India: Arbitration & Dispute Resolution

In National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. National Agro Seed Corporation (India) [2026 INSC 1017], the Supreme Court considered whether an award-debtor continues to be liable for interest after depositing the awarded amount in court during proceedings challenging the award.

The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act, 2006) was enacted to facilitate the promotion and development of micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs). MSMEs play a critical role in driving economic growth, generating employment, fostering innovation, and contributing significantly to India’s GDP and exports. They continue to serve as a vital pillar of the Indian economy. Over the years, the MSME sector has evolved significantly, driven by technological advancements, the emergence of information technology-enabled systems, and changes in the regulatory landscape.

Indian courts have consistently upheld confidentiality obligations while striking down post-employment non-compete clauses, but the enforceability of these protections depends on precise contractual drafting and demonstrable evidence of misuse. This analysis examines landmark cases that define the boundaries between protectable trade secrets and an employee's general skills, revealing what businesses must establish to secure legal protection when confidential information is compromised.

In an increasingly interconnected world, international marriages and relationships have become commonplace, bringing diverse cultures together but also introducing complex legal challenges when these relationships dissolve. Among these challenges, cross-border child custody disputes stand as perhaps the most emotionally charged and legally intricate. These disputes arise when parents from different countries or jurisdictions separate and disagree about where and with whom their child should live, creating situations that test the resilience and adaptability of legal systems worldwide.

The Guidelines prepared by an Expert Committee of the National Judicial Academy (hereinafter referred to as NJA) under former Supreme Court Justice Aniruddha Bose, replace patriarchal, moralistic and stereotypical language with survivor-centric, trauma-informed practices across FIR registration, trial management, cross examination and judgement writing.

India’s legislative journey towards gender equality has seen commendable progress. Over the last few decades, a series of statutes and amendments were enacted to protect women from systemic oppression, dowry-related harassment, domestic abuse, and economic neglect. The aim was clear to empower women within the patriarchal structures of Indian society. These laws include Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code IPC, the Dowry Prohibition Act, Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code CrPC, and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, among others.

When a foreign court judgment declares a joint venture agreement void, does it automatically terminate an international arbitration seated elsewhere? This analysis examines how domestic rulings interact with arbitral proceedings, exploring the jurisdictional boundaries between local courts and arbitral tribunals and the strategic risks companies face when navigating parallel proceedings.

Insolvency and arbitration have traditionally occupied separate spaces: one collective and court-supervised, the other private and consent-based. That separation is breaking down. Across Asia, distressed companies are parties to ongoing arbitral proceedings, arbitral awards are being pursued against insolvent entities, and restructuring moratoria are colliding with arbitral proceedings in ways that neither the law of insolvency nor the law of arbitration has cleanly resolved.

The proposal to introduce an Appellate Arbitral Tribunal (AAT) into India’s arbitration architecture, most prominently reflected in the Draft Arbitration & Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024, has rekindled debate over the proper balance between party autonomy, finality, institutional quality, and judicial supervision. Proponents portray an AAT as an institutional innovation that would enhance the quality of awards, promote consistency, and reduce the burden on courts. Critics warn that an appellate layer risks destroying arbitration’s comparative advantage by permitting merits review, increasing costs and delay, and departing from the international norm of limited judicial interference.