Apr 20, 2020

International Arbitration 2020


As one of the fastest growing economies in the world, India has recognised the need for an efficient and effective alternate dispute resolution system, which could boost investor confidence and promote business and investments. In 2016, during a global conference organised by government think tank NITI Aayog titled ‘National Initiative towards Strengthening Arbitration and Enforcement in India’, the Indian Prime Minister focused on the need to promote India as an arbitration hub, and stated: “An enabling alternative dispute resolution ecosystem is a national priority as it will not only add to investors’ comfort level but also ease the burden on courts.”[1]

The arbitration landscape in India has had an arduous history on account of several factors including ineffective laws, an overburdened and overzealous judiciary, use of obsolete tools and resistance to change. Historically, alternate dispute resolution mechanisms existed in a rudimentary form, where parties would resolve disputes with the assistance of the village elders (panchayats). During the colonial rule, the first law enacted on arbitration was the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899 (with a limited application to the Presidency towns of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras). This was followed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which contained specific provisions related to arbitration.

The first major consolidated legislation to govern the conduct of arbitrations across the country was the Arbitration Act, 1940 (“1940 Act”) which was based on the (English) Arbitration Act, 1934. The 1940 Act dealt only with domestic arbitrations, [2] and its way of working was found to be far from satisfactory.[3] The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Guru Nanak Foundation vs. Rattan Singh,[4] commented on the 1940 Act that, “[t]he way in which the proceedings under the Act are conducted and without exception challenged in Courts, has made lawyers laugh and legal philosophers weep”. These were indeed prophetic words.

India’s ratification of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958 (“New York Convention”), and adoption of the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 1985 (“Model Law”) set forth by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law and the UNCITRAL Conciliation Rules, 1980, paved the way for its current legislation on alternate dispute resolution – The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”). The Preamble to the Act stated that it was put in place “to consolidate and amend the law relating to domestic arbitration, international commercial arbitration and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards as also to define the law relating to conciliation…”.

The Act forms a comprehensive legislative piece regulating arbitrations in two parts: (i) Part I, which governs commercial arbitrations (whether domestic or international) with a seat in India (“Part I arbitrations”); and (ii) Part II, which governs the enforcement of foreign awards in India (“Part II arbitrations”). Part III of the Act deals with conciliation proceedings.

However, excessive judicial interference, long delays and high costs continued to plague the arbitral process under the Act for about two decades after it was enacted. In an attempt to create a robust, arbitration-friendly jurisdiction, India saw a paradigm shift in 2015, through a substantial amendment to the Act under the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 (“2015 Amendment”). Indian legislature consciously codified certain important judicial precedents in the 2015 Amendment. Some of the key changes (explained in detail below) include: (i) the insertion of strict timelines for completion of arbitration proceedings; (ii) requirements for arbitrators to disclose conflict (as per newly inserted Schedules, similar to the Red List and Orange List under the International Bar Association Guidelines on Conflict of Interest in International Arbitration (“IBA Conflict Guidelines”)); (iii) providing for interim relief by Indian courts in international commercial arbitrations with a foreign seat; (iv) empowering arbitral tribunals in Part I arbitrations to grant interim relief akin to those which could be granted by a court; (v) reducing the scope of review by courts in various stages of the arbitral process; (vi) defining the scope of a challenge to an arbitral award under the ground of ‘public policy’; and (vii) doing away with the provision granting an automatic stay of an award under Part I upon the filing of a challenge before a court.

Post the 2015 Amendment, all players in the system have become conscious of the common goal of ensuring the success of arbitration in India. Some palpable changes were quickly seen, such as arbitrators becoming stricter on timelines and adjournments as well as increasing inclusivity in the pool of arbitrators in addition to former judges. Courts have generally adopted a minimalist intervention approach in the arbitral process, and have begun to progressively enforce awards.

