DISPUTES REGARDING NON-PAYMENT OF DUES CANNOT BE REFERRED TO ARBITRATION AS IT IS SIMPLY A CASE OF RECOVERY: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HC

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in a recent judgment1 held that when the dispute between the parties relates to a case of simpliciter non-payment of dues it cannot be said to

HC: Section 47 of CPC Cannot Be Applicable While Executing Arbitral Awards States Tripura High Court

The Hon’ble High Court of Tripura in its recent judgment1 passed on December 2022 held that Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) is not applicable to the execution of an arbitration

Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would apply to International Commercial Arbitration, where the place of Arbitration is outside India: States Calcutta High Court

In a recent judgment1, the Calcutta High Court held that even if the parties select the arbitration to be foreign seated, the intelligible comprehension cannot be that expressly or impliedly, merely by such selection, powers

PENDENCY OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 17 OF THE SARFAESI ACT DOES NOT BAR INITIATION OF ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS STATES DELHI HC

In a recent judgment1 the High Court of Delhi, in a Section 11 Petition, held that the initiation of the arbitration proceedings cannot be barred merely because the Petitioner has taken steps for recovery/possession of

THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN THE WORK ORDERS/CONSULTING AGREEMENTS WOULD NOT BE BINDING IF MOU, BEING BASE OF THE CLAIM DOES NOT INCLUDE AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE: STATES PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

In a recent judgment1 the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh held that if the claim is based particularly and exclusively on a Memorandum of Understanding, which does not include an arbitration clause,

SUPREME COURT STATES THAT A PETITION TO SET ASIDE AN ARBITRAL AWARD CAN BE FILED BEFORE A HC ONLY IF IT POSSESSES ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

The Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgment1 passed by the Bench comprising of Justice M.R. SHAH and Justice M.M. SUNDRESH, held that in absence of a High Court having original jurisdiction, the concerned

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10