New Filters: Dispute Resolution and Arbitration

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

JSA successfully represented Mrs. Neetu Bharat Gupta (Respondent No.4) before the Supreme Court of India opposing an application for unilateral deemed conveyance of an immovable property under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion, Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act 1963

By an order dated 13 August 2024 the Supreme Court of India dismissed a Special Leave Petition No. 12340 of 2021 challenging an order of the Bombay High Court dated 22 February 2021 refusing to exercise writ jurisdiction over matters pertaining to the title of an immovable property or deemed conveyance of the immovable property under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion, Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act 1963 (“MOFA”).

The Nirman Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (“Petitioner Society”) had filed an application under Section 11(3) and Section 11(4) of MOFA before the District Deputy Registrar Mumbai City IV (“Deputy Registrar”) for unilateral conveyance/ deemed conveyance of land comprising of the Petitioner Society as well as land plot admeasuring 824 Sq. Mtrs. on which a bungalow belonging to Respondent No. 4 (“Larger Land”) was situated.

The Deputy Registrar passed an order excluding the area comprising the bungalow of Respondent No. 4 on the ground that the same does not belong to the Society and cannot be conveyed by way of a deemed conveyance. Aggrieved by the decision of the Deputy Registrar, the Petitioner Society preferred a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. The Bombay High Court dismissed the Writ Petition holding that :-

It will not be possible to decide an issue of title on immoveable property in writ jurisdiction in view of earlier decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mazda Construction Company and Ors Vs Sultanabad Darshan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd and Ors;
If it is the contention of the Petitioner Society that they are the owners and have title and interest over the portion of land on which the bungalow is situated, it is always open for the Petitioner Society to bring a substantial suit by leading evidence both oral and documentary before the Civil Court.

The Petitioner Society thereafter preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India raising the following grounds of challenge:-

Issues: –

Whether the Bombay High Court had erred in not entertaining the Writ Petition and relegating the Petitioner Society to file a civil suit;
Whether it was necessary for the Petitioner Society to file a suit on title which would delay the redevelopment of the Petitioner Society as the suit on title would take substantial time.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court after directing parties to file Counter Affidavits and after a detailed hearing held that there was no infirmity in the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay and dismissed the Special Leave Petition.

Conclusion

Matters of deemed conveyance of immoveable property can be entertained by the Deputy Registrar under MOFA and Writ Court only when there is no dispute on title. However when a bonafide issue on title is raised, the issue on title can be decided only by the Civil Court.

Our Disputes Team Comprised Lead Partner – Farid Karachiwala, and Associate – Sanya Gandhi.

Tags Bombay High Court, JSA, Leading Law Firm, Leading Lawyers, Supreme Court of India

JSA Brief | December 2024

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

JSA Prism | Dispute Resolution | January 2025

Please click here to download the document.

Jurisdiction of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority will not be ousted inspite of an arbitration clause in an agreement for sale

Recently the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (“Bombay HC”), while deciding a second appeal in the case of M/s. Rashmi Realty Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mr. Rahul Rajendrakumar Pagariya and Ors.,[1] inter alia held that the jurisdiction of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority established under section 20 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”) will not be ousted notwithstanding an arbitration clause in the agreement entered into between the promoter and the allottees.

Brief facts

The Appellant (“Promoter”) and the Respondents (“Allottees”) executed a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) recording that the Promoter had agreed to allot a residential unit/ flat to the Allottees for consideration and in case of any dispute the same be referred to a sole arbitrator to be appointed by the Promoter and the award passed will be binding on both parties.
Subsequently, disputes arose as despite having made substantial payment, the Promoter failed to finish the construction work within the stipulated time.
The Allottees filed a complaint for refund alongwith compensation before the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“MahaRERA”) under Section 31(1) r/w Section 18 of the RERA. MahaRERA ruled that since the parties are yet to enter into a registered agreement for sale, the provisions of Section 18 of the RERA are not applicable and dismissed the complaint.
The order of MahaRERA was challenged by the Respondents before the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (“Tribunal”). The Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by MahaRERA and directed the Appellant to refund the amount along with interest from the date of payment till realisation at the rate of highest marginal cost of lending rate of State Bank of India plus 2%. This order of the Tribunal came to be challenged by way of a second appeal before the Bombay HC.