Despite the presence of several arbitral institutions and rules in India, the use of ad hoc arbitrations has been predominant in practice. In keeping with the latest trends in international commercial arbitrations, a high-level committee headed by Justice B.N. Srikrishna, former Judge of the Supreme Court of India (“Srikrishna Committee”) was constituted in January 2017 to suggest recommendations for boosting the use of institutional arbitrations in India and addressing lacunae following the 2015 Amendment. The Srikrishna Committee submitted its report in July 2017. Based on these recommendations, the legislature enacted further amendments in the form of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019 (“2019 Amendment”). Some of the key reforms include: (i) the creation of an independent institution called the ‘Arbitration Council of India’ (“ACI”), tasked with framing policies, grading arbitral institutions and arbitrators, and overseeing timely and cost-effective disposal of arbitrations; (ii) vesting arbitral institutions with the power to appoint arbitrators, instead of requiring parties to approach courts for this purpose; (iii) providing a separate timeline for completion of pleadings in Part I arbitrations; and (iv) codifying strict confidentiality of arbitral proceedings.

The biggest change sought to be introduced by the 2019 Amendment is the creation of the ACI and its composition, powers and functions. These provisions have not yet been notified and therefore, one can only speculate on how the ACI will function in reality. One of the criticisms towards the ACI comprising several government officials is that it could lead to undesirable interference by the government, especially in light of the government frequently being party to arbitrations in India. Further, a schedule providing for qualifications, experience and norms for accreditation of arbitrators has been inserted, which leaves some room for doubt about the status of appointment of foreign arbitrators in India. These provisions of the 2019 Amendment (though not yet notified) have been met with criticism for restricting party autonomy. Time will tell how the above 2015 and 2019 Amendments will play out in reality, but with the right focus and approach, India’s ambitious plans to minimise court interference and to make India an arbitration-friendly hub could bear fruit.

Arbitration agreement

Section 7 of the Act requires an arbitration agreement to be in writing. Accepted forms include: (i) a document which is signed by the parties; (ii) an exchange of letters, telex, telegrams or other means of telecommunication which provides a record of the agreement; or (iii) an exchange of statements of claim and defence in which the existence of the agreement is alleged by one party and not denied by the other. Considering that several agreements are now concluded electronically, the 2015 Amendment provided that an arbitration agreement can also be formed through communication by electronic means.

There is no specific form of an arbitration agreement. It can either be in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract or in the form of a separate agreement. In line with the approach taken by the Model Law, the Act also provides that an arbitration clause which forms part of a contract shall be treated as severable and independent from the rest of the contract. In M/s. P. Manohar Reddy & Bros vs. Maharashtra Krishna Valley,[5] the Supreme Court held that, “[a]n arbitration clause, as is well known, is a part of the contract. It being a collateral term need not in all situations perish with coming to an end of the contract. It may survive”. Thus, any challenge to the validity or existence of the main contract does not impact the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal and can also be decided by it. This is in line with the minimalist intervention policy of courts, and affirms the principle of “kompetenz-kompetenz” of arbitral tribunals – wherein an arbitral tribunal is competent to decide upon any challenge to its jurisdiction.

Recently, Indian courts have accepted the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal under an arbitration agreement to also extend to non-signatory persons in certain circumstances. In the landmark decision of Chloro Controls India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. & Ors.,[6] the Supreme Court applied the ‘Group of Companies’ doctrine and extended the arbitration to non-signatory persons by holding that, “[i]n the case of group companies or where various agreements constitute a composite transaction like the mother agreement and all agreements being ancillary to and for effective and complete implementation of the mother agreement, the court may have to make reference to arbitration even on the disputes existing between signatory or even non-signatory parties. However, the discretion of the court has to be exercised in exceptional, limiting and befitting the cases of necessity and very cautiously”. [Emphasis supplied.]

Post this decision, several cases have dealt with the joinder of non-signatories through the ‘Group of Companies’ doctrine, if an intention to bind non-signatories to the arbitration agreement is present. In Cheran Properties Limited vs. Kasturi and Sons Limited and Others,[7] the Supreme Court took yet another progressive leap and enforced an award against a non-signatory, relying on the principle that an arbitral award is “binding on the parties and persons claiming under them”.

Arbitration procedure
Reference to arbitration

In line with a minimalist intervention policy, Section 8 of the Act provides that courts are bound to refer a proceeding covered within the ambit of an arbitration agreement to an arbitral tribunal, unless it finds that prima facie no valid arbitration agreement exists. Thus, there is a narrow scope of enquiry by courts before referring parties (or a party claiming through or under a party) to arbitration.

