Research and Articles
![](/Content/images/arrow-3-right-red.png)
Hotline
![](/Content/images/arrow-3-right-red.png)
- Capital Markets Hotline
- Companies Act Series
- Climate Change Related Legal Issues
- Competition Law Hotline
- Corpsec Hotline
- Court Corner
- Cross Examination
- Deal Destination
- Debt Funding in India Series
- Deal Talk
- Dispute Resolution Hotline
- Education Sector Hotline
- FEMA Hotline
- Financial Service Update
- Food & Beverages Hotline
- Funds Hotline
- Gaming Law Wrap
- GIFT City Express
- Green Hotline
- HR Law Hotline
- iCe Hotline
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Hotline
- International Trade Hotlines
- Investment Funds: Monthly Digest
- IP Hotline
- IP Lab
- Legal Update
- Lit Corner
- M&A Disputes Series
- M&A Hotline
- M&A Interactive
- Media Hotline
- New Publication
- Other Hotline
- Pharma & Healthcare Update
- Press Release
- Private Client Wrap
- Private Debt Hotline
- Private Equity Corner
- Real Estate Update
- Realty Check
- Regulatory Digest
- Regulatory Hotline
- Renewable Corner
- SEZ Hotline
- Social Sector Hotline
- Tax Hotline
- Technology & Tax Series
- Technology Law Analysis
- Telecom Hotline
- The Startups Series
- White Collar and Investigations Practice
- Yes, Governance Matters.
- Japan Desk ジャパンデスク
Dispute Resolution Hotline
August 4, 2020India—Delhi High court’s vaccine for combating multiplicity of arbitral proceedings (Gammon India v National Highways Authority of India)
This article was originally published in the 24th July 2020 edition of
Lexis PSL Arbitration
SUMMARY
While hearing a petition challenging an arbitral award in Gammon India Ltd & another v National Highways Authority of India (OMP 680/2011 (New No OMP (COMM)392/2020), the High Court of Delhi took cognisance of the issues surrounding ‘multiplicity’ of arbitral proceedings, i.e., multiple invocation, multiple references to arbitrations constitution of multiple tribunals, multiple awards being rendered and consequently multiple challenges thereto—between the same parties, in respect of the same contract or the same series of contracts.
The Court observed that there is nothing in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, which prohibits parties from raising claims and counter-claims in multiple proceedings arising out of the same contract. Therefore, it laid down certain directions to curb the nuances of multiplicity of proceedings, in case of future disputes.
For compete article, please click here.
– Shweta Sahu, Payel Chatterjee & Vyapak Desai
You can direct your queries or comments to the authors