Gujarat Maritime University’s Post

Arbitration prior to MSME DISPUTE In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court, led by Justice Subramonium Prasad, clarified that disputes that occur before the registration of an entity under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 cannot be resolved through arbitration by the MSME Council under Sections 17 and 18 of the Act. The court emphasized that any objections related to this issue should be presented before the arbitrator under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The High Court addressed the issue of whether an enterprise, which was not registered at the time of entering into a contract but registered later during the contract's term, is eligible for benefits under the MSME Act. In its analysis, the High Court referred to two Supreme Court judgments: Silpi Industries v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation [2021 (18) SCC 790] and Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited v. Mahakali Foods Private Limited [2023 (6) SCC 401]. The High Court observed that if registration is obtained subsequently, it would have a prospective effect. Therefore, the MSME Act would only be applicable to goods and services supplied after registration. Case Title: Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. vs Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Through Its Co-Ordinator & Ors. Case Number: w.p.(C) 14515/2023 & CM APPL. 57558/2023 Best Regards, Tushar Kale Advocate, Bombay High Court www.tusharcons.com #arbitration #arbitrationlaw #arbitrator #arbitrators #msme #msmeindia #msmesector #msmeregistration #msmeloan

Congratulations to Usha Tandon and Ashutosh Mishra on the launch of  the book "Mediation: An Effective Mechanism for Peaceful Dispute Resolution"! The book launch event was graced by the esteemed presence of Hon. Minister Shri Arjun Ram Meghwalji Ministry of Law and Justice Shri Shiv Pratap Shukla, Governor, Himachal Pradesh , and Supreme Court Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra. Their participation highlights the importance of mediation as a constructive and accessible approach to resolving conflicts, an approach deeply rooted in India’s cultural heritage—from the wisdom of the Mahabharata to the teachings of the Ramayana. Hon'ble Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal emphasized that mediation is a societal need, capable of addressing even the most complex disputes. His words echo the purpose of the upcoming Mediation Act, a milestone that will make dispute resolution more efficient for all in India Indeed, in today’s world, an ounce of mediation saves pounds of arbitration and tons of litigation. This resource is truly timely and essential. Here’s to a more peaceful, collaborative future! #Mediation #DisputeResolution #LegalInnovation

𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐚 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐚 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐨𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐭   Yeshwant Boolani (Dead) Through Lrs. Tarun Dhameja V Sunil Dhameja And Ors in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore (ARBITRATION CASE No. 19 of 2024)   𝐅𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬: The Applicant is the legal heir of Late Yeshwant Boolani who was a partner at the Respondent’s Firm. The Applicant wishes to be instated as Partner as the legitimate heir of the deceased partner and invoke Arbitration; however the Partnership Agreement delineates the procedure for arbitration as one which is to be taken by mutual consent of the Partners.   𝐀𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬:    Section 40 of the A&C Act, 1996, specifies that an arbitration agreement is enforceable against the legal representatives of the deceased, hence, the legal representative should also have the right to enforce his claims. The Applicant relies on Zhejiang Bonly Elevator Guide Rail Manufacture Company Limited Vs. Jade Elevator Components case of the Supreme Court stating that where the eventual intention of the parties is to refer the dispute for arbitration, the unsatisfactory clauses of the agreement can be overlooked. The Respondent urges that firstly, the arbitration clause can only be invoked by a Partner and since the Applicant is not one, he cannot do so. Secondly, the Arbitration clause clearly called for mutual consent of Partners to refer a dispute to arbitration.   𝐉𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠:   The Hon’ble Court opined that Zhejiang Bonly case is not applicable here as the clauses of the agreement concerning arbitration are lucid and unambiguous. It clearly states that the intention of the agreement is to take mutual consent of the Partners. Hence, the Applicant’s submission under section 11(6) of the A&C Act, 1996, fails.   Credits: Saumitra Prasad   Link to Judgment: https://lnkd.in/gEtEb9CH   #ArbitrationAct1996 #Conciliation #ADR #LegalInsights #DisputeResolution #ArbitrationClause #IndianLaw #LegalUpdates #CommercialArbitration #Section11Arbitration #ArbitralTribunal #CorporateLaw #ArbitrationProcess #ContractualDisputes #ADRinIndia #ArbitrationProcedures #LitigationAvoidance #LegalArticle

