Summary: This blog examines two recent decisions, Rajiv Gaddh v. Subodh Prakash (Supreme Court) (2026 INSC 302) and Nalin Vallabhbhai Patel v. Atharva Realtors (Bombay High Court)(2026:BHC-OS:7780), which reinforce a practical message for businesses: If a party lets an arbitration lapse through its own inaction (or withdraws a Section 11 request without liberty), courts are unlikely to allow a “reset” by filing a fresh Section 11 application for the same disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Latest Post
More Posts
Settling The Clash Between The Public Premises Act And State Rent Control Laws
Judicial Restraint In Arbitral Substitution: Key Takeaways From Ankhim Holdings V. Zaveri Construction
Appellate Restraint And Equity In Specific Performance: Key Takeaways From Annamalai V. Vasanthi
Full Bench of Bombay High Court Clarifies Scope of Appellate Review of Temporary Injunction Orders
Subscribe: Subscribe via RSS
Blogs
Firm/Org