Research and Articles
Hotline
- 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
- 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
February 25, 2019India—Bombay High Court refuses to grant anti-arbitration injunction (Ravi Arya v Palmview Overseas)
This article was originally published in the 23rd January 2019 edition of
SUMMARY:
In Ravi Arya v Palmview Overseas, the Bombay High Court ruled that when remedies are available to the party seeking an injunction under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an anti-arbitration injunction cannot be obtained to circumvent provisions of the Act. The present case raises a critical issue of appointment of a single arbitrator by multiple parties having a conflict of interest inter se.
For complete article, please click here.
– Bhavana Sunder, Kshama A. Loya & Vyapak Desai
You can direct your queries or comments to the authors