ROLE OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN CORPORATE AND

COMMERCIAL DISPUTES IN INDIA

Author – Garishma Dongre, 5th yr. B.A. LL.B. (Hons), Maharashtra National Law University,
Mumbai, [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Dispute Resolution Mechanisms are constantly evolving throughout the history of corporate
and commercial conflicts. The process of litigation now involves delay and costliness.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has been proved to be useful as it provides a peaceful
mechanism and a win-win situation for the parties in most cases. ADR includes dispute
resolution of all the matters including industrial disputes, family disputes, corporate and
commercial disputes. The article will focus on the corporate and commercial disputes and
specifically the role of ADR in it. The most common dispute resolution mechanism chosen
nowadays is mediation and arbitration. They have their own benefits and advantages but the
common advantage they include is faster dispute resolution compared to litigation. Therefore,
the review of literature available is in the form of primary and secondary resources. Further,
the article is divided in parts. Firstly, the article will focus on the role mediation plays through
various judicial pronouncements. Secondly, the article will focus on the role arbitration plays
which will also involve judicial pronouncements. The article will not focus on the role ADR
plays in other kinds of dispute, only on corporate and commercial disputes. Further the article
will only focus on the role of two dispute resolution mechanisms commonly used which are
Mediation and Arbitration. Thus, the researcher will examine these which are of immense
contemporary relevance in India, and posit a conclusion for the same.

1|Page

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4144301

INTRODUCTION

The main issue of Indian courts nowadays is related to pendency of cases. According to the
data of National Judicial Data Grid the total pending cases in the country are 4,13,49,606. The
only way of resolving this issue is Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), which involves
arbitration, mediation, conciliation, Lok Adalat and negotiation. ADR is a way of dispute
settlement without the intervention of courts. The main purpose of ADR is speedy justice which
is why it is important to know the role ADR plays in disputes.

The advancement in technology and communication are the reasons most businesses in India
are growing. However, disputes may arise because disputes are inevitable but it becomes more
important nowadays as to which dispute resolution mechanism the parties choose and how they
handle it. In many contracts, there is always a clause for dispute resolution, the insertion of
clause is done because some disputes do not have time and resources to spend on litigation.
Therefore, for a dispute to be settled in a timely and a cost-effective way dispute resolution
clause is inserted. Pendency of cases is the reason why ADR is used in corporate and
commercial disputes. Under section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), courts can refer
ADR to parties for the settlement of disputes. Further, ADR is less than litigation for resolving
corporate, commercial, labour and various other disputes. Parties can resolve their dispute
through a neutral individual or a panel.

In India due to globalization and competition in the economy, there has been an increase in the
commercial disputes. With the Courts already overburdened with cases, many corporations
consider ADR as a dispute settlement mechanism. Therefore, ADR being chosen for dispute
resolution, it becomes more crucial to understand the role it plays in various kinds of disputes
and especially in corporate and commercial disputes as ADR is most commonly used in these
kinds of disputes.

Therefore, the article is divided in three parts. Part I discusses the role of Mediation in
Corporate and Commercial Disputes, Part II discusses the role of Arbitration in Corporate and
Commercial Disputes and Part III is followed by a conclusion.

2|Page

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4144301

PART I- ROLE OF MEDIATION IN CORPORATE AND COMMERCIAL DISPUTES

According to Black’s Law dictionary, Mediation means “the act of a third person who
interferes between two contending parties with a view to reconcile them or persuade them to
adjust or settle their dispute.”

The parties control the mediation process and the process is non-binding. Further mediation is
informal and flexible. Majority of the commercial disputes are settled through mediation, as
the mediators are able to bring the parties closer by creating an atmosphere for cooperation and
1i
where confidential information is exchanged. Mediation is essential because most
commercial contracts involve financial and commercial consequences for both the parties. It
creates an open line of communication between the parties, specially where they have a long-
term contractual relationship and the chances of terminating the contract is less.ii2 By including
the mediation clause in the contract, the parties avoid litigation and look forward to a win-win
situation. However, it is not necessary that mediation would always work, if the parties fail to
reach a settlement, they would consider arbitration or litigation. If parties are not satisfied with
the decision of litigation or arbitration, which are legally binding, they cannot move back to
mediation.