The Learned Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu while dismissing an appeal filed under Section 37 of the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997; has held that it is well settled that where two views are possible on the interpretation of a particular clause of the contract, the Court would not intervene or interfere if the view taken by the arbitrator is plausible and possible view. It is trite law that an arbitral award can only be set aside on the grounds enumerated in Section 34 of the Act of 1996, and on no other grounds. The Hon'ble Court relied on the judgment cited by us in re “M/S Dyna Technolgies (P) Ltd Vs. Crompton Greaves Limited”, [2019 (20) SCC 1], wherein it has been held that: "25. Moreover, umpteen number of judgments of this Court have categorically held that the Courts should not interfere with an award merely because an alternative view on facts and interpretation of contract exists. The Courts need to be cautious and should defer to the view taken by the Arbitral Tribunal even if the reasoning provided in the award is implied unless such award portrays perversity unpardonable under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.”     (Emphasis Supplied) We represented the Respondent.

𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐋𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝟏𝟏 𝐀𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚 ANM Global is elated to share an article on the limitation period for initiating proceedings under Arbitration Act, 1996 written by Purazar Fouzdar, Partner and Declan Fernandez, Associate. The Supreme Court of India has clarified that the Limitation Act applies to applications under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, with the limitation period starting from the issuance of the arbitration notice. This ruling emphasizes timely dispute resolution and suggests legislative amendments to specify a clear limitation period for such applications. Read the article to learn more. #Arbitration #SupremeCourt #LimitationAct #LegalUpdate #ArbitrationLaw #India #Section11 #DisputeResolution#LegalService #MumbaiLawFirm #DelhiLawFirm

At Mediation Simplified, we like to honour those that inspired us! 😎 Looking forward to sharing bookshelf space with 'Mediation: Policy & Practice', Authored by Chitra Narayan

[Newsletter] Indian Law Update Vol. 5: Arbitration in India – Key Highlights of 2023 https://lnkd.in/gdd7PqeA   Authors: Deepak Sinhmar: https://lnkd.in/g_MpYgNv   #MiuraandPartners #MP #India #arbitration #litigation #disputeresolution

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of India observed that Indian Courts must adopt an internationalist approach when dealing with matters pertaining to enforcement of foreign awards, strictly aligning themselves with the provisions of the Arbitration Act and the principles under the New York Convention. Speaking on allegations of arbitrator's bias, the Supreme Court highlighted the need to have a high threshold, only justifying the refusal of enforcement when the most fundamental notions of morality and justice are violated. In an article published on Mondaq, we examine the decision rendered by the Supreme Court of India. Read more below. https://lnkd.in/dn3_KjRT   #Arbitration #ContractLaw #Company #Contract #Business #India #SupremeCourt #HighCourt #InternationalArbitration #DisputeResolution #ArbitrationAgreement #ArbitrationAct #Arbitrability #CommercialCourts #UNCITRAL #UnilateralAppointment #SoleArbitrator #ArbitralTribunal #Law #Learning #Lawyer #Delhi #TrinityChambers #Enforcement #NewYorkConvention #Award #ForeignAward #ArbitralAward

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of India observed that Indian Courts must adopt an internationalist approach when dealing with matters pertaining to enforcement of foreign awards, strictly aligning themselves with the provisions of the Arbitration Act and the principles of the New York Convention. In an article published on Mondaq, we examine the decision rendered by the Supreme Court. Read more below.   https://lnkd.in/dHdc7miu   #Arbitration #ContractLaw #Company #Contract #Business #India #SupremeCourt #HighCourt #InternationalArbitration #DisputeResolution #ArbitrationAgreement #ArbitrationAct #Arbitrability #CommercialCourts #UNCITRAL #UnilateralAppointment #SoleArbitrator #ArbitralTribunal #Law #Learning #Lawyer #Delhi #TrinityChambers #Enforcement #NewYorkConvention #Award #ForeignAward #ArbitralAward