In 2019 a three-judge bench (full bench) of the Bombay High Court had to decide whether the courts can exercise their power to grant interim or ad interim reliefs under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 where the arbitration clause is contained in an agreement that is insufficiently stamped (Gautam Landscapes v Shailesh Shah).
Recently the Supreme Court in Kunjumuhammed and Anr. v Mariyumma (Civil Appeal No. 2771 of 2020), held that while hearing a second appeal, the High Court must frame the substantial question of law.
In the arbitration regime, party autonomy has gained much recognition. When drafting an arbitration agreement, parties are free to choose ad hoc or institutional arbitration, governing law, seat and venue of arbitration, number of arbitrators (odd number), their qualifications and other matters relevant to the procedure to be followed. The ability of parties to determine the procedure to be followed in appointing an arbitrator is a key manifestation of party autonomy.
Pranav Sampat is a Partner in the Dispute Resolution practice group in the Mumbai office. Pranav has extensive experience in wide range of laws including constitutional laws, energy and infrastructure, bankruptcy and insolvency, banking and debt recovery, real estate, sports and entertainment and general trade and commercial laws.
Jyoti Sinha is a Partner in the Dispute Resolution practice group in the Mumbai office. She specialises in litigations and arbitrations in the real estate, infrastructure, power & gas, FMCG, hospitality, banking and sports sectors.
Manavendra specialises in White Collar Crime and investigations and is based out of our Mumbai office. Manavendra specialises in defence strategy, cross border disputes and anti-corruption investigations.
