Driven by excellence, focused on strategies for the longer term.

This is the crux of who we are. It is an articulation of precision in purpose, from the Firm’s beginnings to where we are today. Our collective eye is unerringly trained on tomorrow.

Deep sectoral expertise across services and industries.

Our insistence on strategic advisory exacts an in-depth understanding of and involvement with our clients’ businesses and industries. We engage not just individual businesses, but also contribute to the country’s legal and regulatory frameworks.

Personal commitment supported by experience and grit.

We commit early. We pull together internally for greater support. Every effort is sincere, every individual deeply dedicated to their task, their role, to the Firm.

Our undertakings for long-term impact are an organic extension of our purpose.

They are to employ our deep knowledge of the law beyond the business, the transaction, the deal. To use the opportunities and skills we possess, to reflect on the culture we’re creating. Individually and collectively, these are our efforts to help shape the thinking of our future generations, and arm them with strategies for true, sustainable growth.

Knowledge-sharing is intrinsic to equity and inclusivity.

This is a repository of thought leadership, deep insights and strong viewpoints, legal and other news and events and how they impact the industry and our clients.

Relevance is critical to growth. It necessitates a firm that is dynamic and responsive.

Amplifying intrinsic talent, sharpening skills, expanding knowledge, is vital to leading. It defines every aspect of how our firm functions and transacts. This is how we create new benchmarks and set industry standards.

  • Connect
Sep 30, 2020

SC Upholds Harmonious Construction of Different Arbitration Clauses between Same Parties Relating to the Same Transaction

In Balasore Alloys Limited v. Medima LLC[1], the SC was confronted with the issue of two different arbitration clauses existing in 2 related agreements between the same parties relating to the same transaction. The SC while relying upon its decision in Olympus Superstructures Pvt. Ltd. v. Meena Vijay Khetan[2], held that in order to harmonise or reconcile and arrive at a conclusion as to which of the arbitration clauses would be relevant; it was necessary for the Court to refer to the manner in which the parties invoked the arbitration clause and the nature of the dispute that was sought to be resolved through arbitration. In the present case SC held that the parties should get their disputes resolved pursuant to the arbitration clause in the main agreement rather than under a purchase order (which was for a limited purpose).

 

[1] Arbitration Petition (Civil) No. 15/2020.

[2](1999) 5 SCC 651.

TAGS

SHARE

Subscribe

DISCLAIMER

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.

RELATED READING

Inter Alia

Amendments to Foreign Exchange Management (Deposit) Regulations, 2016

Apr 28, 2025 | Regulatory & Securities
Inter Alia

SEBI Amends Master Circulars to Provide for Revised Lock-in Provisions for Preferential Issue of Units and Guidelines for Follow-on Offer by InvITs and REITs

Apr 28, 2025 | Capital Markets Regulatory & Securities
Inter Alia

Greater Flexibility for Employers to Forfeit Gratuity

Apr 28, 2025 | Dispute Resolution Employment Labour & Benefits