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.

This article analyzes and determines whether the Indian legislation and the judiciary are prepared to address arbitral institutions and the challenges to their quasi-judicial or administrative decisions.

Calderbank offers systematically align private incentives with public policy by encouraging speedy and economic disposal of disputes. Litigants and arbitration participants alike are well aware that a reasonable proposal once made, carries real weight: refuse it at your peril, and you may as well pay generously in costs, even if you “win” upon merits. 

From a critical standpoint, Gayatri Balasamy is a double-edged development for arbitration law.

In arbitration, as in all adjudication, when one more is too many, equal say is non-negotiable.

The Supreme Court of India’s recognition of a power to modify arbitral awards under Section 34 marks a significant and controversial departure from the text, structure, and legislative intent of the Act.

[ Ujan is a student at National Law University Odisha. ] On 30 April 2025, a 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India ( SC ) held that...

Clear legislative reform is essential to resolve the existing uncertainties around the power of arbitral tribunals to implead non-signatories.

Subsequent to the Mahakali judgment adopting a clear stance that the MSMED Act would override the provisions of A&C Act, the party autonomy in the arbitration agreements involving an MSME, has taken a backseat.