January 22, 2026

When Silence is Just as Loud: The Perils of Missing the Notice of Dissatisfaction

This article examines recent Indian jurisprudence regarding the mandatory nature of Nature of Dissatisfaction (“NoD”) timelines under the International Federation of Consulting Engineers (“FIDIC Contracts”) and similar contracts and reflects on how this has evolved into a threshold issue that must be addressed before any arbitral tribunal can be engaged. The authors will also discuss the possibility of invocation of the Atlantic Shipping clause as a defence in such Indian cases. The piece will end establishing that jurisprudence on the mandatory nature of NoD is well-settled so far in India. The authors will refer to the FIDIC Yellow Book, 1999 edition, primarily because most disputes currently in the Indian legal system still follow the 1999 edition rather than the 2017 edition.

Uncategorized 0 7 min read
January 12, 2026

Public Policy, Arbitrator Bias and Beyond: Impediments to Award Enforcement in India

This article emphasises upon public policy and arbitrator bias, exploring the emerging impediments to the enforcement of arbitral awards in India. Although recent Supreme Court decisions have curbed procedural obstacles like stamp duty objections, indicating a pro-enforcement stance, bias and varying interpretations of public policy still reflect uncertainty. This paper examines practical obstacles such as court delays, tracks legislative and judicial developments, and emphasises the need for balanced scrutiny that protects justice without compromising party autonomy. Ultimately, it argues for a limited use of procedural grounds in order to promote an arbitration-friendly jurisprudence in India.

Arbitration 0 12 min read
January 10, 2026

Re-examining Balasamy: Why Courts Should Retain Discretion to Modify Pendente Lite Interest

This article critically examines the Supreme Court’s Gayatri Balasamy judgment, arguing it created an artificial and unjustified distinction between pendente lite interest and post-award interest by disallowing judicial modification of pendente lite interest in arbitral awards. It contends this restriction lacks a statutory basis under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and contradicts a history of judicial precedents where courts have intervened to rectify exorbitant interest rates. The analysis highlights that retaining the court’s power to modify pendente lite interest is essential for upholding the principle of compensatory justice and ensuring awards remain equitable and fair.

Case Analysis 0 6 min read
January 10, 2026

E-Arbitration and Evidentiary Rigor: Judicial Scrutiny of Digital Consent Formation post Belvedere

In an era where contractual agreements are increasingly executed through digital means, Belvedere v. OCL represents seminal development in Indian arbitration jurisprudence, establishing that correspondence conducted via WhatsApp and email may validly constitute a binding arbitration agreement. This note examines the Delhi High Court’s expansive interpretation of Section 7(4)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and critiques its silence on evidentiary rigour under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. It further interrogates the denial of interim relief under Section 9 and the Court’s fidelity to jurisdictional discipline. This piece probes how digital informality collides with legal formality in arbitration’s evolving jurisprudence.

Case Analysis 0 7 min read