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 Aakash Packaging judgment highlights the tension between judicial oversight and arbitral autonomy in India.

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.

The Draft Rules promise an efficient procedural framework, but they operate within the broader ecosystem of arbitration with several other considerations involved.

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.

The position of law in Electrosteel needs reconsideration, as argued in this post, to make the enforcement process quicker and more efficient, one which allows the award-creditor to enjoy the fruits of their labour.

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.

The amendment bill is a noteworthy step toward institutionalizing emergency arbitration in India.

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 author analyzes the SC judgment in Rohan Builders.

Author proposes an amendment to Section 34, expanding the court’s power and permitting modification of awards.