top of page
_edited.png)
Arbitration agreement travels with assignment where assignee steps into original lender's shoes and borrower acts upon it: Bombay high court
Arbitration agreements remain valid through assignments, allowing assignees to assume the original lender's role, as confirmed by the Bombay High Court. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Sitaram Energy and Logistics Ltd. Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 4019 HC Court: High Court of Bombay Case No.: Comm Arbitration Petition (L) No. 5535 of 2025 with Comm Arbitration Petition (L) No. 5944 of 2025 Decided on: 23-Jul-26 Coram: Mr. Justice Amit Borkar The Bombay High Court has held that wher
Supreme court sets aside high court order, directs connected article 227 petitions on section 9 jurisdiction be heard together
Supreme Court Overturns High Court Decision, Orders Joint Hearing for Article 227 Petitions Related to Section 9 Jurisdiction. Case Details Case Title: Khajuraho Greens LLP and Ors. v. Bestco Cables Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 8995 of 2026 (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 21642/2026) Coram: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran The Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Allahabad High Court and directed that two connected petitions filed
Non-signatory bound by identical share purchase agreement clauses applicable to other signatories is a veritable party to arbitration agreement: Supreme court
Supreme Court Rules Non-Signatories Are Bound by Arbitration Clauses in Identical Share Purchase Agreements. KKH Finvest Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Ashiesh Shukla and Ors. | Civil Appeal No. 10056 of 2026 | Supreme Court of India | Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva | Decided on August 5, 2026 Background The Supreme Court examined whether a non-signatory to a Memorandum of Settlement (MoS) could be treated as a veritable party to the arbitration agreement contained
The fee fixation principle: Arbitrators cannot unilaterally revise their remuneration
Arbitration Insight: Understanding the Fee Fixation Principle and the limitation on arbitrators from unilaterally revising their remuneration. Background In Chennai Metro Rail Limited v. Transtonnel stroy Afcons JV, (2024) 6 SCC 211, the Supreme Court was called upon to examine two related questions: first, whether a tribunal could unilaterally revise its fee after it had been fixed by agreement with all parties; and second, whether such revision, when insisted upon by the t
Rescuing the Expired Mandate: Supreme Court on Section 29A Extensions
Supreme Court Reviews Section 29A Extensions: Addressing Expired Mandates with Judicial Insight. Background Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 prescribes a twelve-month period from the completion of pleadings for an arbitral tribunal to deliver its award in domestic arbitrations. Parties may by consent extend this by a further six months under Section 29A(3). Beyond eighteen months, only a court can grant further time, upon sufficient cause shown. The q
bottom of page