There are certain statutes which mention mediation as a mode for settling disputes:

• Section 89 of CPC read with order X sanctions the civil courts to refer matters to ADR
which includes Arbitration, Mediation, Conciliation and Lok Adalats. Under this
section the courts will record admission and denial of parties, if the court thinks there
is way of settlement through ADR, an option would be given to the parties to choose
any of the four dispute resolution mentioned above.
• Section 442 of the Companies Act 2013, provides that the parties can refer their dispute
to Mediation and Conciliation Panel at any stage of the proceedings. Moreover, the
Companies (Mediation and Conciliation) Rules, 2016 rule 11, provides for the
procedure by disposing off the matters through Mediation or Conciliation.

1
Vijay Kumar Singh, “RESOLVING COMMERCIAL DISPUTES IN INDIA: FOCUS ON ‘MEDIATION’ AS AN EFFECTIVE
ALTERNATIVE ‘TOWARDS EASE OF DOING BUSINESS” (December 20, 2018). Available
at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3507589
2
KK Sharma, “INDIA: COMMERCIAL MEDIATION IN INDIA” (June 9, 2020) Available at:
https://www.mondaq.com/india/arbitration-dispute-resolution/945614/commercial-mediation-in-india

3|Page

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4144301

 • Under section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 it is mandatory for the plaintiff
to exhaust the remedy of pre-institution mediation as prescribed in the Pre-Institution
Mediation and Settlement Rules, 2018.
• Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2008
provides that if there is any dispute regarding the amount due, that concerned party can
make a reference to Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council. Section 18(2)
mentions that the Council can itself conduct conciliation in the concerned matter or
seek the assistance of any institution relating to ADR.
• Section 32 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development Act) 2016 is about
functions of Authority under the real estate sector. One of the functions of the Authority
under 32(g) is enable amicable conciliation between the promoters and the allottees
through dispute settlement forums set up by the consumer or promoter associations.

Judicial Pronouncement on Mediation –

1. Salem Bar Association v. Union of Indiaiii3

The word mediation had come up in this case for the first time. In this case the constitutionality
of section 89 was challenged. The Apex court upheld the constitutionality of the section. 4iv
There was constitution of committee by the Apex Court for section 89 of CPC so that there is
smooth implementation of the said section. The Court accepted those model rules for the
procedure of section 89 of CPC and asked all the High Courts to frame similar rules for their
respective jurisdictions. 5v

Important paragraphs from the judgment –

9. It is quite obvious that the reason why Section 89 has been inserted to try and see
that all the cases which are filed in court need not necessarily be decided by the court
itself. Keeping in mind the law's delay and the limited number of Judges which are
available, it has now become imperative that resort should be had to Alternative
Dispute Resolution Mechanism with a view to bring to an end litigation between the
parties at an early date. The Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism as
contemplated by Section 89 is arbitration or conciliation or judicial settlement

3
Salem Bar Association v. Union of India, (2003)1 SCC 49
4
Dr. Marisport “RESOLVING PENDING CASES THROUGH ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
UNDER SECTION 89 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE: A CASE STUDY”(2019) Available at:
https://doj.gov.in/sites/default/files/GNLU.pd
5
Supra Note 4

4|Page

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4144301

 including settlement through Lok Adalat or mediation. Sub-section (2) of Section 89
refer to different acts in relation to arbitration, conciliation or settlement through Lok
Adalat, but with regard to mediation Section 89(2)(d) provides that the parties shall
follow the procedure as may be prescribed. Section 89(2)(d), therefore, contemplates
appropriate rules being framed with regard to mediation.
11. Section 89 is a new provision and even though arbitration or conciliation has been
in place as a mode for setting the disputes, this has not really reduced the burden on
the courts. It does appear to us that modalities have to be formulated for the manner
in which Section 89 and, for that matter, the other provisions which have been
introduced by way of amendments, may have to be in operation. All counsel are
agreed that for this purpose, it will be appropriate if a Committee is constituted so as
to ensure that the amendments made become effective and result in quicker
dispensation of justice.
12. This Committee will be at liberty to co-opt any other member and to take assistance
of any member of the Bar or Association. This Committee may consider devising a
model case management formula as well as rules and regulations which should be
followed while taking recourse to the ADR referred to in Section 89. The model rules,
with or without modification, which are formulated may be adopted by the High
Courts concerned for giving effect to Section 89(2)(d).
24. ...The Committee would consider the said difficulties and make necessary
suggestions in its report. It is hoped that the amendments now made in the Code of Civil
Procedure would help in expeditious disposal of cases in the trial courts and the
appellate courts

