Nishant Gupta

Nishant Gupta
Email Address
First Name
Last Name
Nishant is with the Updates team at NFRAL. He is a final year student at Campus Law Center, Faculty of Law, Delhi University. During his mix of internships, Nishant has had a chance to explore arbitration and commercial laws. He regularly follows the latest decisions and developments in arbitration.

Recent Post by Nishant Gupta

Mere expression “place of arbitration” is not determinative of the “seat” of arbitration. The intention of the parties as to the “seat” should be determined from other clauses in the agreement and the conduct of the parties. (Supreme Court of India)

Mankastu Impex Private Limited v AirVisual Limited 2020 SCC OnLine SC 301 Supreme Court of India; 3-judge bench, R Banumathi, AS Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy JJ, decided on 05 March 2020   A.  THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CLAUSE Mankastu, an Indian company, and AirVisual, a Hong Kong company, had a memorandum

Continue reading

Party appointed sole arbitrator is ineligible in view of the Supreme Court’s 2-judge bench decision in Perkins case; the 3-judge bench decision in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification distinguished (Delhi High Court)(20 January 2020)

Proddatur Cable TV Digi Services v. SITI Cable Network Limited, O.M.P (T) (COMM.) 109/2019 Delhi High Court; single-judge bench, Jyoti Singh J.; Decided on 20.01.2020 An agreement of August 2015 between the parties provided for resolution of disputes by a sole arbitrator appointed by Siti Cable (defined in the arbitration

Continue reading

Seat is akin to exclusive jurisdiction (Delhi High Court)

Dipankar Singh and others v. Union of India through National Highway Authority of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11121 Delhi High Court; single-judge bench, V. Kameswar Rao J.; decided on 15 November 2019   The petitioners’ land was notified for acquisition under the National Highway Act, 1956 (“NHA”). The competent

Continue reading

Standard for setting aside award; Grounds under section 34 to set aside an award are not attracted if the tribunal’s finding is plausible, neither perverse nor contrary to evidence (Supreme Court)

The State of Jharkhand and others v. M/s HSS Integrated SDN and another, Special Leave to Appeal (sic Special Leave Petition) (C) No. 13117 of 2019 (non-reportable) Supreme Court, 2-judge bench, Arun Mishra and M.R. Shah, JJ.; decided on 18 October 2019   HSS Integrated and VKS Infra tech Management

Continue reading