Photo of Siddharth Ratho

Senior Associate in the Dispute Resolution Practice at the Mumbai office of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. Siddharth specialises in civil and commercial disputes, including arbitration and disputes advisory. He can be reached at siddharth.ratho@cyrilshroff.com

Domestic Arbitration receives booster shot from Supreme Court

  

Recently, the Supreme Court in Quippo Construction Equipment Limited V. Janardan Nirman Private Limited[1] held that if a party to an arbitration agreement chooses not to participate in arbitral proceedings, that party is deemed to have waived the right to raise objections regarding jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal or the scope of its authority at a later stage. While dealing with objections to a domestic arbitral award, the Supreme Court also had occasion to comment on the perennial seat vs venue debate. In doing so, it inter alia observed that objections with respect to ‘place of arbitration’ may have significance in international commercial arbitrations (where the place of arbitration may determine which curial law would apply), but not so much in domestic arbitrations.
Continue Reading Domestic Arbitration receives booster shot from Supreme Court

COGNIZABILITY OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT DEBATE IS BACK

The question of whether the offence of copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, 1957 (the “Copyright Act”) is a cognizable offence or a non-cognizable offence, has long been debated and addressed varyingly by different High Courts over the years. Recently, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court (“Rajasthan HC”) in the case of Nathu Ram & Ors. v State of Rajasthan[1] had the occasion to consider this question once again, and in doing so, opted to refer the same to a larger bench for settling the issue, thereby bringing this debate to the fore once again. This article shall analyse relevant statutory provisions and jurisprudential developments in order to understand how courts have dealt with the issue.
Continue Reading COGNIZABILITY OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT DEBATE IS BACK!

Supreme Court denounces speculative litigation seeking to resist enforcement of foreign awards

Introduction

Over the years, Indian Courts have increasingly limited their interference with arbitral awards. This approach of non-interference is more so when it comes to enforcement of foreign awards under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) as has been reaffirmed in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Vijay Karia (“Appellants”) and Ors. v. Prysmain Cavi E Sistemi SRL & Ors[1] (“Respondents”).

In this case, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider an appeal against the order of a single judge of the Bombay High Court, allowing enforcement of a London seated foreign award (“Foreign Award’). In doing so, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and came down heavily on the Appellants for engaging in speculative litigation and attempting to invoke the limited powers of the Supreme Court under Article 136[2] only to resist enforcement of the Foreign Award.
Continue Reading Supreme Court denounces speculative litigation seeking to resist enforcement of foreign awards