The Supreme Court has held that two companies incorporated in India can choose a forum for arbitration outside India. The question before the Court was: Whether or not two companies incorporated in India can choose a forum for arbitration outside India

The Delhi High Court (HC) held that an arbitral tribunal ought to decide the objection under Section 16 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 as soon as possible, as a preliminary ground. The Court observed, “The statute contemplates that the party raising the objection has to raise it with alacrity and hence by an overall reading of Section 16 and especially

The Supreme Court (SC) on has observed that mere recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to be considered as an offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA). A bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Subash Reddy, and M.R. Shaw observed

A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (HC), has said in a recent order that commercial matters involving Arbitration disputes can only be heard by commercial court of the status of district judge or additional district Judge. The Bench held that

The High Court (HC) bench clarified that in a regular appeal it is open to the Court to embark on a fact-finding exercise, to re-read and re-appraise the evidence, to interpret the documents afresh, and to do all things de novo that the Court of original jurisdiction

It is best if the arbitral tribunal decides on the question of the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. When there is a doubt regarding the validity of an arbitration agreement, the Court must send the matter to the arbitral tribunal

In a recent case, the Supreme Court (SC) has observed that Section 12(5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act r/w the Seventh Schedule, concerning ineligibility of a person to be appointed as an Arbitrator, is a non-derogable and mandatory provision of the Act. While considering the case, the Bench observed that

The Supreme Court has ruled that powers under Articles 226/227 should be used sparingly by High Court (HC) when it comes to interfering with arbitral process. Such power should be exercised only in exceptional rarity, wherein one party is left remediless under the statute or a clear ‘bad faith’ shown by one of the parties.

High Court’s Power Under Article 226/227 To Interfere With Arbitration Process Needs To Be Exercised In Exceptional Rarity: Supreme Court (SC) The Supreme Court (SC) has observed that the power of the High Court (HC)

The Supreme Court (SC) has said tenant-landlord disputes under the Transfer of Property Act can be resolved through Arbitration instead of time-consuming and expensive litigation.
The apex court held that arbitral tribunals have the power to decide such disputes under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. However, such disputes covered and governed