Arbitration is a form of alternate dispute resolution (ADR)
In the complex arena of construction projects, deadlines extend beyond mere dates; they embody contractual duties, financial stakes, and professional reputations. Among the critical facets of managing such projects is the handling of time claims, commonly known as Extension of Time (“EOT”) requests. These claims, when managed effectively, are vital tools for contractors seeking fair...
India’s arbitration framework has undergone a significant evolution in the last two decades, driven by a legislative push toward institutionalising arbitration and judicial pronouncements aimed at fostering a pro-arbitration jurisprudence. However, the tension between judicial oversight and arbitral autonomy has remained a persistent concern. The Indian Supreme Court, in a series of landmark decisions, has...
In its recent judgment in BGM and M-RPL-JMCT (JV) v. Eastern Coalfields Limited[1], dated 18th July 2025, the Supreme Court addressed a recurring legal conundrum in arbitration jurisprudence, whether a clause containing the option to seek arbitration, rather than an unequivocal reference, constitutes an “arbitration agreement” within the meaning of Section 7[2] of the Arbitration...
In a significant pronouncement of 24th July 2025, the Calcutta High Court in M/s B.B.M. Enterprise v. State of West Bengal[1] reaffirmed the judiciary’s restrained role in arbitral matters under Section 34[2] of the Arbitration Act and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“A&C Act”). The Court set aside the earlier judgment of the trial court[3], which had...
The recent decision of the Technology and Construction Court (“TCC”) in VMA Services Ltd v Project One London Ltd[1] marks another significant judicial reaffirmation of the principles governing “smash-and-grab” adjudications. It also re-engages with the interplay between the statutory payment regime under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (as amended) (the “Act”) and...
Introduction In a significant reaffirmation of arbitral autonomy and judicial restraint, the Madras High Court in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. SPML Infra Ltd.[1] has once again underscored the limited scope of interference with arbitral awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“A & C Act”). At the heart of the...
Introduction In a landmark decision that brings clarity to the interplay between the Limitation Act, 1963, and the dispute resolution framework under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSMED Act”), the Supreme Court in M/S Sonali Power Equipments Pvt. Ltd. v. Chairman, Maharashtra State Electricity Board & Ors.[1], has definitively ruled on...
The Delhi High Court’s decision dated 18th July 2025, in the matter of NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd v. Precision Technik Pvt Ltd[1], offers a valuable precedent on the interpretation of force majeure clauses in Power Purchase Agreements (“PPAs”), the scope of Performance Bank Guarantee (“PBG”) encashment, and the limits of judicial intervention under Sections...
Introduction In international arbitration, the parties’ autonomy is a hallmark feature. However, this autonomy operates within a legal framework that governs and supports the arbitral process. One of the most fundamental, yet often under-discussed, elements of this framework is the lex arbitri, or the law of the seat of arbitration. The lex arbitri plays...
Introduction India has progressively aligned itself with international best practices for enforcing foreign arbitral awards. As a signatory to both the New York Convention (1958) and the Geneva Convention (1927), India’s Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the “Act”) provides a comprehensive framework for recognition and enforcement of foreign awards. Recent amendments and judicial pronouncements reflect...
