Earlier this month, the Court of Appeal of the Singapore Supreme Court upheld the setting aside of an arbitral award passed by a tribunal led by a former Chief Justice of India after discovering ...

Rather, they are procedural corrections that do not disturb the substantive findings or reasoning of the arbitral tribunal. III. Difference between setting aside and modification The distinction ...

In 2016, an international arbitral tribunal ruled that China's claims have no basis under international law. China does not recognise the ruling, and insists it operates lawfully in its territory.

Chinese state media said Beijing had “implemented maritime control and exercised sovereign jurisdiction” over the reef in mid-April and backed up that assertion with photos of Chinese ... The 2016 ...

The Supreme Court Constitution Bench recently held that the powers of Courts to remand arbitral awards back to the Tribunal under S. 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 cannot be ...

Non-signatories to an arbitration agreement can be impleaded by arbitral tribunal as party to arbitration if their conduct and role in the underlying transaction demonstrate a clear intention to be ...

Under the previous system, once an arbitral tribunal issued a decision, courts could either uphold the award or strike it down, with only specific, narrowly defined grounds for intervention. These ...

The Supreme Court today (May 2) expressed its dissatisfaction with the continued absence of explicit statutory recognition for the power of arbitral tribunals to implead or join non-signatory parties.

They could either set aside the award or remand the case back to the arbitral tribunal. This view, based on a literal construction of Section 34, resulted in serious hardship to the parties concerned ...