Article 137 of Limitation Act


The Bombay High Court in a recent judgment considered whether a Court[1], within whose jurisdiction arbitration takes place, which also has supervisory jurisdiction over arbitration (“Arbitral Court”), can entertain application for execution of arbitral award,

Article 137 of Limitation Act

Court Can’t Appoint Arbitrator, if the Agreement containing arbitration clause is inadequately stamped

The Hon’ble Supreme Court presided by a division bench of J. R.F. Nariman and J. Vineet Saran in Garware Ropes Ltd. v. Coastal Marine Constructions & Engineering Ltd.[1] examined the effect of an arbitration clause

Article 137 of Limitation Act

Applications for interim reliefs and appointment of arbitrator are maintainable even if arbitration agreement is insufficiently stamped

The Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in a recent judgment in Gautam Landscapes Private Limited Vs Shailesh S Shah and others[1] held that a court can entertain applications under section 9 of the

Article 137 of Limitation Act

Supreme Court Settles Jurisdictional Issues in execution of arbitration awards

In a much awaited judgment, the Supreme Court bench consisting of J. Chelameswar and J. Sanjay Kishan Kaul in Sundaram Finance Limited v. Abdul Samad & Anr[1] resolved a long standing debate as to whether

Article 137 of Limitation Act

No Separate application is required, when the jurisdiction of the court is questioned on the ground of arbitration clause: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court (“High Court”) in its recent judgment in Parasramka Holding Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Ambience Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.[1] held that formal application under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation

Arbitrator cannot award Pre-Award Interest if the Terms of the Agreement Prohibits such Interest

The Supreme Court in its recent judgment decided by J. Chelameswar and J. Abdul Nazeer in Sri. Chittaranjan Maity v. Union of India[1] held that arbitrator cannot grant interest for the period between the date

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10