This article delves into the legal landscape on Section 9 applications and stamp duty requirements for arbitration agreements in India.

It is crucial to view pre-arbitral deposits as discretionary to ensure that each party has equal access to arbitration.

This article intends to analyze how the reasoning that the doctrine operates independent of corporate law is at best evasive.

[Harshal and Shaswat are students at Gujarat National Law University.] The recent judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India...

Lombardi posed a situation that would have allowed the doctrine of unconscionability to be strengthened in contract and arbitration law.

By harmoniously constructing relevant legislations, a court under a Section 11 will not dwell on the stamping of an agreement.

The status of the 'group of companies' doctrine in Indian arbitral jurisprudence has been finally settled by the Supreme Court.

The Delhi High Court’s stance on third-party funding is a welcome decision in light of India’s pro-arbitration policy.

To improve the enforcement of arbitration awards, one step is to establish more benches for time-bound disposal of execution petitions.

SC has held that an agreement containing an arbitration clause is unenforceable in law if it is not stamped or is insufficiently stamped.

If an improper construction of Section 36 of Stamp Act is allowed, it would defeat the original purpose of safeguarding state revenue.

It may be prudent for the SC to issue clarifications with respect to the various matters in question which remain unanswered in NN Global.

The author analyses NN Global by comparing it to the pre-conditions of this judgment and its impact on the arbitration mechanism in India.

Authors discuss the nature of the requirement of notice of arbitration as to whether serving it is compulsory or a mere technicality.

The author remarks that in India, the average disposal time of Section 34 applications is alarmingly high and discusses possible solutions.

The Supreme Court must advance an interpretation of second proviso to Section 36(3) based on some guidelines and the scope of Section 34.

Per the author, the Indian jurisprudence lacks a coherent test to determine whether a pre-arbitral clause is mandatory or directory.