Issue

The Bombay HC in the second appeal framed the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the jurisdiction of Real Estate Regulatory Authority established under Section 20 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 is ousted, if the agreement between the promoter and the allottee contains arbitration clause”

Findings and analysis

All disputes relating to rights in personam are considered to be amenable to arbitration and all disputes relating to right in rem are required to be adjudicated by courts and public tribunals, being unsuited for arbitration.
The doctrine of election to select arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism is available only if the law accepts existence of arbitration as an alternate remedy. There should not be any inconsistency or repugnancy between the provisions of the mandatory law and arbitration as an alternative.
A dispute covered by RERA cannot be termed as a right in personam as a decision will affect the rights of other allottees as well as the rights of association of allottees (erga omnes effect). Upon examining the provisions of RERA, it is clear that special rights are created and for enforcement of the same special forums are established for ensuring enforcement and execution of these rights. Moreover, RERA being a special statute, the disputes under RERA would override the general statute being the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.

Conclusion

A dispute covered under RERA is non-arbitrable in nature and the jurisdiction of RERA is not ousted even if an agreement between the parties contains an arbitration clause.

This Prism is prepared by:

Farid Karachiwala
Partner

Krutika Mehta
Associate

For more details, please contact [email protected]

[1] 2024: BHC-AS:50612

Tags Dispute Resolution, JSA, JSA Prism, Leading Law Firm, Leading Lawyers, Legal Updates, RERA

JSA successfully represented Essar Power Transmission Company Limited in overturning CERC’s disallowances on capital costs and delays for its Gandhar – Hazira inter-State Transmission Line

On 11.12.2024, the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (“APTEL”) delivered its judgment in Essar Power Transmission Company Ltd. v Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors. (Appeal No 397 of 2018) (“Judgment”), permitting capitalization of costs incurred by Essar Power Transmission Co. Ltd. (“EPTCL” / “Appellant”) due to delays caused by factors beyond its control. This judgment reinforces the principle that infrastructure developers should not be penalized for delays caused in obtaining statutory clearances and events beyond their control.

Issues before APTEL

The following issues were before APTEL for consideration:

Whether there was a (i) delay in grant of approval under Section 164 of the Electricity Act (“Act”); (ii) delay in grant of Forest Clearance; and (iii) delay on account of Right of Way (“RoW”) issues?
Whether compensation paid on account of RoW issues should be allowed?
Whether consequent allowance of Interest During Construction and Incidental Expenses During Construction should be allowed?

Findings of APTEL:

Re. Delay in grant of approval under Section 164 of the Act:

Any Inter-State Transmission System line can be commissioned only after approval from beneficiaries, which is generally given during Regional Power Committee meetings.
Approval under Section 164 of the Act is mandatory and any delay in obtaining the same is considered a force majeure event.
Even though no timelines are prescribed for exercise of power under Section 164 of the Act, a reasonable period (two months) would invariably be taken in considering the application submitted by the Appellant, and in conferring on the Appellant the powers under Section 164 of the Act.
Apart from the time taken between 14.07.2008 and 23.09.2008 for publication of the Scheme, an additional period of two months, from the date of submission of application till the conferment of power under Section 164 shall be taken as the reasonable period for conferment of such powers.
Delay in granting approval under Section 164 of the Act beyond two months, shall be treated as the period of delay which cannot be attributed to the Appellant

Re. Delay in grant of Forest Clearance:

