Dispute Resolution

The Supreme Court has recently in its judgment dated 21 January 2020, in the case of Standard Chartered Bank v MSTC Limited [SLP (C) No 20093 of 2019], provided clarity on the interplay between the provisions of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 (RDB Act) and Limitation Act 1963 (Limitation Act). Supreme Court has in doing so refused to condone a delay of 28 days in filing of a review application by the government borrower entity against a decree in favour of the bank.

The Bi-monthly Newsletter of the Nani Palkhivala Arbitration Centre

It is common knowledge that arbitration provides greater flexibility and party autonomy compared with traditional litigation before the courts. Corollary to this, the agreed terms for the appointment of an arbitrator or arbitral tribunal must be strictly followed while making such appointments if a dispute arises between the parties to an agreement.

On 20 June 2019, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), in A. J. Agrochem v Duncans Industries Limited, passed an order deciding the issue of whether approval of the Central Government under Section 16(G)(1)(c) of the Tea Act, 1953 (Tea Act) is necessary for filing an application under of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) against a tea company

On 17 January 2020, the Central Government of India issued a notification (Notification) declaring the United Arab Emirates (UAE) a ‘reciprocating territory’ for the purpose of Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC). In effect, the Notification allows civil decrees / judgments passed by certain specified courts of UAE to be directly executed in India, in a manner akin to a decree of an Indian district court.

On 10 December 2019 a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court passed a judgment in BGS SGS SOMA JV v NHPC Ltd,(1) deciding key issues relating to the interpretation of arbitration clauses and the scope of appealable orders under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.

On 27 November 2019, a three-judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court struck down the newly inserted Section 87 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as manifestly arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Latest in the series of attempts by the Indian Government to promote India as an arbitration-friendly destination after the New Delhi International Arbitration Centre Act, 2019 is the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019 (Amendment Act / 2019 Amendments) that received the Presidential assent on 9 August 2019.

On 10 December 2019, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court (SC) passed a judgment in BGS SGS SOMA JV v NHPC Ltd deciding key issues relating to interpretation of arbitration clauses and scope of appealable orders under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (Arbitration Act).

On 21 November 2019, a full bench of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court (Court) in its judgement in Motilal s/o Khamdeo Rokde & Ors v Balkrushna Baliram Lokhande & Ors (Letters Patent Appeal No 177 of 2012), clarified two crucial aspects regarding the maintainability of petitions seeking a writ of certiorari, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (Article 226), namely: (a) the maintainability of such writ petitions against orders of lower civil/judicial courts; and (b) whether the lower civil court / the judges passing the said orders are required to b