top of page
_edited.png)
Securing an award before it exists: Ingram micro v. best hawk infosystems under section 9.
Legal Insights: Understanding the Precedent in Ingram Micro v. Best Hawk Infosystems Under Section 9. Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. v. Best Hawk Infosystems Pvt. Ltd., Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 23653 of 2026, Bombay High Court (Amit Borkar, J.), decided on 9 October 2026 The Bombay High Court examined an important question in arbitration: can a court direct a party to secure a disputed monetary claim when its financial condition raises concerns about the enforcem
Supreme court: High court cannot remit section 37 appeal to arbitral tribunal to be treated as section 17 application, even by consent
Supreme Court Clarifies Limitations: High Court Cannot Remit Section 37 Appeals to Arbitral Tribunals as Section 17 Applications, Even with Consent. Case Title: Union of India and Ors. v. Hariom Projects Pvt. Ltd. Coram: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 649 SC (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 33087 of 2026, decided on 18 September 2026) The Supreme Court has held that a High Court, while exercising statutory appella
Arbitrator has no power to appoint advocate commissioner for collecting evidence, power under section 17 subject to bar in sections 26 and 27: Kerala high court
Kerala High Court Rules Arbitrators Cannot Appoint Advocate Commissioners for Evidence Collection; Legal Powers Limited Under Section 17, as Barred by Sections 26 and 27. Case Title: DLF Southern Towns Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Deo and Anr. Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 4484 HC Coram: Justice Easwaran S. The Kerala High Court has held that an Arbitral Tribunal does not have the power to appoint an advocate commissioner to collect evidence, and that the power to grant interim measures
bottom of page