Blog

Introduction Emergency arbitration is a feature of the rules of all leading domestic and international arbitration institutions, both across Asia and elsewhere. Concept of emergency arbitration is considerably new and is likely to remain a permanent part of the international arbitration landscape. Prior to the modern day emergency arbitration provisions, precursor emergency arbitration rules existed, such as the International Chamber of Commerce (‘ICC’, for short) Pre-Arbitral Referee procedure[1], as well as optional emergency arbitrator provisions in the rules of the American Arbitration Association.

INTRODUCTION The case (Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. v. HSCC (India) Ltd.) revolves around the appointment of arbitrator under section 11(6) read with section 11(12)a of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in accordance with clause of the Contract entered into between the parties and the sole arbitrator so appointed may adjudicate the disputes and differences between the parties arising from the contract. FACTS OF THE CASE The respondent was desirous of comprehensive architectural planning and

Introduction: The speed with which India is developing, there are a lot of construction contracts being awarded and executed between the parties. There generally exists an arbitration clause when an agreement is executed between the parties to the contract, for resolution of disputes between the contracting parties.   In the event of disagreement between the parties on the appointment of the arbitrator, or, when nominee-arbitrators fail to appoint the presiding arbitrator, or, when one of

The legal quandary between the ‘seat of arbitration’ and ‘venue of arbitration’ vis-a-vis territorial jurisdiction of a ‘Principal Civil Court’ to entertain a petition challenging an award under Section 34[i] has been succinctly elucidated in the recent judgement delivered by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Adie Browson Breweries Pvt. Ltd. Vs KLA Constructions Technologies Private Limited[ii], whereby, the Hon’ble High Court has rightly inferred that ‘Venue of Arbitration’ does not imply

  INTRODUCTION Last month, on December 10th 2019, a three judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice R. F. Nariman, Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice V. Ramasubranium passed a significant judgement in the case of BGS SGS SOMA JV v. NHPC Ltd.[1] establishing interpretation on certain crucial aspects of the arbitral agreement with respect to whether a venue agreed upon for arbitral proceedings would constitute as the seat of arbitration in absence