New Filters: Dispute Resolution and Arbitration

If you are not happy with the results, please do another search

Supreme Court upholds invocation of urgency clause for land acquisition in Yamuna Expressway Project; saves exposure of thousands of crores

JSA successfully advised and represented Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (“YEIDA”) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court (“the Court”) in a landmark case concerning the acquisition of land for an integrated development project surrounding the Yamuna Expressway (“the Yamuna Expressway Project”). The Supreme Court’s judgment in Kali Charan and Others v. State of U.P. and Others, Civil Appeal No. 13119 of 2024 and 34 other civil appeals, decisively upheld the legality of the acquisition process and paved the way for the Yamuna Expressway Project’s continued progress.

The Yamuna Expressway Project spans 18,000 hectares across 16 villages in Gautam Buddha Nagar and forms a vital component of YEIDA’s development blueprint. The instant litigations concerned the acquisition of 2,375 hectares in 14 villages, impacting 12,868 landowners, with YEIDA having already invested approximately INR 972 crores.

The Supreme Court dismissed 29 civil appeals filed by landowners challenging the acquisition on the ground that the invocation of the urgency clause under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the 1894 Act”) was valid. Further, it allowed 6 civil appeals filed by YEIDA and set aside various decisions of the Allahabad High Court that had directed YEIDA to pay an enhanced amount of compensation to the erstwhile landowners.

The case involved unique challenges as conflicting decisions from co-ordinate benches of the Allahabad High Court had to be resolved (with certain decisions upholding the acquisition while others had declared it as illegal). The Hon’ble Supreme Court held the High Court’s decisions striking down the acquisitions to be per incuriam and upheld the judgments that had found the acquisition process to be legal and valid. The present decision, therefore, finally provides clarity and consistency of law regarding the vast lands acquired by YEIDA.

The Court’s further key findings are:

The Court affirmed YEIDA’s policy of planned development along the Yamuna Expressway, recognizing the integral connection between the Expressway itself and the development of adjacent lands for commercial, residential, and recreational activities.
The Court distinguished the Yamuna Expressway Project from standalone projects.
The Court held that the application of urgency clause under the 1894 Act was legal and justified, given the project’s scale and public importance.

Our Disputes Team is comprised of lead partners, Amar Gupta and Divyam Agarwal; senior associates, Pranav Tanwar and Zain Maqbool; and associates, Mohit Sharma and Abhay Pratap Singh.

Tags Disputes Update, Infrastructure Development, JSA, JSA Updates, Land Acquisition, Landmark Judgment, Leading Law Firm, Leading Lawyers, Legal Updates, Real Estate Law, Supreme Court, YEIDA

JSA successfully defended the Dismissal of an appeal challenging the admission order of Tarun Relators Private Limited in applications for recall of the dismissal order filed by its 49% shareholder and ex-suspended director

JSA successfully advised and represented Assets Care & Reconstruction Enterprises Limited (“ACRE”) and other members of the committee of creditors before the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (“NCLAT”), in dual applications seeking recall of the Hon’ble NCLAT’s order dated October 14, 2024, filed by Mantri Developers Private Limited (“Mantri”), a 49% shareholder of Tarun Realtors Private Limited (“Corporate Debtor”), and Mr. Baaskaran S., the ex-suspended director of the Corporate Debtor.

The said applications were filed for recall of the Hon’ble NCLAT’s order dated October 14, 2024 vide which an appeal filed by Baaskaran S., challenging the admission of the Corporate Debtor to corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”), came to be dismissed owing to the resignation of Baaskaran S. from his post as a director of the Corporate Debtor. It was Mantri’s contention that on the date of dismissal of the appeal, it had filed an application for substitution in place of the ex-suspended director of the Corporate Debtor owing to his resignation, which was not numbered and listed on the date of hearing. Therefore, Mantri contended that owing to the dismissal of the appeal without considering its substitution application, principles of natural justice and due process were violated by the Hon’ble NCLAT.

Mantri further placed reliance on an order dated December 10, 2024 passed by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in a writ petition filed by it challenging the Hon’ble NCLAT’s order dated October 14, 2024, wherein the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court granted liberty to Mantri to file the said recall applications before the Hon’ble NCLAT.

