THE ARBITRATION WORKSHOP

The apex Court in its recent ruling in the case of Hindustan Construction Company Ltd v. Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited, noted, and importantly so, that “arbitration is often a friend in conferences, but a foe in practice”; this question is the very core of the condition of arbitration of disputes in the country.

This blog details the approach taken to adjudicate environmental claims in the context of the maritime industry; analysesboth the basis for the arbitral jurisdiction over these environmental claims; and assesses whether or not the arbitral processis able to continue to provide an effective forum for resolving disputes and promoting sustainability in that environmentwhile simultaneously meeting the traditional commercial objectives for which it was established.

The recent Delhi High Court judgment in Belvedere Resources DMCC v. OCL Iron & Steel Ltd 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4652 held Whatsapp messages and email constituted a valid arbitration agreement under Section 7(4)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

an ‘issue conflict’ in arbitration describes the existence of actual or apparent bias on the part of the arbitrator stemming from his or her previously expressed views on a question that goes to the very outcome of the case to be decided. It denotes the arbitrator’s relationship to the subject matter of the dispute, and his or her perceived capacity to adjudicate with an open mind

This article examines India’s evolving pro-enforcement stance towards foreign commercial arbitral awards following the 2015 amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It highlights how courts now restrict interference to narrow grounds under Section 48 (fraud, corruption, or violation of fundamental policy/morality) while penalizing dilatory tactics. Analysis of Landmark Cases such as Renusagar, Shri Lal Mahal, Vijay Karia, and Avitel provided.

The article critically examines the Delhi High Court’s recent full bench ruling in Pragati Constructions Consultants v. Union of India (2025), which addressed the consequences of procedural defects in Section 34 petitions under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.