Tag: Arbitration
-
Supreme Court Clarifies RBI Approval under FEMA Not Needed to Satisfy Arbitral Awards
[Anirudh Gotety is an international disputes and commercial disputes lawyer currently based in New Delhi] This August, the Supreme Court of India (the “SCI”) pronounced its Judgment in GPE (India) Ltd v. Twarit Consultancy Services Pvt Ltd, holding that payment to satisfy arbitral awards which grant damages for the breach of a put option in favour of
-
Jurisdictional Overreach and the Illusion of Equity: A Critique of the Delhi High Court’s Intervention in EPI v. MSA Global
[Saksham Agrawal is a third-year B.A., LLB, Hons., student at National Law School of India University, Bangalore] In Engineering Projects India Ltd v. MSA Global LLC (25 July 2025), the Delhi High Court issued an anti-arbitration injunction restraining the continuation of an ICC arbitration seated in Singapore. The judgment purports to protect the integrity of the arbitral process
-
When “Full and Final” is Not Final: Supreme Court on Economic Duress and Arbitration
[Anmol Jain is a fourth year B.Com LLB (Hons.) student at Institute of Law, Nirma University] On 6 May 2025, the Supreme Court in Arabian Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. delivered a judgment that decisively strengthened India’s pro-arbitration stance. The case dealt with a practical but contentious issue: whether signing a discharge voucher in “full
-
Enforceability of a Term Sheet: Delhi High Court in OYO vs Zostel Hospitality
[Arjim Jain and Shruti Asati are 5th Year B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) students at National Law University, Odisha] In commercial transactions, especially those involving mergers, acquisitions, and venture capital funding, a “term sheet” plays a pivotal role in outlining the contours of the intended arrangement. While these documents often mark a significant milestone in negotiations, their legal enforceability remains a
-
The Slippery Slope of Modification: Justice, Autonomy, and the Gayatri Balasamy Ruling (Part- II)
[Shyamal Anand is a Principal Associate at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co and Pranjal Kushwaha is a 5th Year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) Student at National Law Institute University, Bhopal] Having outlined the majority’s reasoning and its rationale in Part I, the discussion now turns to a critical but constructive examination of the broader implications of the Gayatri Balasamy ruling. While the
-
The Slippery Slope of Modification: Justice, Autonomy, and the Gayatri Balasamy Ruling (Part- I)
[Shyamal Anand is a Principal Associate at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co and Pranjal Kushwaha is a 5th Year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) Student at National Law Institute University, Bhopal] India’s arbitration regime aspires to position itself as a leading global hub, promising efficiency, finality, and investor trust. Yet, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd. intended
-
Modifying Arbitral Awards: Is Balasamy a Cure Worse than the Disease?
[Pallav Mongia is a dual-qualified lawyer, and an empanelled arbitrator, practising before the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court and Prince Todi is an advocate practising before the Supreme Court and Bombay High Court] After a stream of divergent and contrasting judicial precedents on whether Indian courts are jurisdictionally empowered to modify arbitral awards, a five-judge Constitution Bench of
-
Rewriting the Rules: Why India Must Embrace Unilateral Option Clauses in Arbitration
[Rishab Chand and Rachit Prakash Mathur are 4th year students at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore] The recent Bombay High Court decision in Tata Capital Ltd. v. Vijay Devji Aiya has reignited the debate on the validity of Unilateral Option Clauses (“UOCs”) in arbitration agreements. While the Court held that UOCs are incompatible with principles of fairness and
-
Interpreting Post-Award Interest: Between Statutory Silence and Judicial Pragmatism
[Vriddhi Galada is a 3rd-year student at Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur] Arbitration is an ever-evolving field, continually shaped by judicial interpretation and legislative amendments to meet the demand of modern dispute resolution. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) was enacted with the objective of determining and limiting the scope of judicial intervention in arbitration proceedings and
-
Impleading Subsequent Transferees to Arbitrations
[Anushka Kanabar is a third-year student at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore] The conception of parties “claiming through or under” parties to an arbitration agreement has undergone a significant evolution since the Supreme Court judgement in Cox and Kings v. SAP India. Appearing in sections 8, 35, 45, 54, and 73 of the Arbitration