Contending that the said recall applications were not maintainable and without merit, ACRE inter alia adduced the following submissions:-

Mantri had no locus standi to pursue an appeal challenging the admission of the Corporate Debtor to CIRP in its capacity as a shareholder, as it is a mere investor and not an ‘aggrieved person’ under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
The exceptional circumstances for recall of an order, as carved out in the judgment of the five-member bench the Hon’ble NCLAT, New Delhi in Union Bank of India Vs Mr. Dinkar T. Venkatasubramaniam & Ors., CA (AT) (Ins) No.729/2020, had not been made out in the present case as there existed no procedural lapses on the date of passing of the order in question.
The recall application filed by Baaskaran S. cannot be maintainable owing to his resignation as a director of the Corporate Debtor, a fact which was not disclosed to the Hon’ble NCLAT on two separate occasions when the Hon’ble NCLAT was considering the said appeal.

By its judgment, the Hon’ble NCLAT was pleased to dismiss the recall applications filed by Mantri and Baaskaran S. and found that the conditions for recall of its order dated October 14, 2024, were not made out in the present case.

Furthermore, the Hon’ble NCLAT reaffirmed a shareholders’ lack of locus standi to challenge the admission of a corporate debtor to CIRP considering its status as a mere investor and opined that the same cannot be overcome / bypassed by seeking substitution in place of a suspended director considering the statutorily distinct roles.

ACRE was represented by Mr. P. S. Raman, Senior Advocate and Advocate General of Tamil Nadu. The remaining members of the committee of creditors were represented by Mr. Varghese Thomas.

Our Disputes Team comprised Lead Partner, Varghese Thomas, Partners, Aditi Deshpande and Srinivasan M.D., and Associates, Kabir Saund and Dharaniya Sri K.M

Tags CIRP, Corporate Insolvency, Dispute Resolution, IBC2016, Insolvency Law, JSA, Leading Law Firm, Leading Lawyers, Legal Updates, Nclat

JSA Prism | Dispute Resolution | March 2025

Please click here to download the document.

A Limited Liability Partnership is bound by the arbitration clause in a Limited Liability Partnership Agreement despite not being a signatory to it

A single judge of the Bombay High Court (“Bombay HC”) has in Kartik Radia vs. M/s. BDO India LLP and Anr.[1] held that disputes between the partners of a Limited Liability Partnership (“LLP”) and the LLP are covered by the arbitration clause contained in the LLP Agreement (“LLP Agreement”) to which the LLP itself is not a signatory.

Brief facts

Kartik Radia (“Applicant”), a former partner of BDO India LLP (“Respondent No. 1”) was expelled from Respondent No. 1 by Mr. Milind Kothari (“Respondent No. 2” and together with Respondent No. 1 referred to as “Respondents”), the managing partner of Respondent No. 1. The Applicant’s grievance was regarding his treatment, and misconduct by the Respondents in effecting the expulsion. The Applicant issued an arbitration invocation notice nominating an arbitrator. The Respondents refused to appoint their nominee arbitrator. Given the same, the Applicant filed an application under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) seeking appointment of an arbitrator (“Application”).

The Applicant inter alia contended that disputes between an LLP and its partners are covered by the arbitration agreement contained in the LLP Agreement even when the LLP is not a signatory to the LLP Agreement. Further: (a) Section 26 of the LLP Act, 2008 (“LLP Act”) provides that every partner is an agent of the LLP; and (b) Section 27 of the LLP Act provides that the LLP is liable for the acts of its partners.

Respondent No. 1 inter alia contended that: (a) the Applicant seeks to initiate arbitration proceedings against the LLP, which is not a party to the arbitration agreement; (b) the arbitration clause only covers disputes between the partners. The jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal cannot be extended to cover disputes between a partner and the LLP; (c) the present dispute is not arbitrable given that the dispute is between the Applicant and Respondent No. 1, who is not a signatory to the arbitration agreement; and (d) every LLP has 2 (two) options i.e., having an agreement only amongst the partners and having an agreement between the LLP and its partners. The exclusion of the Respondent No. 1 from the LLP Agreement is a conscious choice of leaving the LLP out of the mix of rights and duties, thereby suggesting exclusion from arbitration.