An EPC contract is based on the final route approved for laying the transmission line and cannot be awarded before the Forest Clearance is granted and the final route is approved.
The elements of the instant Scheme were identified only on 27.08.2007 i.e., 8 months after the Investment Approval Date, therefore, CERC’s finding that the Appellant should have applied for forest clearance within 6 months of Investment Approval is erroneous. Route alignment is required to be finalized before carrying out pre-commissioning activities.
Applications for the grant of Forest Clearance can only begin once the transmission route has been identified and tentatively finalized.
No significant work can be started by a private entity, such as the Appellant, before obtaining a Transmission Licence and any consideration of timeline can only begin after the grant of a transmission licence by the Commission.
Assuming the Investment Approval date as the start date is erroneous.
The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) prescribes a time period of ten months for a grant of a Forest Clearance. However, the Appellant received its Forest Clearance only on 06.02.2013 i.e., after 47 months from making the application. This delay is completely beyond EPTCL’s reasonable control and therefore the delay in respect of the time period from March 2009 to February 2013 is condoned.

Re. Compensation to be paid to landowners for Right of Way:

Once the route is finalized and approved by the Ministry of Power (“MoP”), there cannot be an artificial reduction of RoW cost on the ground that it should have been planned to avoid industrial/ urban areas (as done by the CERC in the present case). The purpose of discussions and finalization of route in consultation with the Central Electricity Authority, is to ensure least impact on the environment.
The compensation payable by a licensee is specifically provided for in the RoW Guidelines dated 15.10.2015 and Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd.’s inputs for compensation payable are merely suggestions given to the MoP while framing the RoW Compensation Guidelines.
The reasonableness of RoW costs cannot be judged against the norms specified by MoP, as the period under dispute is before the said notification of MoP.
EPTCL’s Gandhar – Hazira transmission line being part of the inter-State Transmission System passes through the State of Gujarat and not Maharashtra. CERC’s decision in applying the rates/ methodology as suggested by MSETCL to MoP is flawed.
CERC failed to consider the numerous court cases filed against EPTCL seeking enhancement of compensation. The fact that such cases were filed demonstrates that the payments made were not only prudent but also reasonable.
The deduction of Rs. 30.8 Crores by CERC is unjustified and lacks reasoning. Payments made by EPTCL within the ‘Jantri Rates’ or as per orders of the State Authorities must be restituted.

Re. Consequential disallowance of IDC and IEDC

The IDC/IEDC has to be determined on the basis of time overrun and the increased compensation paid to the farm owners. CERC is directed to re-determine the IDC/IEDC subject to time overrun allowed and the actual compensation paid.

Conclusion

APTEL’s Judgment reinforces the principle that project developers should not be penalized for circumstances beyond their reasonable and foreseeable control, setting a benchmark for future cases. APTEL also recognized that increased compensation paid out due to Right of Way issues is beyond control of the licensee and hence the licensee ought to be restituted.

Our Disputes Team Comprised Lead Partner & Joint Managing Partner – Amit Kapur, Principal Associate – Malcolm Desai, Senior Associate – Samikrith Rao.

Tags APTEL, JSA, Leading Law Firm, Leading Lawyers, Power

JSA successfully represented Tata Power Renewable Energy, Renew Power and Continuum Green Energy before Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission in Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company’s attempt to seek retrospective reduction in tariff of Wind Generators in Maharashtra

JSA successfully represented Tata Power Renewable Energy Limited, Renew Power Limited and Continuum Green Energy Limited before Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (“MERC”) in proceedings initiated by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited’s (“MSEDCL”) for retrospective reduction in tariff of Wind Generators in Maharashtra. This was yet another attempt by the state distribution licensee seeking retrospective, unilateral reopening of concluded contracts.

By its Order dated 31.12.2024, MERC has dismissed MSEDCL’s Petition by, inter alia, holding that:

MSEDCL’s Petition is barred by res judicata since the reliefs sought by MSEDCL have already been rejected previously.
The relief sought by MSEDCL amounts to converting generic tariff to project specific tariff, which is impermissible.
MSEDCL wants reworking of CUF determined under RE Tariff Regulations, 2010 and RE Tariff Regulations, 2015. Regulations do not provide for reworking of CUF parameters without input from C-Wet/MNRE or in absence of data. In any case the Regulations relied on have been repealed and are no longer in operation.

MERC’s ruling serves to inspire investor confidence, since it underscores sanctity of tariffs and concluded contracts. It further recognizes that legal issues once settled cannot be reopened.

