Research

Article on litigation funding

Understanding the business of litigation funding: The Indian landscape Comprehending the approach of ‘litigation funding’ The appetite for ‘litigation funding’, amongst claimants as well as investors, has never been greater. Over the last decade, this appetite has been pushed to greater lengths and breadths as a result of widening globalisation and liberalisation of funding regimes across jurisdictions. In fact, ‘litigation funding’ is now considered to be the new ‘normal’ for capital infusion for furthering resolution of disputes, in both domestic litigation as well as international arbitration. As a direct consequence of this advancement, it is now more important than ever…

Amazon Future Group

The Future-Reliance-Amazon dispute and its interplay with recognition of emergency arbitrators under Indian law Factual background of the controversy Earlier this year in August, Reliance Retail Ventures Limited (“Reliance”) broke the news that it had entered into a deal for the acquisition of assets of Future Retail Limited (“Future”), with the transaction valuing at approximately USD 3.38 billion. However, with regard to this deal, Amazon announced that the said transaction was contrary to a shareholders’ agreement that existed between the promoters of the Future Group and therefore, violated the same. Whilst Amazon proceeded to invoke arbitration proceedings before the Singapore…

Whether to challenge or not

Implications of the Vodafone Case on Foreign Investments Finally, a decade old dispute between the Vodafone Group and India has come to an end. The Permanent Court of Arbitration has unanimously decided against India’s retrospective demand of Rs 22,100 crore in an arbitration initiated under the India-Netherlands Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) and held that Vodafone is entitled to fair and equitable treatment under the BIT. The arbitral award is not out in the public domain however, this article gives a brief history of this interesting tax dispute and discusses the probable implications of the Vodafone ruling on foreign investments in…

Vedanta Judgment Breaks the Glass

A Step in the Right Direction for Enforcement of Foreign Awards The enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in India is witnessing a promising shift to be in consonance with the framework laid down by the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958, famously coined as the New York Convention. Inspite of commendable endeavors to make India a leading arbitration hub by the legislature, the regressive approach adopted by the Indian courts in enforcement of foreign awards, in judgments like NAFED v Alimenta S.A. and Venture Global Eng. LLC v. Tech Mahindra is indubitably acting…

Case note Sriram EPC vs Rioglass Solar SA

A Foreign Award without the Stamp Duty would not render it unenforceable Original case M/S Shriram EPC Limited v. Rioglass Solar SA Brief background An ICC award was delivered in London 12.02.2015 in favour of the Respondent ordering the Claimant to pay a sum of €4,366,598.70. The Appellant then challenged the award under section 34 of the Arbitration Act but all objections to the stated award were rejected by the learned single judge of the Madras High Court. In pursuance of which, an appeal was filed before the division bench of the same court which was also held non-maintainable in…

Case Note on UIA vs Hyundai

Arbitration Clause in an agreement should be interpreted strictly Original Case United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. And Ors. Practical Implications The Constitution bench of the Supreme Court has laid down a precedent that even after the amendment of 2015 and insertion of subsection 6A under section 11 of the Arbitration Act, the Arbitration clause has to be interpreted strictly considering the conditionality clause. Brief Background The joint venture Company comprising of Respondent 1 (Hyundai Engineering and construction) and 2 (Gammon India) executed a Contractor All Risk Insurance Policy valued at Rs.…

K. Kishan v. Vijay Nirman Company Private Limited.

Insolvency process cannot be applied as proceedings challenging the award amounts to dispute. Original Case Kishan v. Vijay Nirman Company Private Limited. Practical Implication The Supreme Court in the present decision considered whether to allow a petition under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy code when the debt towards the operational debtor is already disputed. The Supreme Court has laid down guidelines to decide when an operational debt is termed to be disputed. It lays down a precedent that even after the award is passed, the debt cannot be termed as accepted until the final adjudication. Brief Background A…
All articles loaded
No more articles to load