While deciding an issue of reference to arbitration, courts have also decided which disputes are arbitrable. Certain disputes involving rights in rem, such as criminal matters, insolvency, matrimonial disputes, testamentary and guardianship matters, are not arbitrable. [8] In cases involving allegations of fraud, only if the court is satisfied that said allegations are of a serious and complicated nature (requiring extensive evidence in a civil court), would such
a case be non-arbitrable. Other cases involving mere allegations of fraud are arbitrable.[9]

General timelines

One of the most prickly issues in Indian arbitrations was the inordinate delay in completion of arbitration proceedings. Therefore, Section 29A of the 2015 Amendment introduced a 12-month timeline (from the date of the tribunal entering reference in a Part I arbitration) to complete the arbitration. Parties can, by consent, extend the timeline by six months (“12+6 Timeline”). Beyond the 12+6 Timeline, the mandate of the arbitrator will terminate, unless the parties obtain a further extension from the court.

Following the 2019 Amendment, the 12+6 Timeline commences after the parties have completed their pleadings. The 2019 Amendment makes a further distinction: the 12+6 Timeline is mandatory only for domestic arbitrations seated in India (where both parties are Indian); and directory for international commercial arbitrations seated in India (where at least one party is foreign). Therefore, the 2019 Amendment has diluted the strict timelines introduced by the 2015 Amendment, insofar as international commercial arbitrations involving a foreign party under Part I are concerned.

Expedited arbitration

Keeping in mind the necessity of the speedy resolution of disputes, the 2015 Amendment introduced fast-track arbitrations under Section 29B of the Act. Now, parties may, at any stage of the arbitral proceeding, opt for a fast-track procedure for settlement of their disputes. Where this option is exercised, the arbitral tribunal will decide the dispute on the basis of written pleadings and make an award within six months from entering reference. Parties may request for an oral hearing or the arbitral tribunal may hold one if it so desires.

Rules of procedure and evidence

As in other common law jurisdictions, both oral and documentary evidence is admissible in Indian arbitrations. While the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”) and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“Evidence Act”) are not strictly applicable, it is common practice for ad hoc domestic arbitral tribunals to apply the basic principles of these statutes to arbitrations seated in India. The Supreme Court, in Maharashtra State Electricity Board vs. Datar Switchgear Limited,[10] held that the arbitral tribunal can draw sustenance from the fundamental principles underlying the CPC or the Evidence Act, but is not required to observe the law in “all its rigor”. International commercial arbitrations seated in India are seeing an increasing reliance on the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration.

Appointment of arbitrators

Section 11 of the Act gives complete autonomy to the parties for the appointment of arbitrators. Where such agreement fails, default provisions under Section 11 come into play, permitting any party to approach the courts for the appointment of arbitrators. Section 11 has been amended in the 2019 Amendment, wherein the appointment of arbitrators shall be made by arbitral institutions designated by the courts. However, this amended provision has not yet been notified.

For grant of relief under Section 11 of the Act, the court requires that the agreement containing the arbitration clause should be adequately stamped under Indian stamp laws. [11]

Neutrality of arbitrators

The 2015 Amendment adopted the globally accepted provisions of IBA Conflict Guidelines to bolster the neutrality of arbitrators, which has also been discussed in the Supreme Court’s judgment of HRD Corporation vs. GAIL.[12] The Fifth Schedule (read with Section 12(1)(a)) of the Act sets out circumstances giving rise to “justifiable doubts as to the independence and impartiality” of an arbitrator. Correspondingly, the Seventh Schedule (read with Section 12(5)) of the Act provides instances which would result in “ineligibility” of an individual being appointed as an arbitrator, unless the parties expressly waive the applicability of this provision.

Recently, the Supreme Court of India, in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. vs. HSCC (India) Ltd,[13] clarified two crucial points: first, a person declared to be ineligible as an arbitrator cannot appoint another person as an arbitrator; and second, Section 11 empowers courts to intervene where the appointment of an arbitrator is ex facie invalid.

Termination of an arbitrator’s mandate

Under Section 14 of the Act, an arbitrator’s mandate will be terminated if either the arbitrator becomes de jure or de facto unable to perform his/her functions or fails to act without delay or withdraws from office. Section 15 of the Act further provides that the mandate of an arbitrator can be terminated: by recusal; by the parties; by the arbitral tribunal; by a court order; on the death of the arbitrator; or because of the arbitrator’s physical incapacity to proceed with the mandate.