Our Litigation Team comprised Partners – Mr. Abhishek Munot and Mr. Kunal Kaul, Principal Associate – Mr. Tushar Nagar, and Senior Associate – Mr. Samikrith Rao Puskuri. The matter was argued by Mr. Kunal Kaul on behalf of Tata Power Renewables and ReNew Power.

Tags JSA, Leading Law Firm, Leading Lawyers, MERC, Tata Power

Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission relaxes the requirement to install Remote Terminal Units for Wind Power Developers

JSA successfully represented Suzlon Global Services Limited (“Suzlon”), a wind power developer, before the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (“GERC”). By way of an Order dated 17.12.2024, GERC permitted Suzlon to commission its Wind Turbine Generators by relaxing the requirement under GERC’s Wind Tariff Order dated 31.08.2024 to install Remote Terminal Unit (“RTU”) at each Wind Turbine Generators (“WTG”), and instead observed that real-time data can be provided to SLDC, through the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (“SCADA”) gateway.

Factual Matrix: –

On 30.04.2020, GERC issued Order No. 02 of 2020 inter alia determining tariff framework for wind power projects in Gujarat, with control period expiring on 31.03.2022. As per this Order, RTU was required to be installed only at pooling substation.
On 31.08.2024, GERC issued Wind Tariff Order 2024 whereby, for the first time, RTU was required to be installed at each WTGs, alongside being installed at the pooling substation. This Order was made to apply retrospectively with effect from 06.06.2022.
The requirement to install RTU at each WTG, alongside being installed at the pooling substation affected Suzlon’s WTGs which were ready for commissioning, since complying with such mandate was bound to result in delay in commissioning of such WTGs.
In its Petition before GERC, as an alternative to ensure real-time transfer of data, Suzlon proposed enhancing its SCADA system, which was time and cost effective, as compared to installing RTU at each WTG.

Findings of GERC: –

By way of its Order dated 17.12.2024, GERC held as under: –

“6.11. … We also note that as per submission of Petitioner 9 WTGs has been ready for the commissioning purpose and during the hearing both the parties agreed to share/collect the real time data from the SCADA gateway. Hence, we are of the view that the Applicant has to file an undertaking for providing the data on real time basis to the Respondent SLDC for its monitoring purpose and thereafter, SLDC may decide about access of SCADA gateway data from each WTG provided by the Petitioner and allows the commissioning of 9 WTGs to the Applicant.

6.12. The Petitioner requests interim relief upon providing real time basis data of the electrical and weather parameters through SCADA gateway from each WTGs to SLDC for real time operation and management and SLDC agreed for such arrangement provided by the Petitioner and allowed to commissioning of the Power Plant would suffice the purpose of the commissioning of 9 WTGs of the Petitioner which are ready for commissioning. Hence, we decide to allow the commissioning of 9 WTGs of the Petitioner by providing real time electrical and weather parameters of each WTGs to SLDC through SCADA gateway.”

This is a landmark interim relief in favour of Suzlon. Similarly placed wind power developers in the state of Gujarat may seek similar reliefs, thereby reducing the cost of generation, and project costs.

Our Disputes Team Comprised Lead Partner – Poonam Verma Sengupta, Senior Associates – Saunak Kumar Rajguru and Priyakshi Bhatnagar and Associate – Pradyumn Amit Sharma.

JSA obtained a significant judgement from the Jharkhand High Court for violation of pre-arrest principles

JSA obtained a significant judgement from the Jharkhand High Court wherein the High Court held the Investigating Police Officer and Officer In-charge guilty of contempt of Court for violation of pre-arrest principles laid down in the Supreme Court judgement of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 (“Arnesh Kumar Judgement”).

The High Court passed the following directions:

Simple imprisonment for one month with fine of Rs. 2,000/-;
Disciplinary action to be concluded by the State of Jharkhand within a period of 6 months;
Payment of cost of Rs. 50,000/- each to the victims subjected to illegal arrest; &
Further, victims have been granted liberty to claim compensation for wrongful arrest.

