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  

Only serious allegations of fraud are not arbitrable. Serious allegations arise only if either of the two tests laid down in Ayyasamy—explained in Rashid Raza case and further described in this case-are satisfied.

     Update by Prashant Mishra

Avitel Post Studioz Limited and others v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius Limited) and HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius Limited) v. Avitel Post Studioz Limited and others Court: Supreme Court of India | Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 5145 of 2016 and Civil Appeal No. 5158 of 2016 | Citation: 2020 SCC

Continue reading
Categories: Arbitrability |  Arbitrability of fraud |  Nonarbitrability  

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?  

Power to grant interim relief should not be exercised before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal unless the matter cannot await the constitution

     Update by Editor

Avantha Holdings Limited v. Vistra ITCL India Limited Court: Delhi High Court | Case Number: OMP (I) COMM 177 of 2020 | Citation: Not currently available | Judge: C Hari Shankar J | Date: 14 August 2020 | Available at: Delhi High Court’s website [http://164.100.69.66/jsearch/] (“inadvertent clerical errors” corrected by

Continue reading
Categories: Interim measures by court |  Scope of Section 9 |  Section 9  

Is change of counsel a sufficient cause to condone delay in filing a set-aside application? A case comment on Delhi High Court’s Chintels India Limited v. Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd.

     Case Comment by Gunjan Soni , Khushbu Turki

Court: Delhi High Court | Case Number: OMP (COMM) 444/2019 | Citation:  MANU/DE/1163/2020 | Judge: Jyoti Singh J | Date: 4 June 2020   Can change in counsel be a ‘sufficient cause’ to condone delay under Section 34(3) ACA? On 4 June 2020, a single-judge bench of the Delhi High Court answered in

Continue reading
Categories: Application for setting aside award |  Condonation of delay |  Limitation |  Limitation for setting aside |  Section 34 |  Section 34(3) |  Sufficient cause  

  Newer Posts      Older Posts