Recent Developments in India-Related International Arbitration

Herbert Smith Freehills has issued the latest edition of its Indian international arbitration e-bulletin.

In this issue we consider various Indian court decisions, including the availability of interim relief in support of foreign arbitration, sanctions for non-compliance with arbitral orders and the pro-arbitration position adopted by the courts in upholding a foreign seat. In other news, we consider the rise of institutional arbitration in India and a detailed analysis of the Sri Krishna Committee report, developments in the Indian mediation landscape, proposed reforms for commercial courts, as well as India-related bilateral investment treaty news (and other developments). Continue reading

Arbitration in India: the new Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration

This post looks at the opening of the brand new Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA). A first-of-its-kind arbitral institution in India, established in a joint initiative between the Government of Maharashtra and the domestic and international business and legal communities. The MCIA will be formally launched at a Conference at the Trident Hotel, Mumbai on Saturday, 8 October 2016.

 

Nick Peacock, Head of the India Disputes practice at Herbert Smith Freehills, and who is a member of the founding Council of the MCIA, speaks with the MCIA's Co-Chairman, Vyapak Desai (also Head of International Litigation & Dispute Resolution at the Indian law firm, Nishith Desai Associates) to discuss the aims and offering of India's newest arbitral institution.

For more information, please contact Nicholas Peacock, partner, or your usual Herbert Smith Freehills contact.

Nicholas Peacock
Nicholas Peacock
Partner
+44 20 7466 2803

Recent Developments in India-Related International Arbitration

Herbert Smith Freehills has issued the latest edition of its Indian international arbitration e-bulletin.

In this issue, we consider Indian court decisions, including the rejection of forum non conveniens arguments by the Delhi High Court allowing restaurant chain McDonalds to pursue an arbitration in London and various decisions in which the Indian courts show restraint in relation to interfering with offshore arbitrations. In other news, we consider India’s position in seeking to re-negotiate its Bilateral Investment Treaties with 47 countries. Further, we discuss the recently launched Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration to which HSF partner Nick Peacock has been appointed to the Council.

For further information, please contact Nicholas Peacock, Head of India Arbitration Practice, Alastair Henderson, Managing Partner-SE Asia, Donny Surtani, Senior Associate, Kritika Venugopal, Associate or your usual Herbert Smith Freehills contact.

Nicholas Peacock
Nicholas Peacock
Partner
+44 20 7466 2803
Alastair Henderson
Alastair Henderson
Partner
+65 6 868 8000
Donny Surtani
Donny Surtani
Senior Associate
+44 20 7466 2216
Kritika Venugopal
Kritika Venugopal
Associate
+656 868 8017

LCIA India to end operations

The London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) has decided to end its physical presence in India, with the closure of its independent subsidiary, LCIA India.

The decision to end physical presence in India was based on market feedback that Indian parties were content to continue to use LCIA rules, and also owing to insufficient adopters of LCIA India clauses to justify a presence on the ground. The LCIA will revert to its traditional model of offering institutional arbitration services to Indian parties and international parties doing business with Indian counter-parties through LCIA London. It plans to develop legal, language and cultural expertise in its case-work teams to better serve the needs of the Indian market.

Arbitration continues to grow India, and recent judicial pronouncements are generally viewed as being pro-arbitration. For a round-up of recent developments, please see our recent e-bulletin here.

Continue reading

Recent Developments in India-related international arbitration

Herbert Smith Freehills has issued the latest edition of its Indian international arbitration e-bulletin.  

In this issue, we review a number of recent arbitration-related decisions of the Indian courts, in particular a Supreme Court ruling on applicability of BALCO to an agreement varied after 6 September 2012 and a decision by the Delhi High Court issuing anti-arbitration injuction against London arbitration. We also provide an update on prospective changes to India’s investment arbitration and domestic dispute resolution landscapes.

For further information, please contact Nicholas Peacock, Head of India Arbitration Practice, Alastair Henderson, Managing Partner-SE Asia, Donny Surtani, Senior Associate, or your usual Herbert Smith Freehills contact.

Continue reading

Fifth edition of our Legal Guide on Dispute Resolution and Governing Law Clauses in India-related Commercial Contracts

Herbert Smith Freehills has published a new edition of its well-regarded guide on dispute resolution and governing law clauses in India-related commercial contracts. The Guide is intended to assist in-house counsel who handle India-related commercial contracts on behalf of non-Indian companies and who need to have a practical understanding of the nuances of drafting dispute resolution and governing law clauses in the Indian context.

To access an extract of the guide please click here. If you would like to request a copy please email [email protected].

For further information, please contact Nicholas Peacock, Head of India Arbitration Practice, Alastair Henderson, Managing Partner-SE Asia, Donny Surtani, Senior Associate, or your usual Herbert Smith Freehills contact.

Nicholas Peacock
Nicholas Peacock
Partner
+44 20 7466 2803
Alastair Henderson
Alastair Henderson
Partner
+65 6 868 8000
Donny Surtani
Donny Surtani
Senior Associate
+44 20 7466 2216

Supreme Court of India Clarifies the Scope of Public Policy grounds for Challenging a Domestic Arbitration Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act

In a decision handed down recently, the Supreme Court of India found that the Delhi High Court had overstepped its powers and wrongly set aside a domestic arbitration award. In the process, the Supreme Court has clarified the scope of the “public policy ground” to set aside awards under Section 34(b)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (Act).

The Supreme Court was critical of the Delhi High Court re-opening an arbitrator’s award on merits by reviewing evidence considered by the arbitrator and even considering evidence above and beyond that which the arbitrator had the opportunity to consider. The Supreme Court advocated giving due weight and recognition to a determination by an arbitration – especially on issues of fact. The court recognized that an award could only be set aside on grounds of public policy in very limited circumstances, such as where an award was arbitrary, capricious or such that it would shock the conscience of the court.

Continue reading