Necessity of Stamping of Arbitration Agreements: Is the Conundrum Solved?
by Swarnendu Chatterjee† and Megha Saha††
by Swarnendu Chatterjee† and Megha Saha††
by Vasanth Rajasekaran †
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 38
The practice of dissent in judicial decision-making process plays a critical role in revealing constitutional commitment to deliberative democracy. Allowing judges to express differing views and engage in a dialogue about the law and its interpretation can potentially lead to a more nuanced and refined understanding of the law, as the Court grapples with competing interpretations and seeks to reconcile them in a principled manner.
by Mayank Singh†
The Constitution bench considered a question of law : whether the instrument was duly stamped or not, was not only contrary to the plain language of Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration Act, but also wholly defeated the legislative intention of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, and puts a spoke in the wheel of conduct of the arbitration process at its very inception.
Supreme Court: The division bench of Uday Umesh Lalit, C.J. and Bela M. Trivedi*, J. has held that the provisions
Delhi High Court: In a case filed by Panasonic India Private Limited (petitioner) seeking appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes which
When Section 7 or any other provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 do not stipulate any particular form or requirements, it would not be appropriate for a court to gratuitously add impediments and desist from upholding the validity of an arbitration agreement.
by Priyanshu Shrivastava† and Fatema Kinkhabwala††
Calcutta High Court: In a petition challenging the appointment of sole Arbitrator by the respondent, Shekhar B. Saraf, J., held
Calcutta High Court: While deciding a review petition, Debangsu Basak, J. held that the court while exercising powers under Section
by Swarnendu Chatterjee† and Dhriti Bole††
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 58
Bombay High Court: A very interesting question was considered by G.S. Kulkarni, J., the question being, whether mere filing of a proceeding
Delhi High Court: Mukta Gupta, J., expressed that the issue of whether in the absence of a third party, the refundable security
Delhi High Court: Mukta Gupta, J., decided that mere use of word ‘Arbitration’ in the heading of an Agreement would not mean
Supreme Court: In a case where the bench of Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ was deciding an issue relating to
Karnataka High Court: SR Krishna Kumar, J., disposed of the petition and directed the petitioner-company to avail such remedies as available in
Allahabad High Court: Noting the significance of Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Jayant Banerji, J., expressed
Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Narula, J., allowed an arbitration petition by appointing a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the contesting parties.
Delhi High Court: Amit Bansal, J., dismissed a petition challenging the order passed by the lower court whereby respondent’s application under Section