Respondent No. 2 inter alia contended that the: (a) arbitration invocation notice was addressed to Respondent No. 2 and contained allegations and grievances that were personal in nature; and (b) Applicant made reference to the injury of his image and to his defamation at the hands of the Respondents, and defamation is not arbitrable.

Issue

Whether disputes between partners of an LLP and the LLP would be covered by the arbitration agreement contained in the LLP Agreement to which the LLP is not a signatory?

Findings and analysis

The Bombay HC disposed of the Application and inter alia held as follows:

an LLP is not a third party to an LLP Agreement in the manner that the concept of ‘third parties” is conventionally understood. The LLP Agreement is the charter document that gives agency to the partners to operate the LLP. An LLP is duty-bound to act in accordance with the LLP Agreement. To argue that there is no privity to the very document governing the body corporate is not a sustainable argument;
in the present case, the subject matter of arbitration would inter alia include any construction or application of the LLP Agreement, matters relating to the business and affairs of Respondent No. 1 and the rights, duties or liabilities of its partners. This would necessarily entail Respondent No. 1 being a necessary party to the dispute;
whether a non-signatory has accorded implicit consent to the arbitration agreement is a matter to be inferred through the acts, conduct, and circumstances including relationship between the contracting parties, the commonality of the subject matter and the involvement of such party in the performance of the contract containing the arbitration clause. The operation of the LLP during its existence is the common commercial objective of the parties to the LLP Agreement. Therefore, there is no merit in the argument that despite the LLP being the subject matter of the LLP Agreement, the LLP itself is extraneous to it;
the contention that the LLP is an alien to the LLP Agreement is untenable from the scheme of the LLP Act inter alia since: (a) Section 2(1)(o) of the LLP Act, which defines ‘limited liability partnership agreement’ makes it clear that the subject matter of an LLP Agreement is the determination of mutual rights and duties of the partners, and their rights and duties in relation to the LLP; (b) in terms of Section 2(1)(q) of the LLP Act which defines ‘partner’, the entry and exit of a partner from an LLP is governed by the LLP Agreement; and (c) Section 23(4) of the LLP Act provides that if there is no agreement on any matter, then the mutual rights and duties of the partners and the LLP would be governed by the First Schedule of the LLP Act, which provides that disputes arising therefrom would necessarily be referred to arbitration. This would necessarily render the LLP a necessary party to the arbitration proceedings relating to its operation and governance, despite not being a signatory to the LLP Agreement;
the scope of a Section 11 of the Arbitration Act is to examine the existence of an arbitration agreement, which the Respondents have submitted does not exist. The LLP Agreement contains an arbitration clause. The dispute relating to the expulsion of a partner being the subject matter of merits, whether Respondent No. 1 is a necessary party is for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide and cannot be rejected at this stage;
the arbitration invocation notice was issued to Respondent No. 2 in his capacity as the managing partner of Respondent No. 1. Therefore, to read it as a personal dispute of the Applicant with Respondent No. 2 in his individual capacity is a misconceived contention. Further, under Section 26 of the LLP Act, every partner is an agent of the LLP, and under Section 27(2), the LLP is liable for the acts of its partners; and
in the present case, the question whether a part of the claim and the approach to be taken in respect of alleged injury of the Applicant’s image squarely falls within the domain of the Arbitral Tribunal, which has the power to rule on its own jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act.

In view of the above, the Application was disposed and a nominee arbitrator on behalf of the Respondents was appointed by the court.

Conclusion

By this significant judgement, the Bombay HC has held that an LLP cannot avoid arbitration proceedings on the basis that the LLP itself is not a signatory to the LLP Agreement. A non-signatory LLP to the LLP Agreement may be impleaded in arbitration proceedings inter alia on the ground that an LLP is not a third party to the LLP Agreement and there is privity between a partner of the LLP and the LLP under the document that governs it, i.e., the LLP Agreement to which the LLP is albeit not a signatory.