2. Afcons Infrastructure v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. Ltdvi6

This is a landmark case in which Supreme Court examined section 89 in detail. The court
interchanged the words judicial settlement and mediation in clauses (c) and (d) of section 89(2).
Further the Court also provided a list in which cases are suited for ADR. The list included that
all cases relating to trade, commerce and contracts, including disputes arising out of contracts
disputes relating to specific performance, disputes between suppliers and customers, disputes
between bankers and customers. 7vii Further the Court mentioned all cases where there is a need

6
Afcons Infrastructure v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. Ltd, (2010) 8 SCC 24
7
Supra note 6 (Para 28)

5|Page

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4144301

for continuation of the pre-existing relationship in spite of the disputes would be included in
ADR.

Important Paragraphs from the judgment –

15. If Sub-section (1) of Section 89 is to be literally followed, every Trial Judge before framing
issues, is required to ascertain whether there exists any elements of settlement which may be
acceptable to the parties, formulate the terms of settlement, give them to parties for
observations and then reformulate the terms of a possible settlement before referring it to
arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement, Lok Adalat or mediation. There is nothing that
is left to be done by the alternative dispute resolution forum. If all these have to be done by the
trial court before referring the parties to alternative dispute resolution processes, the court
itself may as well proceed to record the settlement as nothing more is required to be done, as
a Judge cannot do these unless he acts as a conciliator or mediator and holds detailed
discussions and negotiations running into hours

27. The following categories of cases are normally considered to be not suitable for ADR
process having regard to their nature:

(i) Representative suits under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC which involve public interest or interest of
numerous persons who are not parties before the court. (In fact, even a compromise in such a
suit is a difficult process requiring notice to the persons interested in the suit, before its
acceptance).

(ii) Disputes relating to election to public offices (as contrasted from disputes between two
groups trying to get control over the management of societies, clubs, association etc.).

(iii) Cases involving grant of authority by the court after enquiry, as for example, suits for
grant of probate or letters of administration.

(iv) Cases involving serious and specific allegations of fraud, fabrication of documents,
forgery, impersonation, coercion etc.

(v) Cases requiring protection of courts, as for example, claims against minors, deities and
mentally challenged and suits for declaration of title against government.

(vi) Cases involving prosecution for criminal offences.

Therefore, the Supreme Court held that cases generally relating to trade, commerce, contracts,
consumer disputes could normally be mediated.

6|Page

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4144301

3. Vikram Bakshi v. Sonia Khosla8viii

Important Paragraphs from the judgment-

“18. Mediation ensures a just solution acceptable to all the parties to dispute thereby achieving
‘win-win’ situation. It is only mediation that puts the parties in control of both their disputes
and its resolution. It is mediation through which the parties can communicate in a real sense
with each other, which they have not been able to do since the dispute started. It is mediation
which makes the process voluntary and does not bind the parties against their wish. It is
mediation that saves precious time, energy as well as cost which can result in lesser burden on
exchequer when poor litigants are to be provided legal aid. It is mediation which focuses on
long term interest and helps the parties in creating numerous options for settlement. It is
mediation that restores broken relationship and focuses on improving the future not of
dissecting past.”

4. MR Krishna Murthi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd9ix

In this case the Court asked the Government to consider the feasibility of enacting the
Mediation Act to take care of mediation in general.

Important paragraphs from the judgment-

27. Here, mediation as a concept of dispute resolution, even before dispute becomes part of
adversarial adjudicatory process, would be of great significance. Advantages of mediation are
manifold. This stands recognised by the Legislature as well as policy makers and need no
elaboration. Mediation is here to stay. It is here to evolve. It is because of the advantages of
mediation as a method here to find new grounds. It is here to prosper, as its time has come. It
is now finding statutory recognition and has been introduced in few Statutes as well.
Examples are the Companies Act, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, Commercial Courts Act
etc. In these enactments provisions are made even for pre-litigation mediation by making this
process mandatory. There is, in any case, umbrella provisions in the form of Section 89 of
the Code of Civil Procedure which, inter alia, provides for court annexed mediation as well.
Time is ripe now to have similar mechanism for settling accident claims as well. Therefore, the
suggestion of establishing MAMA is laudable. We recommend to the Government to examine
the feasibility of setting up MAMA by making necessary amendments in the Motor Vehicles

8
Vikram Bakshi v. Sonia Khosla, (2014) 15 SCC 80
9
MR Krishna Murthi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd, 2019 SCC Online SC 315

7|Page

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4144301

Act itself. In fact, the way mediation movement is catching up in this country, there is a dire
need to enact Indian Mediation Act as well.

