Uncategorized

Overview: The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in the case of Rani Construction v. Union of India (ARB.P. 1011/2023), ruled that arbitral institution membership cannot be mandated as a prerequisite for arbitration. Hon’ble Justice Sachin Datta’s bench clarified that when parties opt for arbitration under an institution, it doesn’t imply automatic membership acceptance. Facts:The dispute arose …

Can an arbitral institution require parties’ membership as a pre-requisite for forming an arbitral tribunal under its rules when parties have agreed to arbitrate under those rules? Read More »

The recent ruling by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of NBCC (India ) Ltd. vs. Zillion Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., reiterated that arbitration cannot be invoked based on an arbitration clause in another contract unless specifically referenced in the main contract. The court reversed the High Court’s decision, stating that parties must settle …

Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasizes Specific Reference for incorporating an arbitration clause in another contract Read More »

In a recent case of M/S Arif Azim Co. Ltd. vs M/S Aptech Ltd, Arbitration Petition No. 29 of 2023, the Supreme Court held that the Limitation Act, 1963, applies to proceedings for appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“A&C Act”). This ruling signifies that if claims exceed the time …

Supreme Court: Arbitral Tribunal Appointment Rejected for Time-Barred S.11(6) Petition or Ex-Facie Time-Barred Claim Read More »

In the case of Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt Ltd. vs Samtel Display Systems Ltd., [O.M.P. 476/2012 & IA No. 5379/2023] the Delhi High Court single bench comprising Justice Sachin Datta held that an arbitral award marked by inherent inconsistencies and internal contradictions is deemed as perverse and patently illegal under Section 34 of the …

Arbitral Award with Inherent Inconsistencies and Internal Contradictions is Perverse and Patently Illegal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Delhi High Court Read More »

Introduction Following the landmark decision of the Supreme Court in Cox & Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd, which extensively discussed the ‘Group of Companies’ doctrine, the Delhi High Court, in the matter of Vingro Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Nitya Shree Developers Pvt. Ltd. (“Vingro Case”), has offered insights into the application of this …

Can a Director of a Disputing Company be Made Party to an Arbitration Proceeding? Read More »

Introduction On January 31, 2024, Paytm, a prominent player in India’s fintech sector, was embroiled in a regulatory crisis when the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) imposed restrictions, effectively halting Paytm Payments Bank from providing core services. The aftermath was swift and severe, with Paytm’s stocks plummeting by 36% within two days, resulting in a …

Paytm’s Regulatory Turbulence: Insights for Navigating India’s Fintech Compliance Landscape Read More »

Introduction: Introduction: The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Delhi, in the case of Vishram Narayan Panchpor, Resolution Professional (RP) of Blue Frog Media Pvt. Ltd. vs Committee of Creditors (CoC) of Blue Frog Media Pvt. Ltd. & Anr, presided over by Justice Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson along with Technical Members Mr. Barun Mitra and …

NCLAT Delhi: Not All Promoters Are Ineligible To Submit a Resolution Plan Read More »

Going by a recent order of the NCLT Chennai bench, in the case of Ashok Magnetics Limited, this critical aspect of the code is likely to be reviewed Since its inception, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) has been hailed as a monumental reform that would help tackle the problem of bad loans plaguing the …

How NCLT Chennai’s order may restrain the freedom of creditors’ panel Read More »

Under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in admitting a petition by a financial creditor is concerned only with the existence of a default of a financial debt, not whether such default is admitted or disputed by the debtor. The Supreme Court in Innoventive Industries v ICICI …

Disputed claims are not defaults under IBC Read More »