[ 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

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. 

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.

The integration of AI and its sub-systems in international arbitration is inevitable, but instead of blind participation in the AI race, the stakeholders must be vigilant and even de-limit such integration in certain sensitive areas, ensuring that technology remains a tool, not a tribunal.

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.

In this piece, the author argues that the decision of the SC in Disortho has two main problems. First, the court fails to appropriately decide the seat. Second, the law laid down by the SC is problematic due to its misconceived implementation of party intention and the principle of separability. 

While the power of modification may not necessarily be antagonizing to the Indian arbitration regime, the source of such power shall be through legislative means rather than judicial craftiness.

Gayatri Balasamy seeks to avoid the blunt injustice of all-or-nothing review, but its doctrinal scaffolding is built on inference rather than enactment.

Courts must look at granting post expiry extensions judiciously in exceptional cases and imposing relevant costs and conditions so as to provide an implicit direction and judicial nudge towards a more proactive approach of seeking extensions on a genuine need basis instead of paving the way for more dilatory tactics. 

Navigating symmetrical arbitration clauses can be challenging, but the judgement in Tarun Dhameja is a positive development.

To bolster the idea of reducing the intervention of courts in an arbitration proceeding, the principles of Scott v. Avery clause is one of the means.

This piece begins with an appraisal of the Supreme Court’s reasoning and then addresses the remaining concerns.

There is need for further clarification on the assignability of arbitration agreements.

We are yet to see a case where an Indian court grants an anti-suit injunction in support of a foreign-seated arbitration.

The selective applicability of the provisions of Section 14 to only domestic-seated arbitrations results in several complexities.