Domestic and International Arbitration | Domestic Arbitration in India

Arbitration

The Firm is experienced in providing astute advice on conflict management and redressal through alternate dispute resolution methods. We handle complex domestic and international arbitrations across a variety of sectors including automobile, pharmaceutical and healthcare, real estate, infrastructure, logistics etc. Our Arbitration lawyers have over the years advised and represented before arbitral tribunals both domestic and international clients including multinational corporations and high net worth individuals.

We also have extensive experience in representing our clients before the High Courts and Supreme Court in proceedings arising out of arbitrations including for securing interim relief prior to the constitution of an arbitral tribunal, appointment of arbitrators, challenges to arbitral awards and interim orders passed by arbitral tribunals and in enforcement proceedings.

Our team has been involved in several prominent and landmark cases in Supreme Court, contributing significantly to the evolution of arbitral jurisprudence in India. We strive to make the alternate dispute resolution process convenient and seamless for clients.

Key highlights

The Firm represented Bharti Shipyard Ltd. in the landmark BALCO case, where a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court was specially constituted to decide whether the Indian Courts could grant interim relief or set aside arbitral awards in arbitrations where the seat of arbitration was located outside India.

The Firm has successfully represented a U.S. corporation, Centrotrade Minerals and Metals Inc. against Hindustan Copper Limited in a famous arbitration case, wherein the Supreme Court of India acknowledged the hegemony of the party autonomy in entering into a two-tier arbitration agreement and held that such an agreement is not opposed to the public policy of India or the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The dispute further led the Apex Court to pass a landmark judgment holding that a foreign award passed under the two-tier arbitration is enforceable in accordance with the laws of India.

The Firm represented ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited in a matter of crucial importance before the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court on the powers of courts to modify arbitral awards challenged under Section 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act. This landmark decision in which the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has carved out some narrow areas in which arbitral awards may be modified by the Courts, has far reaching implications for the landscape of arbitration in India.

The Firm represents Tata Motors Ltd. in enforcement proceedings and in proceedings to challenge the validity of an arbitral award successfully secured in arbitration proceedings against the Delhi Transport Corporation in connection with a dispute concerning the supply of and maintenance of low floor buses used during the Commonwealth Games held in the capital.

The Firm represents Adani Agri Logistics against the Food Corporation of India (FCI) in disputes which arose between the parties in relation to the agreements pertaining to the development and operation of foodgrain handling, storage and transportation facilities, for a period of 20 years. The Firm succeeded in securing a favourable arbitral award, which though partially set aside in Section 34 proceedings under the Arbitration Act, was restored by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in proceedings under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. The matter is presently pending final adjudication before the Supreme Court.

The Firm represented DLF Limited in proceedings instituted under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act filed by Leighton India Contractors Ltd. contesting the encashment of Bank Guarantees which had been furnished by it in connection with the development of “The Camelias”, an ultra-luxury residential project based in Gurgaon. The Firm was successful in securing a favourable order from the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court which held that the invocation of the Bank Guarantees was legal, before the proceedings were referred to arbitration.

The Firm successfully represented OAO Rosneft Sakhalinmorneftegaz in a petition filed in the Delhi High Court by Jagson International Limited, challenging a partial award given by Lord M.J. Mustill in arbitration proceedings held between the parties in London.

The Firm represents KAL Airways Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Kalanithi Maran, erstwhile shareholders of Spicejet Ltd. against Mr. Ajay Singh and Spicejet Ltd. in enforcement proceedings of an arbitral award rendered in favour of KAL Airways Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Kalanithi Maran, as well as in proceedings challenging the said arbitral award.

The Firm represented Tata Realty & Infrastructure Ltd. (TRIL) before the Delhi High Court in proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act seeking to restrain International Amusement Ltd. (IAL) and Entertainment City Ltd. (ECL) from transferring securities of ECL which had been pledged in favour of TRIL. The Firm successfully secured an interim order in favour of TRIL.

The Firm represented Landmark Property Development Company Ltd., a company owned by the Dalmia Group against Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. in proceedings for enforcement of an arbitral award which had been passed in favour of our client, and in contempt proceedings connected with such enforcement. The Firm was successful in securing favourable interim orders from the High Court of Delhi for our Client.

The Firm represented DLF Ltd. in a dispute against Hubtown Ltd. arising from the invocation of a pledge and transfer of pledged shares by PNB Housing Finance Ltd., alleged by DLF Ltd. to be a collusive action. DLF invoked arbitration not only against signatories to the arbitration but also against non- signatories who were implicit in and the beneficiaries of such collusive acts. The Delhi High Court, whilst invoking the direct benefit / intertwined estoppel theory, granted its imprimatur to such invocation by DLF and referred signatories as well as non- signatories to arbitration. The Division Bench also granted certain interim protection to DLF, and appeals filed before the Supreme Court of India by PNBHFL, and others were also successfully repelled.

The Firm represented Progressive Construction Limited (PCL) in a dispute relating to the construction of the Koteshwar Dam in Uttarakhand. The Firm was instrumental in securing relief for PCL by way of deposit and subsequent release of a significant sum as an interim measure in enforcement proceedings before the Delhi High Court. The Firm has also successfully defended the arbitral award passed in favour of PCL both in Section 34 proceedings and in Section 37 proceedings under the Arbitration Act. The matter is now pending final adjudication by the Supreme Court.

The Firm represents SMS Ltd. in a lengthy legal battle with Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. in relation to disputes arising in connection with the construction of a tunnel on the Udhampur-Srinagar-Baramulla-Rain Link. After securing an arbitral award in favour of SMS Ltd. in the arbitration proceedings, the Firm has successfully defended the award in proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act before the Delhi High Court. The dispute is currently pending adjudication under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.

The Firm successfully represented DLF Ltd. before the Supreme Court in a crucial case which settled pertinent issues concerning the enforcement of an arbitral award expressed in foreign currency. This landmark decision clarified the framework for enforcing foreign arbitral awards in India, ensuring consistency in currency conversion and adjustment principles.