Articles and Updates

• Vasanth Rajasekaran and Shweta Vashist - 30-05-2020

In this article, we analyze the decision rendered by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) in Patel Engineering Ltd. v. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd.1, where the ground of patent illegality for challenging a domestic award, post the amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) in the year 2015, has been reaffirmed.

• Vasanth Rajasekaran and Shweta Vashist - 29-05-2020

COVID-19 and the lockdown that followed this pandemic has not just created large-scale implications for businesses across the globe, but has also severely affected contractual relationships. An important question that has arisen during these unprecedented times is whether this lockdown would entitle tenants to claim waiver or suspension of rent.

• Vasanth Rajasekaran , Saurabh Babulkar and Shweta Vashist - 26-05-2020

It is settled law that courts should not interfere with awards merely because an alternative view on the facts or interpretation of the contracts exists. The Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) has consistently held that courts should not interfere with the view taken by an arbitral tribunal, unless an award portrays perversity unpardonable under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).

• Debarshi Dutta and Srijata Majumdar - 26-05-2020

A 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court, in Desh Raj v. Balkishan (D) through proposed LR (2020 SCC Online SC 49), affirmed and reiterated the two distinct regimes under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("Code") for filing of written statements. The Supreme Court held that while mandatory timelines prescribed for commercial suits could not be applied to non-commercial suits, timelines provided for non-commercial suits should not be misconstrued to delay filing written statements and each case will have to be decided on its own merit.

• Vasanth Rajasekaran , Saurabh Babulkar and Shweta Vashist - 23-05-2020

The approach of the Indian judiciary has consistently been pro-enforcement, particularly in respect of foreign arbitral awards. Indian courts have, time and again, construed the parameters for resisting enforcement of foreign awards narrowly, as a reflection of its pro-arbitration/enforcement approach. However, the recent decision of the Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court), in National Agriculture Cooperative Marketing Federation of India v. Alimenta S.A.1 , appears that the scope of judicial intervention is ever expanding.