Kavitha Gupta's blog

January 12, 2021 ARE TENANT - LANDLORD DISPUTES ARBITRABLE? SUPREME COURT OF INDIA OVERTURNS ITS OWN JUDGMENT Leased properties exempted under rent control legislations would be governed by Transfer of Property Act; Landlord-tenancy disputes governed by Transfer of Property Act are arbitrable; Arbitrators can grant reliefs provided under landlord-tenancy provisions of the Transfer of Property Act; Landlord-tenancy disputes governed by special rent control legislations continue to be non-arbitrable; Are disputes between landlords and tenants arbitrable under Indian law? If yes, are all types of disputes arbitrable? Can arbitration clauses in lease agreements be enforced? After significant confusion and long-standing disputes around the arbitrability of tenancy matters, it may now be possible to answer some of these questions. In two judgments passed within a month,  Suresh Shah v. Hipad Technology India Private Limited 1   (“ Suresh Shah ”) and  Vidya Drolia & Ors. v. ...

India:  The Unresolved Controversy – Can Two Indian Parties Choose Foreign Seated Arbitration And Foreign Law To Resolve Their Disputes? 22 June 2017 by  Lomesh K. Nidumuri IndusLaw The question of whether two Indian parties can have a seat of arbitration outside India and choose foreign law to resolve disputes continues to remain a vexed issue. The Supreme Court recently had an opportunity to decide this controversy in the case of  Sasan Power Ltd., v. North American Coal Corporation India Private Limited 1  (" Sasan SC case "). However, the Supreme Court did not decide the issue in the light of the facts before it. Confusion and ambiguity still persists and Indian companies/parties are not sure if they can choose a foreign seated arbitration with the choice of foreign law, and thereafter seek to enforce the foreign arbitral award in India.  It would be useful to trace the jurisprudence on this issue. The Bombay High C...

Whether a party can invoke Arbitration after Fully and Finally accepting the amount offered? 5. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Dicitex Furnishing Ltd.   [Judgment dated 13.11.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 8550 of 2015] The Supreme Court held that if a party which has executed the discharge agreement or discharge voucher, alleges that the execution of such document was on account of fraud/coercion/undue influence practiced by the other party, and if that party establishes the same, then such discharge voucher or agreement is rendered void and cannot be acted upon and consequently, any dispute raised by such party would be arbitrable. Further, it was held that the court which is required to ensure that an arbitrable dispute exists, has to be prima facie convinced about the genuineness or credibility of the plea of coercion; it cannot be too particular about the nature of the plea, which necessarily has to be made and established in the substantive proceeding. It ...

Supreme Court strikes down clause mandating payment of deposit as pre-condition to invoking arbitration The Supreme Court, in its recent judgment in  ICOMM Tele Ltd. v Punjab State Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Anr.,  delivered on 11 March 2019, has ruled on the validity of an arbitral clause mandating deposit of a certain percentage of the claim amount as a pre-condition for initiating arbitration. FACTS In 2008, the Punjab State Water Supply and Sewerage Board (First Respondent) issued a notice for tender for the extension and augmentation of water supply, sewerage scheme, pumping station and sewerage treatment plant for various towns. ICOMM Tele Ltd. (Appellant) successfully contested for the same and on 16 January 2009, a formal contract was entered into between the Appellant and the Executive Engineer, Punjab State Water Supply and Sewerage (Second Respondent), which contract incorporated the notice for tender. The notice for tender contained...