Litigation Law, Mediation Law and Arbitration Law

This article examines the constitutional and policy case for establishing a no-fault compensation mechanism for vaccine-related injuries in India. Drawing on the right to health under Article 21 and experiences from mass public health interventions, it analyses the rationale, design considerations, and implementation challenges of such a scheme.

The Court confined the Section 9 proceedings to the Petitioner’s prayer seeking restraint against the Respondent from acting upon the Notice of Intention to Terminate dated 16.07.2026. It reiterated that Section 9 is protective in nature and aims to preserve the subject matter of arbitration and prevent the proceedings from becoming infructuous. Interim relief depends upon a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court in Kumud Lall v. Suresh Chandra Roy held that the death of an alleged negligent doctor does not automatically extinguish a medical negligence claim against him. The Court held that claims relating to medical expenses and other pecuniary losses may survive against the deceased doctor's estate, whereas purely personal claims (against causing pain and suffering and other personal injuries) may not survive.

The Delhi High Court has ruled that arbitral awards must be stamped when signed, not when enforcement is sought, closing a decades-old practice of deferred stamp duty payment. Once the one-month statutory window expires, award holders cannot cure the deficiency through unilateral deposit and must pay both deficit duty and penalty at a fixed rate, fundamentally reshaping enforcement practice for arbitration practitioners across India.

The Supreme Court of India has issued its most comprehensive guidance on summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, establishing a nine-point framework that could fundamentally reshape how commercial disputes are resolved. In Reliance Eminent Trading v. Delhi Development Authority, the Court clarified when courts should bypass full trials and decide cases at an earlier stage, potentially ending the practice of forcing parties through years of litigation when material facts are alrea

On August 31, 2026, the Allahabad High Court ruled that civil courts cannot resolve boundary demarcations of agricultural land under the guise of issuing a permanent injunction. The decision in Hamid Khan And 4 Others v. Jwala Prasad And 13 Others (Second Appeal No. 475 of 2026) set aside concurrent decrees passed by lower civil courts and reinforced the mandatory role of statutory revenue procedures in Uttar Pradesh.

The Court of Appeal has ruled that ratifying the New York Convention does not automatically waive sovereign immunity in arbitral award enforcement proceedings. This decision clarifies the distinction between...

A Decree Holder seeks to execute an arbitral award of ₹385 crore through attachment and sale of properties, while Judgment Debtors argue they are undergoing Personal Insolvency Resolution Process under IBC, 2016. The central question is whether execution proceedings can continue when the statutory moratorium has expired but insolvency proceedings remain active, and whether this would grant preferential treatment disrupting the proposed repayment plan.

Our Partner, Sidharth Sethi, was invited as a speaker by the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law & Justice (DLA MoL&J) and the India International Arbitration Centre...

Examining whether Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act requires proof of wilful undervaluation and fraudulent intent to evade stamp duty.

Limitation of liability clauses are generally enforceable in India, but only within limits that the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and the courts have drawn. A cap on damages is treated as a legitimate allocation of commercial risk between informed parties; a clause that tries to excuse fraud, wilful misconduct or a deliberate breach, or that is imposed through unequal bargaining power, is far more likely to fail.

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India has cautioned against using criminal law to recover money in what is essentially a commercial dispute. A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar quashed a criminal case for cheating against two company directors, holding that the complainant’s grievance was “essentially civil in nature” and that continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of the process of the court.