
A Curative Stitch in Time Saved Delhi Metro Eight Thousand Crore Rupees: A Landmark Judgment on Arbitration in India
by Sanjeev Kumar* and Anshul Sehgal**
by Sanjeev Kumar* and Anshul Sehgal**
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 7, 34 and 37 — Arbitration agreement — Bindingness of, on non-signatory — Group of Companies Doctrine
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 11(6) — Limited scope of jurisdiction of Court
“Let us collectively translate this wisdom into action and showcase the best legal template to the 21st-century world.”
The arbitration would take place under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre and would abide by its rules and regulations.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 11, 8 and 11 — Parties to arbitration proceedings — Arbitration agreement/clause
by Abhisaar Bairagi*, Milind Sharma** and Ausaf Ayyub***
by Vasanth Rajasekaran* and Harshvardhan Korada**
Conversion rate of foreign currency for computation of awarded amount must be considered
The Court observed that though the appellant contended that the net worth of the company is Rs.91 crores and is not a fly-by-night company, no physical assets or any other alternative security is provided either before the Single Judge or before the present Court.
In association with ProUltimus Consulting, PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PHDCCI) organised the conference on ‘Dispute Resolution & Arbitration Norms for Construction & Infrastructure Sectors’.
Top arbitration cases on unilateral appointment, seat of arbitration, limitation period, scope of judicial scrutiny and more.
The Court had ordered the attachment of the Bikaner House to enforce payment since neither did the Nagar Palika of the State of Rajasthan comply with the court order to file an affidavit of assets nor did it pay the petitioner per the arbitral award.
The Nagar Palika of the State of Rajasthan failed to comply with court order to file an affidavit of assets despite being given multiple opportunities and failed to pay the petitioner in accordance with the arbitral award.
by Ameya Gokhale* and Renjith Nair**
by Vasanth Rajasekaran* and Harshvardhan Korada**
“We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of either party including regarding the arbitrability of the dispute. All contentions and pleas are kept open for the parties to raise before the arbitral tribunal.”
“While applying the principles of Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC to applications under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it must be kept in mind that it will act as a bar to only those applications which are filed subsequent to the withdrawal of a previous Section 11(6) application filed on the basis of the same cause of action.”