Tag: Arbitration Act
![Partner of Partnership Firm Can't Solely Refer A Dispute To Arbitration In Absence of Other Partners: Bombay High Court](https://www.indialaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Bombay-HC-Partner-Alone-Cant-Arbitrate-Dispute-600x324.png)
Partner of Partnership Firm Can’t Solely Refer A Dispute To Arbitration In Absence of Other Partners: Bombay High Court
The High Court of Bombay (HC) in Shailesh Ranka and Ors. v. Windsor Machines Limited & Ors.[i] held that a firm’s partner cannot solely decide and initiate arbitration proceedings without the consent of the other
![Arbitration Clause in Unstamped or Insufficiently Stamped Agreements Are Enforceable; it is Curable Defect: Supreme Court](https://www.indialaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Unstamped-Agreements-Enforceable-Curable-Defect-Supreme-Court-600x324.png)
Arbitration Clause in Unstamped or Insufficiently Stamped Agreements Are Enforceable; it is Curable Defect: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court (“SC”) recently, In Re Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 And the Indian Stamp Act, 1899[i] held that arbitration clauses provided under the agreements that are insufficiently
![Unfold Nuances of Section 9 of Arbitration Act: A Case Study of Vivek Jain v. PrepLadder Pvt. Ltd., Delhi High Court](https://www.indialaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Unfold-Nuances-of-Section-9-of-Arbitration-Act-A-Case-Study-of-Vivek-Jain-v.-PrepLadder-Pvt.-Ltd.-Delhi-High-Court--600x324.png)
Unfold Nuances of Section 9 of Arbitration Act: A Case Study of Vivek Jain v. PrepLadder Pvt. Ltd., Delhi High Court
It was interpreted by the Delhi High Court that the Court exercising its powers under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(‘Arbitration Act’) to secure the amount in dispute or to order attachment
![Sanctioning Profit loss Claim Without Proof Conflicts with Indian Policy](https://www.indialaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Sanctioning-Profit-loss-Claim-Without-Proof-Conflicts-with-Indian-Policy-600x324.png)
Sanctioning Claim for Loss of Profit in Absence of Substantial Proof Is in Conflict with Public Policy of India: Apex Court
Introduction In the context of interpreting an award deemed to be patently illegal and conflicting with public policy, the Supreme Court in M/s. Unibros v. All India Radio[1], clarified that a claim for loss of
![Supreme Court allows retrospective application of the amended S.29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996](https://www.indialaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Supreme-Court-allows-retrospective-application-of-the-amended-S.29-A-of-the-Arbitration-and-Conciliation-Act-1996-600x324.jpg)
Supreme Court allows retrospective application of the amended S.29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
The Hon’ble Supreme Court (“the SC”) in the matter of Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Tata Sons Ltd.) versus Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd. & Ors. settles law on retrospective applicability of amended S.29A of
![Assignee can invoke arbitration clause Bombay High Court](https://www.indialaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Assignee-can-invoke-arbitration-clause-Bombay-High-Court.jpg)
Assignee, having stepped into the shoes of the assignor, can invoke arbitration clause: Bombay High Court.
In a recent order,in the matter of M/s. Siemens Factoring Private Limited v. Future Enterprises Private Limited[1]the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (“the Court”) held that an assignee, though not a party but having stepped into
- Arbitration and Conciliation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy Code – Public Announcements
- Civil
- Commercial litigation
- Commercial/Corporate
- Criminal
- Cyber Law
- Debt Recovery
- Food
- IL News
- Infrastructure
- Insolvency & Bankruptcy
- Insurance
- Intellectual Property Rights
- International
- Labour
- Law
- Medico-Legal
- Negotiable Instrument
- NRI Laws
- Policy
- Power
- Real Estate
- Tax