This Prism is prepared by:

Farhad Sorabjee
Partner

Pratik Pawar
Partner

Meher Mistri
Associate

Jatin Asrani
Junior Associate

For more details, please contact [email protected]

[1] Commercial Arbitration Application No. 31 of 2022

Tags Arbitration, Delhi High Court, Dispute Resolution, JSA, JSA Prism, Leading Law Firm, Leading Lawyers, Legal Updates

JSA Prism | Dispute Resolution | March 2025

Please click here to download the document.

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 sets aside a Section 34 order as well as the arbitral award

A Division Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court (“Delhi HC”) has in the matter of the Union of India (through the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas) vs. Reliance India Limited and Ors.[1], allowed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) (“Appeal”) and set aside: (a) an arbitral award dated July 24, 2018 (“Award”); and (b) an order dated May 9, 2023 passed by a single judge of the Delhi HC under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act (“S.34 Order”).

The Appeal was filed by the Union of India against the Award and S.34 Order, both of which were passed in favour of Reliance Industries Limited (“RIL”) and arose from arbitration proceedings invoked by RIL against the Union of India under a Production Sharing Contract (“PSC”) inter alia for exploration of natural gas in the Krishna-Godavari Basin.

Brief facts

The Union of India entered into a PSC with a consortium of inter alia RIL and Niko Limited (“Niko”) regarding Block Kg-DWN-98/3 (“Reliance Block”) situated in Krishna-Godavari Basin. The Union of India also entered into another PSC with Cairn Energy India Limited (“CEIL”) and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (“ONGC”) regarding Block KG-DWN-98/2 and Block KG-OS-IG (“ONGC Blocks”). ONCG acquired the rights from CEIL in respect of Block KG-DWN-98/2. The ONGC Blocks adjoined the Reliance Block.

These proceedings have their genesis in a dispute between ONGC and RIL regarding the migration of gas from the ONGC Blocks to the RIL Block and a report prepared by DeGolyer and MacNaughton (“D&M”) for Niko, which was not forwarded to the Union of India (“D&M Report”). The D&M Report had concluded that there was an indication of reservoir connectivity and gas migration across the ONCG Blocks and the RIL Block.

In 2015, ONGC filed a writ petition before the Delhi HC against RIL and the Union of India alleging that due to migration of gas, RIL had been unjustly enriched. During the pendency of the writ petition, ONGC and RIL agreed to the appointment of D&M to undertake a third-party study on the allegations of migration of gas. The Union of India constituted a single member committee to consider this report and based on the findings of the single member committee, the Union of India issued a demand notice of USD 1.5 billion (US Dollars one point five billion) (plus interest) to RIL for unjust enrichment for benefitting from the migration of gas.

RIL invoked arbitration under the PSC seeking inter alia a declaration that it had the right to produce all hydrocarbons from wells in its contract area, which would include hydrocarbons that could have migrated to its wells from an adjacent block. By a majority of 2:1, the arbitral tribunal allowed RIL’s claim and inter alia held that: (a) RIL was permitted and required to extract all available gas within its contract area for the benefit of the Union of India, even if, such gas migrated from beyond the contract area; (b) RIL was not unjustly enriched; and (c) RIL was inter alia required to disclose the D&M Report and other important information regarding connectivity of the reservoirs, however, the non-disclosure was not a material breach of the PSC.

The Union of India filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act before a single judge of the Delhi HC challenging the Award on inter alia the following grounds: (a) the Award suffered from patent illegality since despite holding that RIL had suppressed the D&M Report, the same was held not to be a material breach of the PSC; and (b) the Award erred in holding that RIL could not be made accountable for selling gas beyond its contract area in the teeth of the Public Trust Doctrine (“PTD”) as the same fell within the public policy of India.

By the said order, the challenge came to be rejected on the basis of the following findings: (a) the arbitration was an international commercial arbitration and the ground of patent illegality was not available to interfere with the Award; and (b) there was no dispossession of title/ownership of the gas from the Union of India and the PTD was not contravened.

The Union of India preferred the Appeal against the said order under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.

Issues

Whether the arbitration proceeding inter se the Union of India and RIL was an international commercial arbitration?
Whether the single judge erred in not examining the Award under Section 34 (2A) of the Arbitration Act on account of patent illegality, leaving the appeal court under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act to decide the issue?

