” doctrine and reaffirming the plain statutory language of “any party,” the judgment restores Section 9 to its full amplitude while carefully safeguarding arbitral finality. This decision marks a pivotal shift in Indian arbitration law, balancing textual fidelity with commercial and procedural realism.

Continue Reading After the Gavel Falls: Can the Losing Party Still Seek Interim Relief under Section 9?
Abandonment of Claims in Arbitration

Summary: This blog examines two recent decisions, Rajiv Gaddh v. Subodh Prakash (Supreme Court) (2026 INSC 302) and Nalin Vallabhbhai Patel v. Atharva Realtors (Bombay High Court)(2026:BHC-OS:7780), which reinforce a practical message for businesses: If a party lets an arbitration lapse through its own inaction (or withdraws a Section 11 request without liberty), courts are unlikely to allow a “reset” by filing a fresh Section 11 application for the same disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Continue Reading Abandonment of Claims in Arbitration

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, or unsuccessful in outcome, could nonetheless shift the limitation trigger from the date of receipt of the award to the date of disposal of the Section 33 request. The Supreme Court in Geojit Financial Services v. Sandeep Gurav (2025) has resolved this conflict by holding that any proper and timely Section 33 application, regardless of outcome or scope, defers limitation to the date of its disposal.

Continue Reading When Does the Clock Start? Section 33 Applications and the Limitation Trigger Under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act
Sanctions Compliance Beyond the 50% Rule: A Practical Guide for Indian Businesses

Summary: The 50% ownership rule has always been the cornerstone of sanctions compliance offering apparent certainty to entities navigating complex cross-border transactions. However, in recent years, global regulators have started looking beyond the ownership percentage, scrutinizing effective control and influence to determine sanctions exposure. This piece examines the evolving sanctions landscape across the US, UK & EU and provides Indian businesses with a practical, risk-based compliance framework to align with international enforcement expectations.

Continue Reading Sanctions Compliance Beyond the 50% Rule: A Practical Guide for Indian Businesses
Settling The Clash Between The Public Premises Act And State Rent Control Laws

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
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