The case arises out of wrongful arrest of a senior executive and one delivery partner (“victims”) of an online market-place by Jharkhand Police on the allegations they were conducting a scam by requiring ‘one-time passwords’ (OTPs) for deliveries. Despite the alleged offences being punishable by less than seven years’ imprisonment, the police did not comply with the requirements of Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Hence, there was no recording of reasons for necessity of arrest, and no issuance of the required notice to the accused when the police does not have any reasons to arrest.

Though the accused themselves went to the police station, they were wrongfully arrested. Consequently, the victims/petitioners spent 18 days in illegal custody before their bail was secured. Being aggrieved by the violation of their fundamental rights, the accused victims moved the Hon’ble High Court’s contempt jurisdiction wherein, apart from non-compliance of the Arnesh Kumar Judgment guidelines, several other non-compliances were pointed out.

The Division Bench led by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court took serious note of the violations of due process of law and deplored the illegal conduct of the police officials. It termed as ‘ridiculous’ the police’s plea that arrest was made within the police station precincts because requiring an ‘OTP’ appeared to the police the conduct of ‘cyber criminals’.

The High Court noted the ‘brazen disregard’ of the police officials towards personal liberty. It accepted the submissions that pre-printed checklists for reasons of arrest cannot be considered compliance with the Arnesh Kumar Judgment, and the arresting officer must demonstrate application of mind.

The judgement assumes importance in light of a recent trend to colour civil disputes as criminal offences with the objective of arm-twisting. Moreover, the High Court’s directions will go a long way to prevent police excesses and serve as a deterrant.

Our team comprised of Lead Partner – Dheeraj Nair, Partner – Kumar Kislay, and Senior Associate – Vibhor Jain.

Tags Contempt Of Court, Criminal Law, Fundamental Rights, Jharkhand High Court, Legal Excellence, Legal Judgement, Legal Precedent, Police Reforms

JSA Brief | November 2024

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

JSA Prism | Aviation | December 2024

Please click here to download the Prism as a PDF.

Bharatiya Vayuyan Vidheyak, 2024

On December 5, 2024, the Parliament passed the Bharatiya Vayuyan Vidheyak, 2024 (“New Aircraft Act”)[1] replacing the Aircraft Act, 1934 (“Aircraft Act”), with an aim to modernise India’s Aviation regulatory framework to align with international standards. The New Aircraft Act also aims to address emerging challenges in the aviation ecosystem including technological advancements, safety and consumer protection etc.

The New Aircraft Act retains the regulatory structure qua (a) Directorate General of Civil Aviation (“DGCA”) – for performing regulatory functions and overseeing safety; (b) Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (“BCAS”) – for overseeing security; and (c) Aircraft Accidents Investigation Bureau (“AAIB”), for investigation of aircraft accidents. These authorities will continue to operate under the Central government’s supervision.

The New Aircraft Act introduces several key changes that are expected to significantly impact the Indian Aviation sector.

Key highlights of the New Aircraft Act

Expands the scope of regulation under the New Aircraft Act to include aircraft ‘design’, ‘manufacture’, and ‘maintenance’: The New Aircraft Act introduces new definitions such as ‘design’, ‘maintenance’ and ‘manufacture’. The terms ‘design’ and ‘maintenance’ are being used for the first time.

This creates regulatory certainty for Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul (“MRO”) sector thus, leading to more investments and creating a foundation for an atmanirbhar Bharat.

Streamlines license process for aviation personnels: Radio Telephone Operator Restricted certificate (“RTORC”) and licence testing process which was earlier conducted by the Department of Telecommunications , will now be conducted by DGCA. This RTORC/license process is required to be undertaken by aviation personnels including aircraft maintenance engineers, flight despatchers and pilots to operate all radio frequencies and equipment on an aircraft.

This will ensure a single-window clearance process as aviation personnel can now secure all their certificates (including this one) from one authority.

Aligns with international conventions: The Central Government is empowered to makes rules on matters relating to implementation of (a) Convention on International Civil Aviation,1944; (b)RTORC; and (c) licences under the International Telecommunication Convention.

