Dispute Resolution

On 11 October 2018, the Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court), in Vedanta Limited v Shenzen Shandong Nuclear Power Construction Company Limited (Civil Appeal No. 10394 of 2018), laid down the guidelines to be followed by arbitrators while awarding interest in an arbitral award pursuant to an international commercial arbitration. These guidelines take into account international best practices and the law of the seat of arbitration. Importantly, the Supreme Court has provided that such interest cannot be penal in nature, despite the interest awarded being a form of reparations.

A division bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (the Court), consisting of Mr. Justice N V Ramana and Ms. Justice S Abdul Nazeer in the case of P Radha Bai Vs P Ashok Kumar (Civil Appeal no 7710-7713 of 2013), has reiterated the strict interpretation of limitation prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (Arbitration Act).

A three-judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) has by its judgment dated 25 September 2018 in Union of India v Hardy Exploration and Production (India) Inc, (Civil Appeal No. 4628 of 2018) examined whether a determination as postulated in Article 31 of the UNCITRAL Model Law had taken place in the instant Award to determine what the seat of the arbitration was.

On 26 September 2018, after marathon hearings over four months, a five judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Hon’ble Chief Justice Deepak Mishra, Hon'ble Justice A K Sikri, Hon’ble Justice A M Khanwilkar, Hon’ble Justice D Y Chandrachud and Hon’ble Justice Ashok Bhushan upheld the Aadhaar scheme by a 4:1 majority. The majority judgment has been delivered by Justice A K Sikri (on behalf of Chief Justice Mishra, Justice Khanwilkar and himself). Justice Bhushan delivered a separate concurring judgment and Justice Chandrachud delivered the sole dissent.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) in its recent judgment M/s Shriram EPC Limited v Rioglass Solar SA dated 13 September 2018, has put to rest the issue qua enforcement of foreign awards without being stamped (stamp duty need not be paid). The dispute at hand arose before the Supreme Court on appeal from the Madras High Court Division Bench.

The Supreme Court in its recent decision in K Kishan v M/s Vijay Nirman Company Private Limited, Civil Appeal No 21825 of 2017, has put to rest the question of whether an arbitral award that has been challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) by the award debtor can form the basis for an action under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).

A division bench of the Supreme Court of India (Court), comprising of Justice Madan Lokur and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, has, In Re: Outrage as Parents End Life After Child’s Dengue (SMW (c) No. 1 of 2015), stayed all construction activities in certain Union Territories (UTs) and States until a solid waste management policy has been framed as required under Rule 11 of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 (SWMR 2016).

The Multiplex Association of India (MAI) and PVR Limited (PVR) (collectively, the Petitioners) challenged the following two orders issued by the Controller of Legal Metrology (Controller), an authority appointed under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (Act), in Writ Petition No. 27029 of 2018 before the High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.

On the anvil of the proposed amendment in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act), on 20 August 2018, the Supreme Court of India in Emkay Global Financial Services Ltd. v. Girdhar Sondhi (Emkay case) has clarified that ordinarily, at the stage of challenge of arbitral award, only the arbitral tribunal’s record is to be considered to determine the grounds of challenge. If matters beyond such record are at issue, parties should ‘furnish proof’ of the grounds of challenge only by affidavits. Cross-examination of those testifying cannot be allowed unless ‘absolutely necessary’.

A full bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (the Court) in the case of United India Insurance Co Limited v Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co Ltd & Ors (Civil Appeal no 8146 of 2018) has clarified that the observation “After Amendment Act 3 of 2016, as per the amended provision of sub-section(6-A) of Section 11