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
Jan 23, 2024

Unilateral Revision in Arbitrator’s Fees Does Not Terminate Mandate under Section 12 of Arbitration Act

The SC in Chennai Metro Rail Limited v. Transtonnelstroy Afcons (JV) and Anr.,[1] held that while an Arbitral Tribunal cannot unilaterally revise its fees, however, a unilateral revision in the fees does not result in termination of Tribunal’s mandate under Section 12 of the Arbitration Act. The SC observed that the only circumstances under which an Arbitral Tribunal can be deemed to be ineligible are the grounds laid down in the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration Act. Therefore, a unilateral revision in fees by an Arbitral Tribunal, not being specifically provided for in Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule, does not render the Arbitral Tribunal as ineligible, and thus, would not terminate the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal.

[1] Chennai Metro Rail Limited v. Transtonnelstroy Afcons (JV) and Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1370.

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

Designated Person to Provide Beneficial Interest Information to RoC

Jan 23, 2024 | Corporate / Mergers & Acquisitions
Inter Alia

SEBI Circular on Framework of Social Stock Exchanges and SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2023

Jan 23, 2024 | Regulatory & Securities
Inter Alia

Consequences of Failure to Confirm Compliance With POSH Act in Company’s Board Report

Jan 23, 2024 | Employment Labour &; Benefits