Therefore, through the above judgments we can see how the courts promoted mediation as an
alternative dispute mechanism. Nowadays, the popularity of mediation as an alternative dispute
resolution can be seen through insertion of mediation clause in many commercial and corporate
contracts. This could be said through the above- mentioned cases.

PART II - ROLE OF ARBITRATION IN CORPORATE AND COMMERCIAL DISPUTES

Arbitration is governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The process of
arbitration is informal but legally binding on the parties. Most of the corporations would
consider arbitration for dispute settlement rather than going for litigation and fighting long
disputes for years. Confidentiality is seen as one of the main advantages in arbitration. Parties
enter into a binding contract where arbitration clause is inserted or there is a separate arbitration
agreement signed. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has consolidated the law relating
to domestic arbitration and enforcement of foreign arbitral award.10x The most contentious
issue that has been debated on arbitrability is whether particular disputes are arbitrable or not.
There are various areas of law where issues of arbitrability arises like fraud, lease agreements,
copyright and trademarks. Although it has been cleared with the help of judiciary where
questions of arbitrability of disputes have been settled.

Judicial Pronouncement on Arbitration –

1. Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd11 xi

The Supreme Court laid down the list about disputes being non- arbitrable concerning right in
rem and right in personam.

Important Paragraphs from the Judgment-

“22. Every civil or commercial dispute, either contractual or non-contractual, which can be
decided by a court, is in principle capable of being adjudicated and resolved by arbitration
unless the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals is excluded either expressly or by necessary

10
Id at 4
11
Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd, (2011) 5 SCC 532

8|Page

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4144301

implication. Consequently, where the cause/dispute is inarbitrable, the court where a suit is
pending, will refuse to refer the parties to arbitration, under section 8 of the Act, even if the
parties might have agreed upon arbitration as the forum for settlement of such disputes. The
well recognized examples of non-arbitrable disputes are : (i) disputes relating to rights and
liabilities which give rise to or arise out of criminal offences; (ii) matrimonial disputes relating
to divorce, judicial separation, restitution of conjugal rights, child custody; (iii) guardianship
matters; (iv) insolvency and winding up matters; (v) testamentary matters (grant of probate,
letters of administration and succession certificate); and (vi) eviction or tenancy matters
governed by special statutes where the tenant enjoys statutory protection against eviction 19
and only the specified courts are conferred jurisdiction to grant eviction or decide the
disputes.”

“24. The Act does not specifically exclude any category of disputes as being not arbitrable.
Sections 34(2)(b) and 48(2) of the Act however make it clear that an arbitral award will be set
aside if the court finds that “the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by
arbitration under the law for the time being in force.”

2. N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. vs. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. and Ors 12xii

The case relates to the Commercial Court rejecting the application for Work Order for
arbitration. The High Court held that it was the admitted position that there was an arbitration
agreement between the parties, and therefore the application under Section 8 was maintainable.
The issue that came before the Supreme Court was that fraudulent invocation of the bank
guarantee furnished under the substantive contract, would be an arbitrable dispute, to which
the Supreme Court held all civil or commercial disputes can be adjudicated upon by a civil
court through arbitration unless it is excluded expressly by statute.

Important Paragraphs of the judgment-

8.10. “In our view, all civil or commercial disputes, either contractual or non-contractual,
which can be adjudicated upon by a civil court, in principle, can be adjudicated and resolved
through arbitration, unless it is excluded either expressly by statute, or by necessary
implication. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not exclude any category of
disputes as being non arbitrable. Section 2(3) of the Arbitration Act however recognizes that
certain categories of disputes by law may not be submitted to arbitration. In all jurisdictions,

12
N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. vs. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. and Ors (MANU/SC/0014/2021)

9|Page

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4144301

certain categories of disputes are reserved by the legislature, as a matter of public policy, to
be adjudicated by a court of law, since they lie in the realm of public law.”

8.11. “Traditionally, disputes relating to rights in rem are required to be adjudicated by courts
and/or statutory tribunals. A right in rem is a right exercisable against the world at large.
Actions in rem refer to actions which create a legal status such as citizenship, divorce,
testamentary and probate issues, etc. A lis in rem is not arbitrable by a private tribunal
constituted by the consent of parties. Actions in personam determine the rights and interests
of parties to the subject matter of the dispute, which are arbitrable.”