Findings and analysis

The Division Bench of the Delhi HC allowed the Appeal on the following grounds:

the single judge erred in holding that the arbitration was an international commercial arbitration, since the Award had come to the conclusion that RIL, an Indian entity was the sole claimant, and that Niko was not a formal party to the arbitration. In this regard, the Delhi HC relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in L&T-SCOMI vs. MMRDA[2] and Perkins Eastman Architects DPC vs. HSCC (India) Limited[3], which held that the lead claimant’s nationality determined the nature of the arbitration and when the lead member in an arbitration was an Indian entity, the arbitration must be treated as a domestic arbitration;
the scope of Section 37 of the Arbitration Act is akin to that of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. RIL’s non-disclosure of the D&M Report was a material breach of the PSC and the Award’s findings were patently illegal;
RIL had no right to extract the migrated gas without explicit approval of the Union of India as held by the Supreme Court in Reliance Natural Resources Limited vs. Reliance Industries Limited[4];
RIL had unjustly benefitted from the non-disclosure of the D&M Report and extraction of the migrated gas from the ONGC Block, thus causing losses to the public exchequer especially given that the commodity at hand was a vital resource held by the Union of India as a trustee in public interest; and
the Award was based on conjectures and surmises. The view taken in the Award was not a possible view and was in violation of the fundamental law of India and patently erroneous.

Conclusion

This decision is a rare instance in which a court acting under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act has set aside both an arbitral award as well as the order passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act on that award by applying the principles of patent illegality under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. This judgment reaffirms the principle that the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act apply equally to proceedings under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.

This Prism is prepared by:

Farhad Sorabjee
Partner

Shanaya Cyrus Irani
Partner

Siddhesh Pradhan
Principal Associate

Jatin Asrani
Junior Associate

For more details, please contact [email protected]

[1] 2025 SCC OnLine Del 841

[2] (2019) 2 SCC 271

[3] (2020) 20 SCC 760

[4] (2010) 7 SCC 1

Tags Arbitration, Delhi High Court, Dispute Resolution, JSA, JSA Prism, Leading Law Firm, Leading Lawyers, Legal Updates

Modification and Severability of Arbitral Awards

This article examines the challenges surrounding judicial modification and severability of arbitral awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It outlines the limited recourse available to parties against an arbitral award, and charts judicial developments on the questions of modification and severability in context of the principle of minimal judicial intervention embedded in arbitration law. In conclusion, the article argues that while the legislative framework seeks to preserve the finality of arbitral awards, practical challenges and prolonged litigation compel courts to engage in selective and substantive intervention with arbitral awards. It suggests that a balanced approach – potentially via legislative amendment – could reconcile the need for judicial oversight with the principle of minimal interference, thereby ensuring speedy and equitable dispute resolution.

Please click here to read the full article authored by our partner, Divyam Agarwal, and senior associate, Aniket Aggarwal, which was published in The Indian Business Law Review.

#ArbitrationLaw #JSAInsights #JudicialIntervention #ArbitrationAndConciliationAct #LegalAnalysis #DisputeResolution #CommercialArbitration #LegalFramework #ArbitralAwards #CorporateLaw #Litigation #LawAndJustice #LegalReforms #AlternativeDisputeResolution #Mediation

Tags Alternative Dispute Resolution, Arbitral Awards, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Arbitration Law, Commercial Arbitration, Dispute Resolution, JSA Insights, Judicial Intervention, Legal Analysis, Legal Framework, Legal Reforms, Litigation, Mediation

JSA Brief | February 2025

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 (February 2025).

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.

Tags Articles, Deal Making, Events, JSA, JSA Prism, Legal Updates, Newsletters, Publications, Recognitions

JSA successfully obtained a stay order from the Allahabad High Court in criminal proceedings in an alleged case of sexual harassment

The Allahabad High Court, in a significant and swift ruling in a quashing petition, stayed the trial proceedings in an FIR alleging sexual harassment, lodged at the instance of a female ex-employee of the client, against a senior management official of the client.

