JSA
In India, dying without a will results in asset distribution according to succession laws, varying by community. Legal heirship certificates are essential for asset transfer, while nominees temporarily hold assets. Selling inherited property may need a court’s Letter of Administration. Understanding these processes can prevent disputes and ensure smooth asset transition.
Please click here to read the full article by Varghese Thomas, Partner, published in NDTV Profit.
Who inherits your wealth if you don’t leave a will? Does your nominee automatically become the owner of your bank accounts, investments, and property? Can a will still be challenged in court?
These are some of the biggest misconceptions around inheritance in India. In this episode of Money Wise, Varghese Thomas, Partner at JSA Advocates and Solicitors breaks down everything you need to know about wills, nominees, probate, legal heir certificates, and succession laws. The conversation explains what happens when someone dies without a will, how assets are transferred, the difference between a nominee and a legal heir, and the steps you can take today to prevent future family disputes.
In a decision on the scope of writ jurisdiction in the context of arbitration proceedings, the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”), in M/s Tarini Prasad Mohanty vs. M/s Sunflag Iron and Steel Company Limited,1 has held that the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 2262 and 2273 of the Constitution of India (“Constitution”) to set aside an order passed under Section 164 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) was not justified, particularly where the arbitrator was seized of the arbitration proceedings.
Please click here to read the full article by Amar Gupta, Joint Managing Partner, Parth Dua, Principal Associate, and Pranav Tanwar, Principal Associate, published in Mondaq.
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has introduced a special US Dollar-Rupee forex swap facility for eligible External Commercial Borrowings (ECBs) and Overseas Foreign Currency Borrowings (OFCBs). The scheme applies to qualifying PSU ECBs with a minimum three-year maturity and bank OFCBs. Under the facility, eligible entities can swap dollar inflows with RBI at a fixed rate of 1.5% per annum, reducing hedging costs and encouraging foreign currency funding. The initiative aims to support overseas borrowing, improve liquidity and strengthen foreign capital inflows.
Please click here to read the full article by Nand Gopal Anand, Partner, Harshit Dusad, Partner, and Vrindesh Patel, Associate, published in Mondaq.
Our Partner, Sidharth Sethi, was invited as a Speaker by Keidan Harrison LLP and Quadrant Chambers for a panel discussion hosted by them as part of the London International Disputes Week (“LIDW”), held from 1 to 5 June.
The topic for the panel “Arbitration/Litigation Fatigue? Is Mediation or neutral evaluation faster, cheaper and better? Reflections from the UK and India” explored the merits and demerits of mediation on the one hand and arbitration and litigation on the other, in the context of resolution of commercial disputes, with a focus on experiences in India and the UK. The speakers provided a comparative review looking at changing trends, historical perspectives, legal frameworks, and practitioner experiences across the UK and India. The speakers also shared diverse viewpoints and perspectives and provided the attendees with practical insights into Mediation as an emerging pillar of dispute resolution.
Sidharth was joined by:
The Supreme Court of India has held that an accused must be given an opportunity of hearing before a court takes cognizance of a complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The Court ruled that the procedural safeguards under Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) apply to PMLA proceedings. It set aside a cognizance order passed without hearing the accused, reinforcing principles of natural justice and fair trial rights.
Please click here to read the full article by Amar Gupta, Joint Managing Partner, Parth Dua, Principal Associate, and Pranav Tanwar, Principal Associate, published in Mondaq.
The Supreme Court of India has settled the debate over whether an unsuccessful party in arbitration can seek post-award interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court ruled that any party to an arbitration agreement, including the losing party, can approach courts for interim protection while challenging an award. It held that denying such relief could leave parties without protection of assets or dispute subject matter. However, courts must apply caution to prevent misuse.
Please click here to read the full article by Dheeraj Nair, Partner, and Vishrutyi Sahni, Partner, published in Global Arbitration Review.
Please click here to download the Prism as a PDF.
In a decision on the scope of writ jurisdiction in the context of arbitration proceedings, the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”), in M/s Tarini Prasad Mohanty vs. M/s Sunflag Iron and Steel Company Limited,[1] has held that the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226[2] and 227[3] of the Constitution of India (“Constitution”) to set aside an order passed under Section 16[4] of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) was not justified, particularly where the arbitrator was seized of the arbitration proceedings.
The Supreme Court further held that: (a) where a writ petition is filed invoking both Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and the single judge does not clearly specify the constitutional provision under which jurisdiction is exercised, a writ appeal is maintainable; (b) any objection in relation to stamping of an agreement falls within the ambit of the arbitral tribunal and non-stamping or inadequate stamping is merely a curable defect; and (c) the writ court cannot enter into the merits of the dispute while adjudicating a challenge to an order passed under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act.
Issue 1: Maintainability of the writ appeal preferred by SISCO
As a preliminary matter, the Mine Owner objected to the maintainability of the writ appeal preferred by SISCO contending that the single judge had merely exercised jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution while setting aside the order passed under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act.
