header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
26 October 2012 / Audley Sheppard , Jo Delaney
Issue: 7535 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Arbitration
printer mail-detail

A brighter future

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
illustration-converted_0_4

Audley Sheppard & Jo Delaney welcome moves towards a less interventionist approach by Indian courts

The Supreme Court of India has significantly limited the extent to which Indian courts can intervene in foreign-seated arbitrations. The ruling, given by a five-judge constitutional bench in Bharat Aluminium Co v Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc (Supreme Court, 6 September 2012), reverses the controversial decision issued in Bhatia International v Bulk Trading SA (2002) 4 SCC 105. That decision had opened the door for heavy-handed intervention by the Indian courts.

Application of Pt I

Bharat Aluminium concerned the application of Pt I and Pt II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (the Indian Act). Part I relates to the commencement and conduct of arbitration proceedings. It includes provisions relating to the appointment of arbitrators, the granting of interim measures and grounds upon which an award may be set aside. Part I was intended to apply to arbitrations conducted in India. Part II provides for the enforcement of awards made outside India.

In

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll