Courts in India and Singapore have taken a pro-arbitration stance with a strict adherence to the principle of non-interference with arbitral awards. They have also taken proactive steps to ensure their speedy execution. This contributes to the two countries’ credentials as arbitration-friendly regimes.
Over the past decade, the Indian legal market has demonstrated considerable growth and has in fact, adopted a liberalised approach. With the increase in the number of foreign investors being interested in the Indian market, it becomes all the more dramatic and exciting of an industry for lawyers. Especially young lawyers, that are practising in their formative years, would always be eager to work in a market where there is immense opportunity to learn and gain experience and to be in the midst of a dynamic marketplace.
Caught up in the grid lock of a massive dispute making headlines every day, Amazon, Future Group and Reliance continue their battle all the way to the Supreme Court of India.
The Apex Court on 11 January, 2021 took a giant progressive leap towards developing a more liberal arbitration regime in the country by holding that non-payment of stamp duty would not invalidate the arbitration agreement. A bench comprising of Hon’ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Indira Banerjee in the matter of N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. & Others1 has interestingly referred the issue ‘whether non-payment of Stamp duty on Commercial Contract will invalidate an Arbitration Agreement’ to be authoritatively settled by a Constitution Bench.
The year 2020 has seen some important legislative and case law developments in arbitration law in India. The year ended with the following landmark judgments by the Supreme Court.
The words of Hon’ble Ms Justice Indu Malhotra in the case of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Canara Bank & Ors., judgment dated 08.08.2019 in Civil Appeal Nos. 6202-6205 of 2019, “that a valid arbitration agreement is the foundation stone on which the entire edifice of the arbitral process is structured” lay emphasis on the vitality of an Arbitration Clause.
The Government of India (“GoI”) had, in November 2019, lined up the sale of five (5) public sector units’ (“PSUs”) stakes, including its 52.98 per cent stake (114.91 crore equity shares) in blue chip oil company Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (“BPCL”) and accordingly, sought Expressions of Interest (“EOIs”) from potential acquirers by July 31, 2020. The actual sell-off would obviously depend upon the market once all EOIs had been received.
A long due controversy on arbitrability of tenancy disputes has finally been put to rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. A bench comprising of Hon’ble Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Krishna Murari on 14 December, 2020 in the matter of “Vidya Drolia and others v Durga Trading Corporation” (‘Vidya Drolia -II’)
A long due controversy on arbitrability of tenancy disputes has finally been put to rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. A bench comprising of Hon’ble Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Krishna Murari on 14 December, 2020
The words of J. Burrough aptly justify the unpredictability of the interpretation of the term ‘public policy’ when he says, “Public Policy is an unruly horse where once you stride on it you do not know where it’s going to take you.”