Roundtable: Arbitration in India | Asian Legal Business legalbusinessonline.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from legalbusinessonline.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Recognition Of Emergency Arbitration In India
Share This -
x
The Delhi High Court recently had the opportunity to examine the issue whether an emergency arbitrator is an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (
Act ). The High Court further examined the issue of whether the interim order of the Emergency Arbitrator is an order under Section 17 (1) and is enforceable under 17(2) of Act
Emergency Arbitration
The concept of emergency arbitration, though while not expressly present in the Act or even in the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019 (
2019 Amendment ) is an unique procedure found in many arbitral institution rules. Arbitral institutions rules such as the SIAC Rules
Synopsis
Arbitration is business and contract agonistic and the benefits of having one in our contracts can be immense.
iStock
Arbitration clause is easy to follow and a fast track optional substitute to the court system.
A business contract is the foundation of a commercial relationship and also sets the guiding principles for operations. Yet, commercial relationships often run into choppy waters. In recent times, Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms have found favour in the commercial-legal ecosystem to adjudicate on grievances in commercial relationships. Arbitration has emerged as the preferred mode of ADR.
Laws, like the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, have also been strengthened and amended multiple times to suit the requirements and address ambiguities in earlier versions. Since arbitration has become an important word for entrepreneurs, Manoj K Singh, Founder Partner of Singh & Associates, spoke to ET online about the importance of having an arbitration claus
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit tackled the question of whether non-signatories to an agreement may use state law doctrines to compel arbitration. Holding that the claims were insufficiently “intertwined” to permit equitable estoppel and had to be analyzed under federal law (and not state or foreign law), the Court affirmed denial of a non-signatory’s bid to arbitrate its claims for trademark infringement against one of the signatories to a contract governed by Indian law.
Setty v. Shrinivas Sugandhalaya LLP, Case No. 18-35573 (9th Cir. Jan. 20, 2021) (Nelson, J.) (Bea, J., dissenting).