Based on the evidence on record, the High Court observed that this appears to be a case of an office dispute which is being given the colour of a sexual criminal offence by the ex-employee. While staying the trial proceedings, the High Court also observed that the misuse of the penal laws for personal grievances, regardless of gender, should be discouraged.

Our dispute team comprised of Partner, Padmaja Kaul with support from Principal Associate, Yugank Goel and Senior Associate, Kushagra Sah.

Tags Dispute Resolution, JSA, Leading Law Firm, Leading Lawyers, Legal Updates, Manufacturing

Climate Change, Power and Energy laws | Semi-Annual Compendium 2024

This Compendium consolidates the key developments pertaining to the Climate Change, Power and Energy laws sector, which were circulated as JSA Newsletters/Prisms during the calendar period from July 2024 till December 2024.

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.

Tags Clean Energy, Climate Change, JSA, Leading Law Firm, Leading Lawyers, Legal Updates, Newsletters, Power

JSA Successfully represented Resolution Professional of Smaaash Entertainment (Corporate Debtor) in obtaining an Order related to Fraudulent & Wrongful Trading

JSA successfully represented Mr. Bhrugesh Amin (“RP”), Resolution Professional of Smaaash Entertainment Private Limited (“Corporate Debtor”), before the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai (“NCLT”), in obtaining an order of fraudulent and wrongful trading under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

The application was filed against a transaction wherein the suspended directors of the Corporate Debtor sold fixed assets of the Corporate Debtor to its alter-ego Fun Gateway Arena Private Limited (“FGAPL”) and further provided consultancy services to FGAPL for Rs. 10.38 crores but only received Rs. 1.96 crores. The RP filed an application under Section 66 of the IBC seeking declaration that the transaction was fraudulent and sought a direction against the respondents, including FGAPL and the suspended directors of the Corporate Debtor, to contribute Rs. 8.42 crores to the assets of the Corporate Debtor.

The NCLT, after considering the submissions advanced, declared the transaction as fraudulent and wrongful under Section 66(1) & (2) of the IBC, and also held that:

The timelines provided under Regulation 35A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 for filing applications under Section 66 of the IBC are directory and only procedural in nature and non-compliance of the same does not render an application to be invalid.
The suspended directors were well aware of the financial position of both Respondent No.1 as well as the Corporate Debtor. The transaction had been entered into between the Corporate Debtor and FGAPL at a time when the Corporate Debtor was already undergoing financial hardships.
The suspended directors of the Corporate Debtor have disposed of the assets of the Corporate Debtor despite being aware about the possibility of initiation of insolvency process against the Corporate Debtor and also have failed to exercise due diligence while carrying out the impugned transaction. Furthermore, there has been no attempt by the directors to recover the outstanding dues from Respondent No.1.
The transaction was carried out by FGAPL and the suspended directors of the Corporate Debtor, with a fraudulent intent to take away the valuable assets of the Corporate Debtor and transfer the same to FGAPL, which is an alter-ego of the suspended directors of the Corporate Debtor.
FGAPL, being the beneficiary of the transaction, and the suspended directors of the Corporate Debtor who carried out the impugned transaction, are liable to make contribution to the assets of the Corporate Debtor; and therefore, directed the respondents, including FGAPL and the suspended directors of the Corporate Debtor, to contribute Rs. 8.42 crores to the assets of the Corporate Debtor.

Our disputes team comprised: Lead Partner – Varghese Thomas, Partners – Kunal Kaul and Fatema Kachwalla, and Associate – Virgil Braganza.

Tags Arbitration, Dispute Resolution, JSA, Leading Law Firm, Leading Lawyers, Legal Updates

From Bias to Balance: Indian Supreme Court’s Stand on Unilateral Arbitrator Appointments

A five-judge Bench (“Constitution Bench”) of the Supreme Court of India (“SC”) recently delivered a landmark judgment in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV) (“CORE-II”), on the validity of unilateral appointment clauses. The SC held that such clauses cast justifiable doubts on the independence and impartiality of arbitral tribunals.

Please click here to read the full article by Partner – Anjali Anchayil published in Kluwer Arbitration Blog.