Kavitha Gupta's blog

Former employee of one of the party to Arbitration can be an arbitrator in India Law Senate India   March 26 2019 Arbitration scenario in India got a great enthusiasm on 23rd October 2015 because of the amendments brought in to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (Herein after "the Act"). One of the major changes brought in by the said amendment was relating to the measures to ensure impartiality and independence of Arbitrators. The Amendment introduced a mandatory declaration by the arbitrators declaring their relationship and connections with the lawyers & parties. The above declaration had to be made in a Format provided under Schedule VI of the Act. While making the above said declaration the potential arbitrator nominee requires to take into consideration, the list of relationships provided in Schedule V of the Act. The said Act in Schedule VII also has provided a list of relationships that are prohibited to be considered as an Arbitrator. The Above...

A recent judgment of the US court has held that claims for losses incurred for a data breach is a consequential damage and is barred under the Disclaimer of Liability clause dealing with indirect and consequential damages - Interesting update on Indirect and direct damages. Recent Case Highlights The Dangers Of Consequential Damage Waivers in IT Contracts By Matthew Spohn (US) and David Navetta (US) on September 26, 2016,  Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit —one of the highest federal courts below the Supreme Court—recently affirmed a decision in Silverpop Systems, Inc. v. Leading Market Technologies, Inc. finding that all damages flowing from a vendor’s data breach were barred by a standard provision in IT service contracts, disclaiming all liability for consequential damages. The court’s analysis could apply to almost any breach of data provided to a vendor under an IT service contract, and highlights the need to carefull...

Do settlement agreements negate right to adjudicate? Newsletters July 25 2016 | Contributed by Mayer Brown International LLP Facts In J Murphy & Sons Ltd v W Maher and Sons Ltd, [2016] EWHC 1148 , representatives of a subcontractor and its sub-subcontractor had a telephone discussion. The sub-subcontractor confirmed, the same day by email, that a 'final account sum ' had been agreed. The subcontractor acknowledged the email and said that it would prepare the paperwork and associated information to close out the account. It did not challenge the sub-subcontractor's email and, months later, said it was awaiting head office sign-off. Subsequently, it then issued a gross valuation that was substantially less than the final account sum allegedly agreed and made no further payments. The sub-subcontractor took its claim for the final account sum to adjudication, but the subcontractor asked the court for a declaration that the adjudicator had no jurisdicti...

Step-in to the real world? (How to ensure that your outsourcing step-in rights are effective and enforceable) Morrison & Foerster LLP prev next United Kingdom   Outsourcing service providers frequently complain that customers demand rights and remedies which are simply unrealistic given the nature of the services. A prime example is when a customer insists that its outsourcing contract include broad “step-in” rights that allow the customer to take over service delivery if there is a service failure (or even an imminent risk of a service failure). In our experience, step-in rights are an area where a healthy dose of realism would benefit negotiations and result in a better contract. Over recent years, step-in rights have become a standard remedy in outsourcing deals (particularly, in regulated industries such as financial services). However, all too often, step-in rights are treated as boilerplate or included in contracts as part of a box-checkin...