Alternate Dispute ResolutionOp EdsOP. ED.

By Nikhil Parakh* and Sejal Makkad**

Op EdsOP. ED.

by Arush Agarwal† and Bhavya Gupta††

Op EdsOP. ED.

by Shuchi Sejwar* and Akshata Sharma**

Op EdsOP. ED.

by Iram Majid†

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Narula, J., decides a matter covering various aspects of the arbitration agreement. Instant petition under Section 11 of

Op EdsOP. ED.

by Hiroo Advani† and Manav Nagpal††
Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 40

Op EdsOP. ED.

by Hiroo Advani†, Tariq Khan†† and Mahi Mehta †††
Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 39

Op EdsOP. ED.

by Divyanshu Srivastava*

Op EdsOP. ED.

by Abhinay Sharma† and Lakshmi Subramaniam Iyer††

Op EdsOP. ED.

by Hiroo Advani† and Chaiti Desai††

Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 45

Case BriefsSupreme Court

“Detailed arguments on whether an agreement which contains an arbitration clause has or has not been novated cannot possibly be decided in exercise of a limited prima facie review as to whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties.”

Op EdsOP. ED.

by Pratyush Miglani*, Nikhil Varma** and Prakhar Srivastava***

Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Government must have freedom of contract.”

Op EdsOP. ED.

by Baglekar Akash Kumar†

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of RF Nariman, BR Gavai and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ has held that given the object of speedy

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: In the notable ruling of Amazon v. Future Retail, J.R. Midha, J. of Delhi High Court considered three crucial

Op EdsOP. ED.

by Shaurya Sahay†

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The Division Bench of R.F. Nariman* and B.R. Gavai, JJ., addressed an important case regarding nature of arbitration under Arbitration

Case BriefsSupreme Court

“The exercise of inherent power of the High Court is an extraordinary power which has to be exercised with great care and circumspection before embarking to scrutinise the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet in deciding whether the case is the rarest of rare case, to scuttle the prosecution at its inception.”

Case BriefsSupreme Court

3 years is an unduly long period for filing an application under Section 11, since it would defeat the very object of the Act, which provides for expeditious resolution of commercial disputes within a time bound period.