Courts’ power to grant interim measures operates only in emergency. The tribunal’s jurisdiction is pre-eminent (Delhi High Court in an ad-interim observation)

     Update by Samarth Madan

Nirbhay Pratap Singh v. Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd & another Court: Delhi High Court | Case Number: OMP (I) (COMM) 275/2020 | Citation: Currently unavailable | Judge: C Hari Shankar J | Date: 11 September 2020 | Available at: Delhi High Court’s website (http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=148288&yr=2020) Though in an ad-interim order, Justice C Hari Shankar of the Delhi High

Continue reading
Categories: Interim measures by court |  Interim measures ordered by arbitral tribunal |  Scope of Section 9 |  Section 17 |  Section 9  

The SIAC Emergency Arbitrator Enforcement Experience

     Blog by Vivekananda N.

An earlier version of this blog was published in the SIAC India Newsletter, Issue No.1 available here.   THE SIAC EA EXPERIENCE About 6 years ago, I penned a short piece on Singapore International Arbitration Centre’s (“SIAC”) experience with the emergency arbitrator (“EA”) provisions which had been introduced in 2010

Continue reading
Categories: Emergency arbitration  |  Emergency Arbitrator |  Emergency Award |  Section 9 |  SIAC  

Formal requirements of an arbitration agreement are satisfied even if it is not signed, but communications establish that the parties are ad idem on the arbitration clause (Delhi High Court)

     Update by Editor

Chaitanya Construction Company v. Delhi Jal Board Court: High Court of Delhi | Case number: OMP (T) (Comm) 35 /2020 | Citation: Not available currently | Bench: Rekha Palli J | Date: 01 September 2020   A. The written form requirements of an arbitration agreement “Like all other types of

Continue reading
Categories: Agreement in writing |  Arbitration agreement  |  Formal validity of arbitration agreements |  Section 7 |  Written arbitration agreement  

Unilateral right of appointing sole arbitrator not valid under the Perkins rule even if the right was not with any individual but the “company” (Delhi High Court)

     Update by Meenakshi K. K.

M/s. OMCON Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Indiabulls Investment Advisors Ltd Court: High Court of Delhi | Case Number: OMP (T) (Comm) 35 /2020 | Citation: Not available currently | Bench: Rekha Palli J | Date: 01 September 2020 Applying the Perkins rule, the Delhi High Court has ruled that a unilateral right

Continue reading
Categories: Appointment of arbitrator |  Entry 1 Seventh Schedule |  Impartiality |  Independence and Impartiality of arbitrator |  Independence of arbitrator |  Neutrality of arbitrator |  Party appointed sole arbitrator |  Party autonomy |  Section 12 |  Section 14 |  Section 15 |  Termination of mandate |  Termination of mandate and substitution of arbitrator |  The Perkins principle  

Once the agreed-procedure fails, the Court can appoint the Presiding Arbitrator. The panel of arbitrators maintained by a body administering arbitration must be broad-based (Delhi High Court)

     Update by Amitabh Abhijit

IRB Ahmedabad Vadodara Super Express Tollway Pvt. Ltd. v. National Highway Authority of India Court: Delhi Hight Court| ARB.P. 860/2019 & IA No.208/2020 | Citation: Not available currently | Bench: Rekha Palli J | Date: 27 August 2020   A single judge of the Delhi High Court appointed the Presiding

Continue reading
Categories: Appointment of arbitrator |  Presiding Arbitrator |  SAROD |  Section 11 (6) |  Section 12 |  Voestalpine principle  

  Older Posts