Interim relief
The nature of interim relief sought by a party may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances of a case. The Act provides for interim relief under Sections 9 and 17, by courts and arbitral tribunals, respectively.

Post the 2015 Amendment

Under Section 9 of the Act, parties may approach the courts for interim relief before, during, or after the arbitral award (but prior to enforcement). Under the 2015 Amendment, where interim relief is granted prior to commencement of arbitral proceedings, the arbitration must commence within 90 days from the date of the order granting relief. However, once a tribunal is constituted, the courts are mandated to not entertain applications for interim relief unless circumstances exist which may render the remedy to be provided by the tribunal for interim relief to be inefficacious. Section 17 of the Act empowers arbitral tribunals to grant interim relief. As discussed above, their powers in this regard are co-extensive with those of a court under Section 9 of the Act.

Interim relief by Indian courts in foreign-seated arbitrations

Prior to 6 September 2012, Indian courts could grant interim relief in foreign-seated arbitrations unless parties had expressly or impliedly agreed to the contrary. However, the 2012 decision of the Supreme Court of India in Bharat Aluminum Co. vs. Kaiser Aluminum Technical Services[14] excluded parties’ ability to seek interim relief under Section 9 of the Act in cases of foreign-seated arbitrations. The 2015 Amendment remedied the situation and made Section 9 applicable to international commercial arbitrations, even if the place of arbitration is outside India, and an arbitral award made or to be made in such place is enforceable and recognised under the provisions of Part II of the Act, unless the applicability of Section 9 is excluded by agreement of the parties.

Emergency orders

Recognising the growing demand for arbitral institutions to appoint emergency arbitrators for urgent interim relief prior to the constitution of an arbitral tribunal, the 246th Law Commission of India Report recommended that the Act provide for an enforcement mechanism of such emergency orders. However, this was overlooked in the 2015 and 2019 Amendments.

The Delhi High Court in the case of Raffles Design International India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. vs. Educomp Professional Education Limited and Ors.[15] allowed a petition under Section 9 of the Act seeking interim relief on the basis of an order passed by an emergency arbitrator granting such relief. While the court allowed the maintainability of the petition, it held that the only mechanism to enforce such an emergency order would be to file a suit. However, this may not be viable given that the alternate dispute resolution mechanism was necessitated given the slow disposal rate for civil suits. It is likely that by the time such a suit is finally heard, events would have overtaken the urgent need to have the emergency order enforced. In these circumstances, the Act should provide for adequate recognition of emergency arbitration orders.

Arbitration award
Interest on the amount awarded

Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, an arbitral tribunal can award pre -award interest at a rate it deems reasonable. For post-award interest, unless the award otherwise directs, Section 31 of the Act provides that the sum awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 2% higher than the current rate of interest prevalent on the date of the award (governed by the Interest Act, 1978), from the date of the award up until the date of actual payment.


The 246th Law Commission of India Report specifically highlighted the need to amend the law on recovery of arbitral costs. While the “loser pays” principle is generally followed in Indian arbitrations, actual costs were rarely granted. The 2015 Amendment introduced a detailed cost regime under Section 31-A of the Act and mandated the tribunals to consider the following while awarding costs: (i) the conduct of the parties; (ii) whether a party has succeeded wholly/partly in a case; (iii) any delay attributable to a party where the party may have made a frivolous counterclaim; and (iv) any potential offer made by a party for settling the dispute which was refused by the other party.

Challenge to an arbitration award under Part I of the Act

A challenge to an award in Part I arbitrations can be made on the limited grounds provided under Section 34 of the Act. The challenge must be made only on the basis of the record before the arbitral tribunal. The grounds on which a court can set aside an arbitral award are:

(i) a party was under some incapacity;
(ii) the arbitration agreement in question is not valid in accordance with the law to which the parties have subjected it;
(iii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or was otherwise unable to present his/her case;
(iv) the dispute dealt by the arbitral award does not fall within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or the decision contained in the arbitral award is beyond the scope of submission to arbitration; or
(v) the composition of the arbitral tribunal was not in accordance with the terms of the arbitration agreement.

In addition to the above-mentioned grounds, the court may also set aside an arbitral award if:

(i) the subject matter of the dispute is not arbitrable;
(ii) the arbitral award that has been passed is in conflict with the public policy of India; or
(iii) it finds the award vitiated by patent illegality.

