Category: Anti-arbitration injunction 

The provisions in the SIAC Rules for emergency arbitration do not violate Indian laws (Delhi High Court)

     Update by Editor

­Future Retail Limited v. Amazon.Com Investment Holdings LLC and others Court: Delhi High Court| Case number: CS (Comm) 493 of 2020 | Citation: 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1636 |Bench: Mukta Gupta J | Date: 21 December 2020 | Final or interim decision: Interim Appellate proceedings: Appeal filed by Amazon pending

 Continue reading
Categories: Anti-arbitration injunction  |  Balance of convenience |  Conditions for grant of interim injunction |  Control |  Emergency arbitration  |  Emergency Award |  Interim injunction |  Interim measures |  Interim relief  |  Irreparable loss |  Multi-brand retail |  Prima facie case |  Schedule I |  Section 9 CPC |  SIAC Rules |  Tortious interference |  Ubi jus ibi remedium  

Civil courts have the power to grant an anti-arbitration injunction, but sparingly, and in line with principles outlined in paragraph 24 of Modi Entertainment Network

     Update by Simran Patel

Balasore Alloys Limited v. Medima LLC Court: Bombay High Court | Case Number: CS No. 59 of 2020 (Ad-interim order)| Citation: Not currently available | Judge: Shekhar B Saraf J | Date: 12 August 2020 | Available at: Bombay High Court’s website Disagreeing with Rajiv Sahai Endlaw J’s decision in

 Continue reading
Categories: Anti-arbitration injunction  |  Arbitrability |  Competence Competence |  Kompetenz-kompetenz |  Nonarbitrability |  Section 16 |  Who decides question?  

Proceedings by lawyer for recovery of money amounts to a commercial relationship under Section 44 ACA. (Delhi High Court)

     Update by Simran Patel

Spentex Industries Ltd. v. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP  Court: High Court of Delhi | Case Number: CS (OS) 568 of 2017 | Citation: Not currently available | Judge: Jayant Nath J| Date: 12 May 2020 | Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/28419108/   A. THE BACKGROUND Spentex Industries, an Indian company,

 Continue reading
Categories: Anti arbitration suit |  Anti-arbitration injunction  |  Arbitration agreement  |  Commercial |  Commercial under the law in force in India |  Incapable of being performed |  Inoperative |  Null and void |  Power of judicial authority to refer parties to arbitration |  Section 44 |  Section 45  

A suit for an anti-arbitration injunction on the ground that the arbitrator does not have jurisdiction is not maintainable given the Supreme Court’s decision in Kvaerner Cementation India Limited v. Bajranglal Agarwal (2012) 5 SCC 215. It is a matter for the arbitrator to decide. (Delhi High Court) (currently before a division bench in appeal)

     Updates by Editor

Dr Bina Modi v. Lalit Modi and others, CS(OS) 84/2020 Delhi High Court; single-judge bench, Rajiv Sahai Endlaw J.; Decided on 3 March 2020   A. PREFACE: SEEKING ANTI-ARBITRATION INJUNCTION ON THE GROUND THAT DISPUTE IS NOT ARBITRABLE–RELYING ON VIMAL KISHOR SHAH AND VIDYA DROLIA CASE. The question before the High

 Continue reading
Categories: Anti-arbitration injunction  |  Arbitrability |  Competence Competence |  Kompetenz-kompetenz |  Nonarbitrability |  Section 16 |  Who decides question?