Articles and Updates

Interested Party Not Eligible To Be An Arbitrator: Supreme Court Of India
  • Vasanth Rajasekaran - 21-09-2021

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent judgment in Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited and Ors. v. M/s Ajay Sales and Suppliers1 emphasised upon the impartiality of an arbitrator and held that chairman of one of the disputants would be ineligible to be an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). In this article, we briefly discuss the facts and circumstances which led to the aforementioned judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Read More
Moratorium Declared Under Section 14 Of The IBC Does Not Apply To Proceedings In Respect Of Directors Or Management Of Corporate Debtor: Supreme Court Of India
  • Vasanth Rajasekaran and Harshvardhan Korada - 21-09-2021

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent decision in Anjali Rathi and Ors. v. Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.1 has held that a moratorium declared under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) applies only to proceedings in respect of the corporate debtor and not its directors or management. In this article, we briefly discuss the facts and circumstances which led to the aforementioned judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Read More
Courts Empowered To Continue Adjudication Of Ongoing Section 9 Application Even Post The Constitution Of An Arbitral Tribunal: Supreme Court Of India
  • Vasanth Rajasekaran and Harshvardhan Korada - 21-09-2021

In a recent judgment, in Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel (India) Ltd. v. Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd.1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled the law on the interplay between Section 9 and Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).

Read More
Restricting Discounts Offered By Dealerships Amounts To Resale Price Maintenance: CCI Imposes Penalty Of INR 2 Billion On Maruti Suzuki India Limited
  • Vasanth Rajasekaran and Harshvardhan Korada - 14-09-2021

In the recent decision in Suo Motu Case No. 1 of 20191, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) imposed a penalty of INR 2 Billion (Rupees Two Billion) on Maruti Suzuki India Limited (MSIL). The CCI observed that MSIL indulged in resale price maintenance by imposing a discount control policy (DCP) across dealerships in India causing appreciable adverse effects on competition (AAEC) under Section 3(4)(e) and Section 3(1) the Competition Act, 2002 (Act). The present article briefly analyses the findings of the CCI in the above-mentioned case.

Read More
Needed framework for enforcement of investment treaty arbitration
  • Vasanth Rajasekaran, Nayantara Narayan, and Harshvardhan Korada - 10-09-2021

Read More