For the purpose of arbitration, choice of seat plays a significant role with substantial consequences. Despite this, failure to clearly provide for a seat of arbitration is not uncommon. In absence of a clear statement of seat clause in the arbitration agreement, Indian courts have struggled to demarcate between ‘venue’ and ‘seat’ of arbitration. On this front, the Apex Court settled the position in Hardy Exploration case. However, the Supreme Court decision in Brahmani River Pellets Ltd. v. Kamachi Industries disturbs the established position by failing to demarcate between ‘seat’ and ‘venue’. In this blogpost, Pooja Dhamor and Priyashi Chhajer (3rd yr, NLU-J), discuss how this judgment continues to add on to a series of erroneous extension of the international arbitration principle of ‘exclusive jurisdiction to courts of seat’ to domestic arbitration, thereby leaving Section 42 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act (Amendment) 2015 redundant.

Ever since the dawn of the International law, illegally obtained evidence has been admitted in various forums. One such instance is the much illustrious case of Corfu channel where the U.K., in violation of Albania’s sovereignty, initiated a mine sweeping operation with an intention to gather evidence against Albania. The ICJ acknowledged that the U.K.’s actions were unlawful, but did not exclude the evidence on the basis of its illegal origin. This marked the beginning of a hubbub on the question of admissibility of illegal evidence. The following article, by Devarakonda Venkata Sai Yasaschandra and Siddharth Jain (3rd yr, NLU-O, Cuttack), is an attempt to solidify the principles behind the same.

The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018 is India’s first attempt towards establishing a data protection framework. The Bill has a far-reaching application and provides for an omnibus framework, imposing several obligations on the processing of personal data by entities including juristic ones. Further, the use of comprehensive definitions means that almost all arbitral activities involving personal data that either identify or could identify an individual are likely to be caught by the Bill. This blog post by Rishi Sehgal (5th yr, RMLNLU, Lucknow) seeks to address the application and impact of the proposed framework on arbitration proceedings both domestic and international.

The Rajya Sabha has recently passed the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2019, which proposes many fruitful changes to India’s Arbitration regime, most notably, protection of confidential information. While the intent and purpose of introducing such a provision for the protection of confidentiality in arbitration is indeed benevolent, major concerns arise regarding its implementation and implications on arbitration proceedings and public order. This blogpost, by Shiv Verma (4th yr, NLU-J), discusses the significance of the proposed Section 42A and its possible consequences.