Dispute Resolution

‘FRANDLY’ RELATIONS - INDIAN COURTS CAN GRANT ANTI-ENFORCEMENT INJUNCTIONS WHEN FOREIGN COURTS ISSUE ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTIONS TO DENY ITS COMPETENT JURISDICTION

The Delhi High Court in the Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors. v. Xiaomi Corporation & Ors. case granted an anti-enforcement injunction against an anti-suit injunction obtained in a foreign jurisdiction. Xiaomi on June 9, 2020, filed an SEP royalty rate-setting suit in the Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court (“Wuhan Court”) to determine global FRAND rates to obtain SEP licences across the world. Thereafter, on September 23, 2020, Xiaomi obtained an anti-suit injunction (“ASI”) from the Wuhan Court, restraining Interdigital from proceeding with their July 2020 suit before the Delhi High Court that sought the following reliefs: a) To injunct Xiaomi from infringing its 3G and 4G Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and b) Declaration of FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) pricing terms for the six Indian patents in question, provided that Xiaomi should elect to execute a licence in lieu of the aforesaid injunction. Interdigital in this suit sought relief from the Court to not only indemnify it from the costs handed down by the Wuhan Court’s order, but also that it not be enforced.
Continue Reading ‘Frandly’ Relations: Indian Courts Can Grant Anti-Enforcement Injunctions when Foreign Courts Issue Anti-Suit Injunctions to Deny its Competent Jurisdiction (Xiaomi V. Interdigital)

Limitation Act is to be Made Applicable ‘As Far as May Be Possible’ to Insolvency Code

The Supreme Court’s pro-insolvency stance continues. With three recent rulings in a period of one month, the Supreme Court has clearly indicated that, so far as possible within the contours of the Limitation Act, a debt will continue to be alive and an action basis such debt will be maintainable under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Insolvency Code”) against a defaulting borrower.
Continue Reading Limitation Act is to be made applicable ‘as far as may be possible’ to Insolvency Code

Enforcement of Arbitration Awards via Insolvency Proceedings - A Contrary Perspective

As the Insolvency regime in India builds its new course under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘Insolvency Code’), numerous issues of application have arisen and will continue to grapple the corridors of the insolvency courts. One of the concerns is the interaction between debt enforcement/ execution procedures and the Insolvency Code. Insolvency Code allows operational creditors to initiate insolvency proceedings against a debtor, with a valid proof of undisputed claim. Form 5 of the IBBI (Application to Adjudication Authority) Rules, 2016, under which an Operational Creditor makes an application for initiation of insolvency process, considers a court decree or an arbitration award adjudicating on the default as a valid evidence of default to support insolvency commencement. The all-encompassing term ‘Arbitration Award’ includes both domestic awards and foreign awards. While the domestic awards are per se enforceable before the civil courts, unless stayed in a challenge before the court, and no distinct process for enforcement needs to be complied with under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Arbitration Act’), foreign awards must follow a procedure of recognition, prior to being considered as enforceable before Indian courts. The Rules, however, shed no light on issues such as, at what stage the arbitration awards are eligible to be presented before the insolvency courts for insolvency commencement.
Continue Reading Enforcement of Arbitration Awards via Insolvency Proceedings: A Contrary Perspective

LEARNING TO SPRINT SUPREME COURT ISSUES DIRECTIONS TO REDUCE DELAY IN DISPOSING EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS

I. Introduction:

  1. In the past decade, the Indian judiciary has been globally recognized for its historic rulings. However, even such successes, more often than not, are tainted because of the time that goes by, in passing the final ruling in a case. Justice delayed is justice denied, as the adage goes. Delay is so integral to judicial proceedings in India that it not only effects litigants initiating legal proceedings, but also plagues the minds of decree holders who have painstakingly gone through the entire lifecycle of a litigation. Even armed with a decree, a litigant must once again fight an already conquered battle before the executing court.
    Continue Reading Learning to Sprint: Supreme Court Issues Directions to Reduce Delay in Disposing Execution Proceedings

All Orders terminating proceedings are not Awards - Delhi HC sets the record straight

