Research and Articles

NDA-Hotline

- Debt Funding in India Series
- Private Equity Corner
- The Startups Series
- Court Corner
- Investment Funds: Monthly Digest
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Hotline
- Deal Destination
- New Publication
- M&A Interactive
- Lit Corner
- Private Debt Hotline
- Food & Beverages Hotline
- Companies Act Series
- Gaming Law Wrap
- Private Client Wrap
- GIFT City Express
- Regulatory Hotline
- Capital Markets Hotline
- Tax Hotline
- Corpsec Hotline
- Dispute Resolution Hotline
- M&A Hotline
- Pharma & Healthcare Update
- Competition Law Hotline
- HR Law Hotline
- IP Hotline
- Telecom Hotline
- FEMA Hotline
- Social Sector Hotline
- iCe Hotline
- SEZ Hotline
- Media Hotline
- Funds Hotline
- Education Sector Hotline
- International Trade Hotlines
- Other Hotline
- Real Estate Update
- Realty Check
- White Collar and Investigations Practice
- Legal Update
- IP Lab
- Cross Examination
- Technology & Tax Series
- Technology Law Analysis
- Yes, Governance Matters.
- Financial Service Update
- Japan Desk ジャパンデスク
Dispute Resolution Hotline
December 12, 2019ndia: Supreme Court rules on apprehension of bias in arbitration
This article was originally published in International Arbitration Law Review (Vol. 22 Issue 4 of 2019)
The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Vinod Bhaiyalal Jain v Wadhwani Parmeshwari Cold Storage Ptv Ltd., Civil Appeal No.6960 of 2011 dated 24 July 2019, was recently faced with the question of whether there existed a reasonable apprehension of bias such that an arbitral award be set aside. In this case, the arbitrator who rendered the final arbitral award in the arbitration had been engaged and was acting as counsel of one of the parties in another litigation. The Supreme Court interpreted the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (as the present case applied the law as it stood prior to the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act 2015) to determine the arbitral award rendered by the appointed arbitrator should be set aside as the Appellants had a reasonable basis to doubt the arbitrator’s ability to be independent and impartial in pronouncing the arbitral award.
For complete article, please click here.