Post the 2015 Amendment

Before the 2015 Amendment, the Act did not define the term ‘public policy’ as used in Section 34. This left ample scope for a very wide and subjective interpretation of the term by courts. The Supreme Court interpreted the term ‘public policy’ (as used in the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961) in Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. vs. General Electric Co.[16] and permitted an arbitral award to be set aside if it was against (i) the fundamental policy of India, (ii) the interest of India, or (iii) justice or morality. In ONGC Ltd. vs. Saw Pipes Ltd,[17] the Supreme Court gave the term ‘public policy’ a wider definition and held that the role of the court was similar to that of an appellate/revision court, and that it had wide powers. In the Saw Pipes decision, the court added an additional ground of patent illegality appearing on the face of the award.

Narrowing the scope of the term ‘public policy’, the 2015 Amendment provided that an award is against the public policy of India, only where it is (i) vitiated by fraud/corruption, (ii) in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law, or (iii) in conflict with the basic notions of morality and justice. The 2015 Amendment specifically provides that the court shall not examine the award on merits.

The ground of ‘patent illegality’

The 2015 Amendment introduced an additional ground to have an award set aside: where it is ‘patently illegal’. The term ‘patent illegality’ borrows its definition from the Saw Pipes judgment, in which it was interpreted to mean an illegality apparent on the face of the record due to (i) a contravention of the substantive law of India, or (ii) a contravention of the Act, including a failure to consider the terms of the contract and applicable trade usages.

The 2015 Amendment did away with the effect of judicial precedents under the earlier regime under which enforcement of the award was automatically stayed as soon as a challenge was filed.18 As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Construction Company Limited vs. Union Of India,[19] if an award is automatically stayed as a matter of course upon a challenge being filed, “an arbitral award-holder is deprived of the fruits of its award – which is usually obtained after several years of litigating – as a result of the automatic stay, whereas it would be faced with immediate payment to its operational creditors”. The Act now provides that a court may require a deposit or provision of security in order to grant a stay of the award.

An award can be challenged within three months from the date of receipt. This three-month period can be extended by a further maximum period of 30 days, if sufficient cause is shown. An award holder can move an application to enforce the award after three months from the date of receipt of the award. Where the time to challenge the award has lapsed, and subject to any stay on the enforcement of the award, the award will be executable as a decree under the CPC.

Enforcement of foreign awards under Part II of the Act

Effective enforcement and execution of an arbitration award is the primary indicator for the success of any arbitral process. Enforcement of foreign awards is governed by Part II of the Act. Unlike Section 34 in Part I which is in the nature of a sword, the grounds under Section 48 of Part II provide only a shield to resist enforcement.

The grounds for resisting enforcement of a foreign award are similar to those for setting aside an award under Part I of the Act. However, there are two key differences. First, patent illegality is not a ground against enforcement of a foreign award under Part II. Second, unlike in Part I arbitrations where a court must set an award aside if any of the grounds under Section 34 are fulfilled, Sections 48(1) and 48(2) of the Act provide that enforcement of a foreign award may be refused if the specified grounds are met. Recognising this “pro-enforcement bias”, the Supreme Court in Vijay Karia and Ors. vs. Prysmian Cavi E Sistei SRL[20] held that, where the violation of a ground to resist enforcement is linked to a party interest alone, a court may enforce the award. However, violations of jurisdictional grounds (such as under an invalid arbitration agreement) or public policy would not afford any discretion to refuse enforcement. In Vijay Karia, the court affirmed the Delhi High Court ruling in Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings vs. Unitech Limited[21] that an alleged violation of the Foreign Exchange (Management) Act, 1999, would not result in breach of the fundamental policy of India. On the other hand, the Delhi High Court in the case of Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited vs. Malvinder Mohan Singh And Ors.[22] refused enforcement against minors, holding that protection of minors is a “substratal policy” on which Indian law was founded.

Thus, Indian courts are increasingly hesitant to interfere with foreign arbitral awards.

Investment arbitration

India has been a signatory to around 85 Bilateral Investment Treaties (“BITs”). Pursuant to the treaty award passed against India in White Industries Australia Limited vs. Republic of India (“White Industries”), a flood gate of BIT claims was opened against India. However, since March 2017, India has drastically shifted its stance on investment treaties and terminated 69 BITs.[23] This was supposedly done to renegotiate the existing BITs in terms of India’s Model BIT, 2016 (adopted on 14 January 2016).