The issue of whether simplicitor orders terminating an arbitral proceeding is an award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), has been a question that has been plaguing various Courts in India for a while now. The issue is crucial in nature, as it determines the remedy of a party aggrieved by such an order. While some Courts have taken the view that such an order is an award appealable under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, others have not. This ambiguity is a cause of concern for litigants since it delays the entire time bound arbitral process intended under the Arbitration Act and leaves the litigant in a lurch. However, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (“Delhi HC”) in PCL SUNCON v National Highway Authority of India[1] (“PCL SUNCON Case”) has addressed this issue and cleared the said ambiguity to a great extent.
Continue Reading All Orders terminating proceedings are not Awards: Delhi HC sets the record straight

From Harbour to Hardships - Understanding the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 Part II

This is in continuation of the series analysing the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“2021 Rules”) and their impact. In the first part, we traced the evolution of intermediary liability and the key changes brought about by the 2021 Rules.

In this part, we attempt to identify the implications of the 2021 Rules on intermediaries, mainly focussing on the consequences of non-compliance which could entail criminal liability, and aspects relevant to investigative authorities.
Continue Reading From Harbour to Hardships? Understanding the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 – Part II

Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Limitation Period For Filing An Appeal Under Section 37 Of The Arbitration Act

INTRODUCTION:

The Supreme Court in the case of Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) Represented by Executive Engineer v. M/s Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd.[1] has inter alia set right the law regarding the period of limitation for condonation of delay in filing appeals under Section 37[2] of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”). Overruling its earlier decision in N.V. International v. State of Assam[3] (“N.V. International”) and emphasising the central object of speedy disposal of disputes sought to be achieved by the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (“Commercial Courts Act”), the Court has allowed condonation of only ‘short delays’, setting out strict parameters for permitting the same.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Clarifies Law on Limitation Period for Filing an Appeal under Section 37 of The Arbitration Act

Supreme Court Revisits the Venue – Seat Issue 

Introduction:

A division bench of the Supreme Court in M/s Inox Renewables Ltd. v. Jayesh Electricals Ltd.[1] has recently reiterated the decision in BSG SGS SOMA JV vs. NHPC Limited[2], equating the juridical concepts of seat and venue. In this regard, the Court has clarified that a shift in venue by mutual agreement between the parties would be tantamount to a shifting of the place/ seat of arbitration.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Revisits the Venue – Seat Issue

EXPANDING THE NET - THE INCREASING SCOPE OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1988

Introduction

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”), was promulgated to curb corruption in the country. In particular, the PC Act serves as a consolidated body of law to prevent corruption by public servants in India. Though the PC Act came into force in 1988, recent years have seen a marked judicial and legislative inclination towards expanding the scope of the PC Act and strengthening its provisions.

For instance, in CBI v. Ramesh Gelli[1] in 2016, the Supreme Court found that the Managing Director and Executive Director of a private bank, operating under a licence, issued by the Reserve Bank of India, would be considered as a ‘public servant’ and thus would be liable under the PC Act. Subsequently, in 2018, the PC Act was amended by the legislature, expanding the scope of offences regarding commercial organisations carrying on business in India.
Continue Reading Expanding the Net: The Increasing Scope of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

THE 1986 ACT OR THE 2019 ACT - THE SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES APPLICABILITY 

Introduction:

Recently, in Neena Aneja & Anr. v. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd.[1], the Supreme Court of India analysed and clarified the impact of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“2019 Act”), upon pending cases that were filed under the consumer fora, constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“1986 Act”). In this regard, the Court has inter alia discussed and analysed (i) a wide range of judicial precedents, which have interpreted the impact of a change in forum on pending proceedings; (ii) the objects, intent, legislative scheme, and procedural history behind the consumer laws in India, particularly in terms of jurisdictional provision contained in the 2019 Act; and (iii) the relevant portions of the 2019 Act in so far as they pertain to the pecuniary jurisdiction vis-a-vis the erstwhile 1986 Act.
Continue Reading The 1986 Act or The 2019 Act? The Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability