top of page
_edited.png)
Bombay high court appoints receiver to trace hypothecated construction equipment, declines bank account attachment in section 9 petition
Bombay High Court Appoints Receiver for Hypothecated Equipment, Rejects Bank Account Attachment Request in Section 9 Petition. Tata Capital Ltd. v. Jain Globals and Ors. Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 4173 HC Court: High Court of Bombay Case No.: Comm Arbitration Petition (L) No. 8727 of 2026 (with 23 connected petitions) Decided on: 28-Jul-26 Coram: Mr. Justice Amit Borkar The Bombay High Court has held that while a financier is entitled to interim protection for tracing and pre
Emden formula, being a construction contract tool, cannot be applied to assess damages in dealership agreements: Madras high court
Madras High Court Rules Emden Formula Not Applicable for Dealership Agreement Damages Assessment. Case Title: Hyundai Motor India Ltd. v. St. Antonys Cars Pvt. Ltd. Case Number: OSA No. 38 of 2021 | Madras High Court | Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi The Madras High Court has set aside an arbitral award to the extent it awarded damages to a former automobile dealer by applying the Emden formula, holding that the formula, being confined to comput
Supreme court disposes of SLP against arbitrator's order on stay of proceedings amid IBC moratorium plea, keeps issues open
Supreme Court Finalizes Decision on SLP Related to Arbitrator's Stay of Proceedings, Maintaining Flexibility Amid IBC Moratorium Issue. Case Details Case Title: Umesh Bajaj v. Amit Khaneja and Anr. Coram: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran The Supreme Court has disposed of a Special Leave Petition filed against an order of an Arbitrator on a plea for stay of arbitral proceedings on account of interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankrupt
Delhi high court upholds Rs. 662 crore arbitral award in favour of Toyo engineering-L&T consortium, dismisses IOCL's section 34 challenge
Delhi High Court affirms Rs. 662 crore arbitral award favoring Toyo Engineering-L&T consortium, dismissing IOCL's Section 34 challenge in a landmark decision. Case Title: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Toyo Engineering Corporation and Anr. Coram: Justice Amit Bansal The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging an arbitral award dated 11th March, 2019, whereby a con
120-day timeline under order VIII rule 1 CPC applies to plaintiff's written statement to counter-claim in commercial suits: supreme court
Supreme Court Enforces 120-Day Timeline for Plaintiff's Written Response to Counter-Claims in Commercial Disputes. Case Title: A.K. Ghosh & Company and Ors. v. Biman Bose and Ors. The Supreme Court has held that the mandatory 120-day timeframe prescribed under the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as applicable to commercial suits under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, also governs the filing of a written statement by a plaintiff to a defenda
The Section 9 Bar: Once a Tribunal is Constituted, the Civil Court Door Shuts
"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
The Section 11 Deadline: Supreme Court Settles the Limitation Clock for Arbitrator Appointment
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
bottom of page