data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/89a6f/89a6f31695df850aa07b937f73bf41e3e91878d1" alt="Arbitration Clause in Unstamped or Insufficiently Stamped Agreements Are Enforceable; it is Curable Defect: Supreme Court"
Arbitration Clause in Unstamped or Insufficiently Stamped Agreements Are Enforceable; it is Curable Defect: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court (“SC”) recently, In Re Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 And the Indian Stamp Act, 1899[i] held that arbitration clauses provided under the agreements that are insufficiently
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2fa8c/2fa8c32c0099bff442d7f48e939cdffa7f376dc4" alt="Court Can Act u/s 9 Arbitration Act Despite Unstamped Agreement: Bombay HC"
Court Can Exercise Power u/s 9 of Arbitration Act Even if Arbitration Agreement is Not Duly Stamped: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court (“HC”) in L&T Finance Limited v. Diamond Projects Limited and 4 Other Petitions held that under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (“Act”) there is no need to determine
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/80fa8/80fa8e92d7aa48c29c48b382fd4c6442893d7fe0" alt="Group of Companies Doctrine Applies to Indian Jurisprudence; Can Also Bind non-signatories to Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court"
Group of Companies Doctrine Applies to Indian Jurisprudence; Can Also Bind non-signatories to Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court
A Constitution Bench comprising of Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud (CJI), Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Pamidighantam, Sri Narasimha, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, of the Supreme Court (“SC”) held in the case of Cox
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9e7a1/9e7a1c31512b5d4d930379c7e3628b2d422f5288" alt="Unfold Nuances of Section 9 of Arbitration Act: A Case Study of Vivek Jain v. PrepLadder Pvt. Ltd., Delhi High Court"
Unfold Nuances of Section 9 of Arbitration Act: A Case Study of Vivek Jain v. PrepLadder Pvt. Ltd., Delhi High Court
It was interpreted by the Delhi High Court that the Court exercising its powers under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(‘Arbitration Act’) to secure the amount in dispute or to order attachment
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0fadf/0fadfa749d64d415b2fb2e1da620288388e57396" alt="Court Adjudicating Upon Arbitration Award u/s 34 Holds Power to Recalculate Compensation Granted Under NHAI Act: Allahabad High Court"
Court Adjudicating Upon Arbitration Award u/s 34 Holds Power to Recalculate Compensation Granted Under NHAI Act: Allahabad High Court
Introduction The High Court of Allahabad (“the HC”) in the case of Chandra Kishori (“A1”) v. Union of India Thru. Chairman Of National Highway Authority of India and 2 Others; and Om Prakash (“A2”) v.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ab707/ab707c6ca57e7e509183cd134abc8821c50e0ef9" alt="Sanctioning Profit loss Claim Without Proof Conflicts with Indian Policy"
Sanctioning Claim for Loss of Profit in Absence of Substantial Proof Is in Conflict with Public Policy of India: Apex Court
Introduction In the context of interpreting an award deemed to be patently illegal and conflicting with public policy, the Supreme Court in M/s. Unibros v. All India Radio[1], clarified that a claim for loss of
- Arbitration and Conciliation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy Code – Public Announcements
- Civil
- Commercial litigation
- Commercial/Corporate
- Competition act
- Criminal
- Cyber Law
- Debt Recovery
- Environment
- Family Law
- Food
- IL News
- Infrastructure
- Insolvency & Bankruptcy
- Insurance
- Intellectual Property Rights
- International
- Labour
- Law
- Medico-Legal
- Negotiable Instrument
- NRI Laws
- Policy
- Power
- Real Estate
- Tax