From pioneering decisions on the impact of arbitration on non-signatories to influencing the grounds for setting aside arbitral awards, our Firm is at the forefront of navigating complex and high-stakes arbitration disputes across various sectors.
This was the Supreme Court of India's first case regarding the effect of arbitration on non-signatories to the arbitration agreement. The dispute was related to the same transaction between several parties, some of whom were not even signatories to the arbitration agreement in the clause. The Supreme Court stated that, according to Section 8 of the Act, the non-signatories are not to be referred to a single arbitration.
This landmark Judgment enlarged the 'public policy' ambit as a ground for setting aside arbitral awards.
This case exemplifies the unpredictable nature of legal proceedings despite winning at every stage. Representing Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (DAMEPL), we navigated a dispute over the termination of a concession agreement with DMRC due to safety concerns on the Airport Metro Express Line. Despite securing victories in arbitration and Section 34, the Supreme Court overturned a setback at Section 37 in an SLP. Unexpectedly, the Supreme Court entertained DMRC's curative petition and held a rare open court hearing in February 2024, showcasing the evolving judicial landscape. This unprecedented move has sparked optimism for future curative petitioners and holds the potential to reshape commercial dispute resolution.
In a recent development, ALA is representing Manipal Education and Medical Group (MEMG) in their high-stakes dispute with Byju's. Byju's allegedly defaulted on $42 million in loans, prompting MEMG to initiate arbitration proceedings. An arbitrator, appointed under the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, issued a confidential order prohibiting Byju's from selling 4 million shares of Aakash Education, constituting a 6% stake, per the loan agreement. This order comes amidst allegations of mismanagement against Byju's, highlighting the complexity and significance of the ongoing arbitration proceedings.
The Delhi High Court addressed whether a borrower could seek redress under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act after the lender invoked Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. We secured a favorable Delhi High Court ruling stating that once a lender issues a Section 13(2) notice under the SARFAESI Act following a loan default, any related disputes, including those concerning mortgaged property, fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal and are not subject to arbitration. This interpretation aligns with the non-arbitrability of such disputes under the SARFAESI Act's framework. The Court further analyzed Sections 34 and 35 of the SARFAESI Act in this context.
The primary issue was determining the appropriate forum for a Section 9 Arbitration petition when the contract includes both a 'venue' and an 'exclusive jurisdiction' clause. The Court found that the arbitration venue would serve as the arbitration seat unless specified otherwise within the agreement. It stated that a venue clause would precede any exclusive jurisdiction clause unless the latter is expressly subordinate. Consequently, exclusive jurisdiction clauses are deemed to apply only to disputes not subject to the arbitration clause. The Delhi High Court dismissed the Section 9 Petition for lack of jurisdiction, affirming that the cause of action does not affect court jurisdiction when the contract already defines a specific arbitration seat. Upon appeal, the appellate Court upheld the dismissal based on maintainability, noting that the original order neither granted nor denied an interim measure but instead declined to entertain the Section 9 petition itself, making an appeal under Section 37 inapplicable.
Despite a clause stipulating the substantive law as Indian and exclusive jurisdiction to Delhi courts, the Delhi High Court adjudged that the arbitration seat was London by virtue of the parties' agreement to arbitrate under the International Cotton Association. The Court noted that this jurisdiction would only apply if the parties chose litigation over arbitration. The Supreme Court upheld this interpretation in "PASL Wind Solutions Private Ltd. v. GE Power Conversion India Pvt. Ltd.".