The Supreme Court rejected the said objection and observed that the perusal of the Mine Owner’s writ petition made it clear that it was preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court held that the Mine Owner, having invoked jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and the single judge having exercised jurisdiction without clearly specifying any particular constitutional provision, it cannot be said that what was exercised by the single judge was jurisdiction only under Article 227 of the Constitution and not under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Issue 2: Whether the learned single judge was justified in exercising writ jurisdiction to set aside the order passed under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act
The single judge failed to appreciate the jurisdiction and erred in entering into the merits of the dispute
The Supreme Court observed that the arbitrator was empowered to decide the objection raised by the Mine Owner as regards insufficient stamping of the agreement. If the arbitrator had the jurisdiction, it was impermissible for the single judge to undertake the exercise of entertaining a challenge to the said adjudication.
While exercising such power, one may err on merits, however, such error may not be beyond jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court further found that the single judge was not justified in going into the merits of dispute between the parties as regards the nature of the agreements while exercising writ jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court referred to the decision of the Constitution Bench in M/s S.B.P. and Company vs. M/s Patel Engineering Limited and Anr.[5]. In the said decision, the Constitution Bench observed that certain High Courts had proceeded on the basis that any order passed by an arbitral tribunal during arbitration, could be challenged under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court disapproved of such stand, holding that such intervention by the High Courts is not permissible.
The Supreme Court further referred to its decisions in M/s Deep Industries Limited vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and Anr.[6] and Bhaven Construction through Authorised Signatory Premjibhai K. Shah vs. Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited and Anr.[7]. The Supreme Court reiterated the settled position that where a Section 16 application is dismissed, no appeal lies against such dismissal. The challenge to such dismissal must await the passing of the final award at which stage it may be raised under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
The Supreme Court also referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements Under The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 and The Indian Stamp Act, 1899[8] wherein it was held that Section 16 of the Arbitration Act empowers the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction, including ruling on any objections with respect to the existence or validity of arbitration agreement.
Non-stamping or inadequate stamping is a curable defect
The Supreme Court rejected the Mine Owner’s submission that relegating the stamping objection to the post-award stage under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act would compel it to endure prolonged and expensive arbitral proceedings merely to vindicate a mandatory fiscal objection going to the root of the agreement. The Constitution Bench in Re: Interplay (supra), has held that non-stamping or inadequate stamping of an arbitration agreement is merely a curable defect.
The threshold for exercising writ jurisdiction is higher given the legislative intent of minimal judicial interference
The Supreme Court held that the threshold to be satisfied before exercising discretion under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in the matters of arbitration is higher.
The Supreme Court also clarified that its observations were as regards the ‘entertainability’ of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and not with regard to its ‘maintainability’.[9]
The Supreme Court restricted itself to recording a conclusion that the single judge was not justified in exercising writ jurisdiction. The issue with regard to stamping was kept open for being raised by the aggrieved party under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, if the need for the same arises.
This judgment reinforces the principle of minimal judicial interference in ongoing arbitration proceedings and reiterates the importance of the statutory scheme under the Arbitration Act. It provides clarity on the following aspects:
This Prism has been prepared by:
Amar Gupta |
Parth Dua |
Pranav Tanwar |
For more details, please contact [email protected].
[1] SLP(C) No. 27534 of 2025 (decided on May 27, 2026)
[2]Article 226 of the Constitution empowers every High Court to issue directions, orders, or writs (habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto) for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for ‘any other purpose’.
[3] Article 227 of the Constitution confers upon every High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction. This jurisdiction is supervisory and corrective, intended to ensure that subordinate courts and tribunals act within the bounds of their authority, follow due process, and do not commit jurisdictional errors or manifest perversity.
[4] Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, grants the arbitral tribunal the power to rule on its own jurisdiction, including any objections regarding the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement.
[5] 2005 INSC 526
[6] 2019 INSC 1299
[7] 2021 INSC 9
[8] 2023 INSC 1066
[9] Paragraph 22; Referring to M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and others, 2023 INSC 92, the Supreme Court observed that ‘entertainability’ and ‘maintainability’ of a writ petition are distinct concepts, and the question of ‘entertainability’ is entirely within the realm of discretion of the High Courts, writ remedy being discretionary.
This edition of the JSA Brief showcases JSA authored articles, updates & newsletters and achievements such as deals and events in all practice area over the preceding month (May 2026).
To read further details, click here or refer to the below document.
For more details, please contact [email protected]
*In case the document is not visible on the device you are using, please click the link above.
The article discusses the misuse of insolvency proceedings as a pressure tactic in commercial disputes, particularly those involving warranty claims. The NCLAT ruling clarifies that such disputes should be resolved through contractual mechanisms, not insolvency. This decision protects businesses from undue pressure, restores balance in negotiations, and aims to enhance investor confidence by preventing misuse of insolvency laws.
Please click here to read the full article by Dheeraj Nair, Partner, Vishrutyi Sahni, Partner, and Muskaan Gupta, Associate, published in Hindustan Times.
As per the rules of the Bar Council of India, we are not permitted to solicit work and advertise. By clicking on the “I AGREE” button below, you acknowledge the following:
If you have any legal issues, you, in all cases, must seek independent legal advice.
We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to visit this website you agree to our use of cookies.
