The central question raised by Draft Part Z is not whether it improves India’s cross-border insolvency framework. It plainly does. The more difficult question is whether its limited reach is an unavoidable feature of cross-border insolvency or a boundary consciously drawn by the legislature.

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.

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

India lacks a formal mechanism to address cross-border insolvency and restructuring. In practice, resolution of such matter’s hinges on ad hoc court-to-court cooperation or the recognition of foreign judgments under the Civil Procedure Code 1908.

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

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

It remains to be seen whether the court will use its curative power to alter the arbitral award within its power to set it aside under S 34.

The use of a purely managerial doctrine, primarily developed for corporate governance and trade purposes, on arbitration is problematic.

[Yadu is a student at Symbiosis Law School, Pune.] Group insolvency is defined under Article 2(f) of the UNCITRAL Model Laws on...

Author deals with 2 problematic aspects and proposes amendments to public policy exception contained in draft cross border insolvency law.