This ensures that best global aviation practises are followed in India and at the same time also enhances India’s reputation in the international aviation community.

Introduces second tier of appellate mechanism: Presently, the decisions of Adjudicating Officer re. disputes/penalties under the Aircraft Act may be appealed before an Appellate Officer (appointed by the Central Government). The New Aircraft Act introduces an additional level of appeal against the decisions of the First Appellate Officer – which will now lie before the Second Appellate Officer.

This ensures transparency and compliance of principles of natural justice.

Appeal against orders of DGCA and BCAS: Under the New Aircraft Act, appeals against an order of DGCA or BCAS will lie before the Central Government. No further appeals against the Central Government orders is permitted.

This again ensures transparency and compliance of principles of natural justice.

New penalties for dangerous flying and offences: Violation of rules prohibiting slaughter and deposit of rubbish near airports will be punishable with imprisonment up to 3 (three) years, a fine up to INR 1,00,00,000 (Indian Rupees one crore). The Central Government Is given discretion to specify civil or criminal penalties for violation of rules concerning regulation of activities related to aircrafts such as design, manufacturing, use, and trade, implementation of international convention etc.

This is line with the objective of ensuring safety & security for passengers.

Economic and fare regulation in line with interests of consumers: The New Aircraft Act empowers the Central Government to frame rules for economic regulation, including fare regulation for air transport services. Presently, the Central Government monitors the airfares through DGCA and airlines have liability to inform it before they decide a fare for a particular route in terms of Rule 135 of Aircraft Rules, 1937. In this regard, on December 5, 2024, Union Civil Aviation Minister Ram Mohan Naidu has announced that the Central Government is removing a provision in DGCA’s Air Transport Circular 02 of 2010 (dated November 19, 2010) that allowed airlines to change prices within 24 (twenty-four) hours. The airlines will now be required to notify DGCA of ticket prices a month in advance, without being allowed the possibility of any changes/revisions.

This mechanism helps to prevent unauthorised operation and protects consumers from exploitation while maintaining the financial viability of airlines.

Conclusion

Overall, the New Aircraft Act offers progressive and an ambitious step forward for the India’s aviation sector. It not only strengthens the safety standards but also aligns with national initiatives like ‘Make in India’ and international best practices. However, there are also concerns with the New Aircraft Act regarding centralised power (lack of independence of regulatory authorities), environmental sustainability (which has not been directly addressed in the New Aircraft Act), lack of framework for aircraft leasing, absence of MRO specific provisions, loopholes in current consumer protection model (i.e. airfare guidelines not detailed, effective grievance redressal for consumers during airline’s financial distress) etc. It is also important to address such concerns in order to fully unlock unprecedented growth and innovation in Indian Aviation.

This Prism has been prepared by:

Poonam Verma Sengupta
Partner

Sakshi Kapoor
Senior Associate

For more details, please contact [email protected].

[1] Received President of India’s assent on December 11, 2024.

Tags Aviation, JSA, JSA Prism, Leading Law Firm, Leading Lawyers, Legal Updates

Sidharth Sethi | Conference on Redefining ADR: New Opportunities for Justice and Innovation

Our Partner, Sidharth Sethi, was invited as a speaker at the National ODR Day Conference on Redefining ADR: New Opportunities for Justice and Innovation, organized by the Indian Institute of Arbitration & Mediation (IIAM) on 1 December 2024 at New Delhi.

The keynote address was delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, Judge, Supreme Court of India.

Sidharth spoke on the topic, “Streamlining Arbitration: Reforms for Enhancing Efficiency and Effectiveness”.

The session was chaired by Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.V. Viswanathan, Judge, Supreme Court of India and moderated by Ms. Iram Majid, Advocate & Director, IIAM. The other esteemed panellists included:

Mr. Tejas Karia, Partner and Head of Arbitration, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas;
Dr. Amit George, Advocate, High Court of Delhi; and
Mr. Mohit Dubey, IES, ACIArb, Deputy Director (MES), Ministry of Defence, Government of India.

Also present on the occasion was Dr. Rajiv Mani, Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice.