All Posts

Exploring the 'Endless Reminders Trap': How Settlement Discussions Fail to Revive Time-Barred Arbitration Claims. B and T AG v. Ministry of Defence | Supreme Court of India | Arbitration Petition No. 13 of 2023 | Decided on 18.05.2023 In a significant ruling on limitation law in arbitration, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a petition for appointment of an arbitrator filed by B and T AG, a Swiss arms manufacturer, against the Ministry of Defence. The Court held that the

Exploring the Supreme Court's Strict Deadline for Challenging Arbitral Awards: "One Day Late, One Case Lost" - A Critical Analysis by adrEdge. Time limits in arbitration law are not mere procedural formalities. The legislature has drawn them tightly, and the Supreme Court of India has consistently refused to permit litigants to stretch them through creative use of the general law of limitation. The decision in State of West Bengal v. Rajpath Contractors and Engineers Ltd., d

Supreme Court Ruling on Arbitration: Arbitrators Can Grant Post-Award Interest on Principal Alone in Morgan Securities v. Videocon Industries. A question that has long troubled arbitration practitioners in India concerns the scope of an arbitrator's discretion when awarding post-award interest. Must the arbitrator always apply the statutory rate of eighteen percent on the entire awarded sum, including pre-award interest? Or does the arbitrator retain the freedom to tailor the

Supreme Court Ruling Highlights Importance of Mediation in Legal Proceedings: "You Cannot Fake Urgency to Skip Mediation" in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi Case. In a significant ruling for the alternative dispute resolution landscape, the Supreme Court of India has made clear that plaintiffs in commercial suits cannot manufacture a prayer for urgent interim relief simply to sidestep the mandatory pre-litigation mediation requirement under Section 12A of the Commercial Cou

"Exploring the Implications of the Section 9 Bar: Understanding Civil Court Limitations Post-Tribunal Constitution with adrEdge." ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. v. Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd.  | Supreme Court of India | Civil Appeal No. 5700 of 2021 | Decided: 14.09.2021 The moment an arbitral tribunal is constituted, a civil court's power to entertain a fresh application for interim relief is not merely curtailed. It is effectively suspended, unless the applicant can dem

Supreme Court's Constitution Bench Resolves Group of Companies Doctrine, Addressing Non-Signatory Binding Issues. Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.  | Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench) | Arbitration Petition (Civil) No. 38 of 2020 | Decided: 06.12.2023 Can a company that never signed an arbitration agreement be pulled into arbitration proceedings? And can a parent company be bound by an agreement signed only by its subsidiary? A five-judge Constitut

Supreme Court Decision Clarifies Arbitrator Appointment Deadlines Under Section 11. M/s. Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Aptech Ltd.  | Supreme Court of India | Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 How long does a party have to knock on the court's door when the other side refuses to appoint an arbitrator? The Supreme Court has now answered this with clarity: three years, and not a day more. In a significant ruling that tidies up one of arbitration law's long-stan

Understanding the Critical Role of the Arbitration Seat in Preventing Forum-Shopping: Ensuring Jurisdictional Stability. BBR (India) Private Limited v. S.P. Singla Constructions Private Limited, Civil Appeal Nos. 4130-4131 of 2022, decided on 18 May 2022 Picture this. An NBFC headquartered in Mumbai disburses a digital loan to a borrower in Kerala. The borrower defaults. Arbitration is invoked. The entire proceeding, hearings, cross-examination, arguments, happens over video

Supreme Court Deliberates on Forged Arbitration Agreements in Rajia Begum v. Barnali Mukherjee Case. INTRODUCTION In March 2026, the Supreme Court of India drew a line that every arbitration practitioner must understand. In Rajia Begum v. Barnali Mukherjee & Ors.  (2026 INSC 106), The Court ruled that when a party alleges the arbitration agreement itself is forged, not merely that a fraud occurred within the underlying contract that no arbitrator can be appointed and no refer

The Supreme Court clarifies the precise commencement of arbitration proceedings, providing much-needed guidance. INTRODUCTION There is a deceptively simple question at the heart of many arbitration disputes in India: when, exactly, does the arbitration begin? It sounds straightforward. But for banks, NBFCs, and corporate litigants holding a pre-arbitration court order under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, getting this date wrong can cost them everythi

Supreme Court Clarifies: Arbitrator Substitution Not Automatic Post-Mandate Expiry under Section 29A, Outlining Judicial Powers. Introduction Time-bound arbitration was introduced in India with the objective of curbing delays and improving the efficiency of arbitral proceedings. Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, inserted by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, mandates the completion of arbitral proceedings within a prescribed perio

Supreme Court Decision on Forgery and Fraud: Clarifying Court Involvement Before Arbitration Proceedings. INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court of India, in Rajia Begum v. Barnali Mukherjee & Ors.  (2026 INSC 106), has delivered a significant and clarificatory judgment on the interplay between allegations of forgery, fraud, and the doctrine of arbitrability under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court was confronted with a situation where the same High Court, on ident

Gavel and Scales Highlight Key Arbitration Ruling: "Substantial Financial Interest Alone Cannot Bind a Non-Signatory," says IIT Mandi v. CPWD Decision. Introduction The jurisprudence surrounding the impleadment of non-signatories in arbitration has witnessed significant evolution in recent years, particularly after the Constitution Bench decision in Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd.  The present judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Indian Institute of Te

Supreme Court Clarifies: Only Civil Courts Can Extend Arbitral Tribunal Mandates Under Section 29A. Only the Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction Can Extend the Mandate of an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 29A: Supreme Court Settles the Law Questions of Law Referred to the Division Bench The Supreme Court in Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule & Ors.  (2026 INSC 92) was called upon to resolve a significant jurisdictional controversy that had resulted in inconsistent approach

Introduction The interface between the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 continues to generate complex jurisdictional questions, particularly in matters concerning enforcement of arbitral awards arising out of international commercial arbitration seated in India. One such crucial question is namely, which court is the proper forum for enforcement of a domestic arbitral award rendered in an international commercial arbitration which has

adrEdge: Leading the Way in Financial Recovery with India's Premier ODR Platform In the high-stakes world of Indian finance, time is literally money. For Banks, NBFCs, and HFCs, every day a loan remains in default is a day that capital is locked, NPAs rise, and profitability erodes. Traditional litigation has long been the bottleneck. With millions of cases clogging Indian courts, recovery can take years. The solution is Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) , but not all ODR platf

Introduction The enforcement of foreign arbitral awards remains one of the most critical pillars supporting India’s credibility as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. While legislative reforms and judicial pronouncements have consistently signalled a pro-enforcement stance, enforcement proceedings often encounter resistance through procedural objections, particularly on limitation and public policy. In IMAX Corporation v. E-City Entertainment (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. , the

Introduction The Rajasthan High Court’s ruling in Kingsroad Handelsges M.B.H. v. Raj Grow Impex LLP (S.B. Arbitration Application No. 69 of 2022, decided on 17 October 2024) marks a significant reaffirmation of India’s pro-enforcement stance in cross-border arbitration. The judgment, concerning the enforcement of a London-seated GAFTA Appeal Award , underscores the narrow scope of judicial interference under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996  (“the Act”) and India’s

Introduction The question of whether multiple agreements forming part of the same commercial transaction can be referred to a single arbitration continues to arise frequently in complex commercial arrangements. The Gujarat High Court, in its CAV judgment dated 13 September 2024 in Adani Enterprise Ltd v. M/s SMS Carbon & Minerals Pvt. Ltd.  (C/ARBI.P/76/2023), delivered a detailed exposition on this issue, reaffirming the principle that arbitration must be interpreted in a co

Background and Prior Proceedings The case centered on the execution of an Arbitral Award dated September 26, 2000, which had undergone a complex series of judicial modifications 3 . Initially, the Award directed the Judgment Debtor (BSNL) to pay the Decree Holder (BWL Limited) a sum of Rs. 6,07,56,342/-, inclusive of interest at 18.5% per annum compounded quarterly. The Award was subsequently set aside by a Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court under Section 34 of the Act.