Indian courts have not yet specifically ruled on the enforcement of BIT awards. However, the Delhi High Court, while rejecting an interim application to injunct a BIT arbitration in the case of Union of India vs. Vodafone Group PLC United Kingdom and Anr.,[24] observed that the Act did not apply to BIT arbitrations since they arose from state guarantees and assurances and are not commercial in nature.[25] This decision was followed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India vs. Khaitan Holdings (Mauritius) Limited[26] while once again rejecting interim relief in an anti-arbitration suit to injunct a BIT arbitration.

India is a signatory to the New York Convention, under which courts in most signatory jurisdictions enforce BIT awards. Therefore, the above observations of the Delhi High Court do not appear to be in consonance with (i) the wide interpretation of the term ‘commercial’ by Indian courts, and (ii) the stance in other signatory jurisdictions which regard BIT investments as ‘commercial’ in nature (such as the Supreme Court of British Columbia in United Mexican States vs. Metalclad Corporation[27] and the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit in Smith/Enron Cogeneration Ltd. vs. Smith Cogeneration Intl. Inc).[28] Therefore, while the above judgments are certainly pro-arbitration in spirit (as seen by the refusal to injunct the BIT arbitrations), the observation on the applicability of the Act to BITs leaves room for argument and is yet to be tested.

Third-party funding

The validity of third-party funding in arbitrations is currently under judicial scrutiny in India. It was recently blessed by the Supreme Court of India in Bar Council of India vs. A.K. Balaji & Ors.,[29] which observed that “[t]here appears to be no restriction on third parties (nonlawyers) funding the litigation and getting repaid after the outcome of the litigation”. Whether third-party funding costs awarded in an arbitration would fall foul of Indian public policy is being considered by the Bombay High Court in an ongoing enforcement proceeding in Norscot Rig Management Pvt. Ltd. vs. Essar Oilfields Services Limited.[30]

This is likely to be a landmark decision on the position of third-party funding in India.

Rajendra Barot, Senior Partner
Sonali Mathur, Partner


1. Available at https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/alternate-dispute-resolution-ecosystema-national-priority-pm-modi-1477974.
2. Enforcement of foreign awards were covered by the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937 dealing with Geneva Convention Awards and the Foreign Awards  (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961 dealing with New York Convention Awards.
3. 246th Report of the Law Commission of India, Amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, August 2014, para 3.
4. (1981) 4 SCC 634.
5. (2009) 2 SCC 494.
6. (2013) 1 SCC 641.
7. (2018) 16 SCC 413.
8. Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. vs. SBI Home Finance Limited., (2011) 5 SCC 532.
9. Ayyasamy vs. A. Paramasivam & Ors., (2016) 10 SCC 386; see also, Ameet Lalchand Shah v Rishabh Enterprises, (2018) 15 SCC 678.
10. (2010) 10 SCC 479.
11. Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. vs Coastal Marine Constructions, (2019) 9 SCC 209.
12. (2018) 12 SCC 471.
13. (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1517.
14. (2012) 9 SCC 552.
15. (2016) SCC OnLine Del 5521.
16. (1994) Supp (1) SCC 644.
17. (2003) 5 SCC 705.
18. Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. Kochi Cricket Private Limited, (2018) 6 SCC 287.
19. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1074 of 2019.
20. (2020) SCC OnLine SC 177.
21. (2017) SCC OnLine Del 7810.
22. (2019) SCC OnLine Del 7836.
23. As per the list maintained by the Department of Economic Affairs at https://dea.gov.
24. (2018) SCC OnLine Del 8842.
25. Section 44 of the Act (under Part II) defines the term ‘foreign award’ as “…an arbitral award on differences between parties arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, considered as commercial under the law in force in India...” [emphasis supplied].
26. (2019) SCC OnLine Del 6755.
27. 2001 B.C.S.C. 664.
28. 39 ILM 704 (2000).
29. 2018 5 SCC 379.
30. CARBP/1065/2018, pending in the Bombay High Court.





These are the views and opinions of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Firm. This article is intended for general information only and does not constitute legal or other advice and you acknowledge that there is no relationship (implied, legal or fiduciary) between you and the author/AZB. AZB does not claim that the article's content or information is accurate, correct or complete, and disclaims all liability for any loss or damage caused through error or omission.