The future of ODR lies in strategic collaboration between the government, judiciary, technologists, and legal professionals.

The use of "without prejudice" clauses merges effectively with other legal protections like unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel while at the same time protects negotiations.

The challenge for India is not to dilute the principle of consent but to rethink how consent operates in interconnected commercial projects.

[ Shreya is a student at National Law School of India University Bengaluru. ] The emergence of third-party funding ( TPF ) in Indian arbitration has exposed a critical gap in the legal framework governing the extent of liability of a third-party funder in arbitration. The funding received from TPF is often what provides complete financial support to claimants, who are dependent on TPF. This leads to the risk of the successful party being unable to enforce an adverse costs awa

An AI-assisted track can indeed make arbitration faster and more accessible. Whether it also strengthens legitimacy, however, will depend on its execution. If the rollout keeps faith with the essentials of a legitimate arbitration, it will set a credible example for expansion beyond construction.

[ Vaibhav is a student at West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences . ] The advent of arbitration has not only introduced a host of complexities within arbitration law but has also extended its influence into the sphere of taxation law. The author brings to light an emerging issue in the taxability of the post-award interest component of these awards through this piece. The issue revolves around the fundamental question: under which head of income in the double ta

Section 36 embodies a genuine tension between the efficiency arbitration promises and the accountability that public policy requires. The problem is not judicial oversight itself but its execution without temporal constraints and procedural clarity.

If confidentiality is to move from principle to practice, Section 42A requires structural repair. The gaps identified earlier demand legislative intervention.

Until courts stop treating boilerplate jurisdiction clauses as “embedded” seat designations, the conundrum of Indian arbitration will persist. The ghost of BALCO has not yet been exorcised; it has merely found a new home in the “exclusive jurisdiction” clause.

This article contends that this judgment rightly points out the pathologies of delay, but it is imperative to embrace a structured framework through a stringent two-pronged test in differentiating between: (1) procedural illegality due to delay itself and (2) the substantive prejudice due to delay under the rules of grounds of public policy under Section 34. 

A clearer statutory framework is required to prevent courts from over-expanding the notion of “conduct of parties.”

Despite a few cons, oral testimony remains one of the most effective ways of gathering significant evidence for reaching a viable decision. The possible solution could be an efficient and effective implementation of the use of oral testimony in a way that its pros outweigh its cons, leading to its constructive usage.

The decision clarifies that even if there is an assumption that the award is beyond what was intended in the agreement, it would not invalidate the enforceability of the award passed by the tribunal on the ground of public policy exception.

The path forward lies in a stage-sensitive synthesis: treat preliminary timelines as binding but flexible, with extensions granted only on reasoned orders, while enforcing final award deadlines as hard, jurisdictional limits.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Kamal Gupta is a landmark decision in the field of arbitration in India. The court ensured that the arbitral process in India retained its consensual nature by excluding the intervention of non-signatories, thereby strengthening confidentiality as a statutory imperative.

The Shashoua judgment represents a watershed moment in the evolution of Section 48 public policy jurisprudence, particularly in its application to complex shareholders dispute arbitration. The court’s sophisticated analysis validates contractual deadlock resolution mechanisms while maintaining necessary boundaries between arbitral authority and statutory regulation.

Unless patent illegality and perversity are confined to obvious, facial flaws, arbitral finality will remain illusory, and Section 34 will continue as a de facto appeal forum.

[ Vidhanshu and Raman are students at National Forensic Sciences University, Gandhinagar, and Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, respectively. ] The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Kamal Gupta and Another v. LR Builders Private Limited and Another   ( Kamal Gupta ) is an important precedent that defends the procedural sanctity of an arbitration proceeding against interference from non-signatory parties. Kamal Gupta  sets a clear and straightforward rule

The court in the present case, instead of mindlessly relying upon general prohibition, has adopted a grounded and commercially balanced approach.

This post explores these unresolved issues through three lenses, first, by analyzing the aftermath of Gayatri Balaswamy across various High Courts; second, by examining how jurisdictions such as the UK and Singapore have addressed the when and how of exercising the power of modification; and finally, by proposing a set of solutions aimed at providing clarity to Indian arbitration jurisprudence.

The draft Arbitration and Conciliation Amendment Bill 2024 represents a decisive step towards strengthening India’s arbitration framework in line with the best global practices. By addressing procedural inefficiencies and clarifying the role of institutions, the Bill seeks to position India as a credible hub for dispute resolution. 

Disortho exemplifies the dangers of uncritical adoption of foreign jurisprudence in a distinct legal context. By prioritising the lex contractus over the law of the seat, the decision compromises the procedural autonomy of agreements and departs from established Indian and international norms on lex arbitri determination.

For transnational parties, the primary assurance lies in a common framework wherein judicial intervention is reserved for cases concerning exceptional circumstances. The future of India’s engagement with international arbitration will largely depend on whether this equilibrium is restored and maintained.

The decisions of the Tribunal on termination of proceedings due to settlement of the parties should be appealable under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, to increase consistency, and avoid prolonging proceedings that could be without jurisdiction.