Our contributing editor, Parimal Kashyap, reviews the judicial developments in 2019 by analysing some important Supreme Court rulings.
In the latest post of our theme based blog series, Vartika Jain identifies the offences proposed to be shifted to in-house adjudication by the Company Law Committee, 2019 and sheds light on the arbitrability of such disputes.
In this article of our theme-based blog posts, Smriti Shukla addresses persisting glitches in the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019, specifically in the context of Section 29A which lays down a mandatory time limit for an arbitral tribunal to render its award in an India-seated arbitration. This article will attempt to examine the Pandora's Box opened by this Section 29A in the act, with the view that it violates newly incorporated Section 42A of the Act which talks about Confidentiality of the arbitral proceedings.
In the second post of our theme-based blog post series, Pranav V Kamnani article seeks to examine the scope for intervention of a court while appointing an arbitrator, the issues that a court must examine before appointing an arbitrator and what are the issues that a court must leave to the wisdom of the tribunal in order to effectuate the principle of ‘Kompetenz Kompetenz’. Through this article, Pranav intends to shed some light to all these complex legal questions that arise during the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
In the first post of our themed based blog posts, Aditya Vyas and Kavya Jha write on impact of the growing trend of considering the host state’s development level on India and similar economies.
On December 10, 2019, the Supreme Court passed a judgment in BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd., delving, yet again, into the seat-venue debate and taking a different viewpoint from the earlier settled law. In this blog post, Anshritha Rai (5th-yr, ILS, Pune) analyses the issues addressed by the court and writes her critical remark over the decision.
Over the course of development of arbitration law in India, a number of debates have come into prominence with respect to the interplay of arbitral tribunals and the established courts. In this post, Siddhant Ahuja (3rd-yr, RMLNLU) analyses the recent decision of the Bombay High Court in Aniket SA Investments LLC v. Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Private Limited & Ors., in an attempt to find the correct interpretation of law relating to the jurisdiction of the court at the designated seat of arbitration and its consequent supervisory jurisdiction.
In this blog post, Martin Kwan (OBOR Legal Research Centre) discusses an important legal method for dealing with institutional arbitral procedures. Less-experienced arbitration lawyers may not be aware of the importance of the guides on arbitral institutional rules, which results in unequal knowledge in arbitral battlefields. By “guides”, the author refers to the publications which discusses the institution’s interpretation, understanding and cases of its rules. Knowing the rules alone is insufficient without also being acquainted with the institution’s interpretations. When institutional procedural decisions are confidential and hence many remain unpublished, the author believes that consulting the relevant guides becomes the most pragmatic means to familiarize oneself with the interpretations.
In this blog post, Ankit Handa (5th-yr, NLUJ) discusses the issue of repeat appointment of arbitrators. While doing so, he analyses the provisions of the 1996 Act through which a party can challenge an arbitrator on the said ground. He has also discussed the HRD Corporation case of the Apex Court which was one of the first cases to deal with the issue and weighs the relevance of disclosure requirements while bringing the challenge.
In this blog post, Prince Todi (3rd yr, HNLU) discusses the recent arrangement entered between HKSAR and the mainland China which enables the parties to Arbitrations seated outside China and administered by eligible arbitral institutions to seek interim measures through an application submitted to the Chinese Courts. The Arrangement makes Hong Kong the first and the only arbitral seat to provide this benefit to International Parties. Further, the Arrangement being reciprocal in nature enables parties to China-seated arbitrations to obtain similar benefit from the Courts in HKSAR. Among other things, the author has attempted to discuss the possible implications of the said arrangement and the complexities to be faced by others in adopting such an arrangement in the future.