8.16. “The ground on which fraud was held to be non arbitrable earlier was that it would entail
voluminous and extensive evidence, and would be too complicated to be decided in arbitration.
In contemporary arbitration practice, arbitral tribunals are required to traverse through
volumes of material in various kinds of disputes such as oil, natural gas, construction industry,
etc. The ground that allegations of fraud are not arbitrable is a wholly archaic view, which has
become obsolete, and deserves to be discarded. However, the criminal aspect of fraud,
forgery, or fabrication, which would be visited with penal consequences and criminal
sanctions can be adjudicated only by a court of law, since it may result in a conviction, which
is in the realm of public law.”

3. Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC vs. Future Retail Limited and Ors13xiii

The case focused on whether an award delivered by an Emergency Arbitrator can be said to be
an order Under Section 17(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Important Paragraphs from the Judgment-

“14. The importance of party autonomy in arbitration and commercial contracts was further
delineated in the judgment of Centrotrade Minerals & Metal Inc. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd as
follows:

38. Party autonomy is virtually the backbone of arbitrations. This Court has expressed this
view in quite a few decisions. In two significant passages in Balco [Bharat Aluminium Co. v.
Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. MANU/SC/0090/2016 : (2016) 4 SCC 126] this
Court dealt with party autonomy from the point of view of the contracting parties and its
importance in commercial contracts. In para 5 of the Report, it was observed: (SCC p. 130)”

13
Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC vs. Future Retail Limited and Ors (MANU/SC/0510/2021)

10 | P a g e

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4144301

“70. This Court, in Kandla Export Corporation v. OCI Corporation MANU/SC/0112/2018 :
(2018) 14 SCC 715 ["Kandla Export"], held in the context of a Section 50 appeal as follows:

21. However, the question still arises as to why Section 37 of the Arbitration Act was expressly
included in the proviso to Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, which is equally a
special provision of appeal contained in a self-contained code, which in any case would be
outside Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act. One answer is that this was done ex
abundanti cautela. Another answer may be that as Section 37 itself was amended by the
Arbitration Amendment Act, 2015, which came into force on the same day as the Commercial
Courts Act, Parliament thought, in its wisdom, that it was necessary to emphasise that the
amended Section 37 would have precedence over the general provision contained in Section
13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act. Incidentally, the amendment of 2015 introduced one
more category into the category of appealable orders in the Arbitration Act, namely, a
category where an order is made Under Section 8 refusing to refer parties to arbitration.
Under Section 8 is not appealable Under Section 37(1)(a) and would, therefore, not be
appealable Under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act.

4. Vidya Drolia vs Durga Trading Corporation14xiv

The Supreme Court held that –

“The scope of the Court to examine the prima facie validity of an arbitration agreement
includes only:

a) Whether the arbitration agreement was in writing? or b) Whether the arbitration agreement
was contained in exchange of letters, telecommunication etc? c) Whether the core contractual
ingredients qua the arbitration agreement were fulfilled? d) On rare occasions, whether the
subject-matter of dispute is arbitrable?”

“Therefore, a claim for infringement of copyright against a particular person is arbitrable,

though in some manner the arbitrator would examine the right to copyright, a right in rem.
Arbitration by necessary implication excludes actions in rem.”

This case was important for arbitrability of Intellectual Property Disputes. Generally,
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are right in rem, however issues relating to Trademarks and
Copyrights are in right in personam. The Court in this case basically had held that right in rem

14
Vidya Drolia vs Durga Trading Corporation (2019) 20 SCC 406

11 | P a g e

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4144301

and right in personam cannot be the criteria to decide whether a particular dispute is arbitrable
or not. Many a times a right in rem results in an enforceable right in personam, the Supreme
Court had held in the case of Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd15xv

Hence, the above judgments discussed here have been well received in the commercial and
corporate disputes. Judiciary has helped in clearing the issues relating to arbitrability of some
disputes which in way helped more and more disputes to be considered for ADR than litigation.

PART III- CONCLUSION

There are many dispute resolution methods, like Negotiation, Conciliation and Med-Arb,
although Mediation and Arbitration are the most commonly used methods of dispute resolution.
Judiciary has played a huge role for these dispute resolution methods to be considered instead
of litigation and how nowadays it is becoming favoured choice of parties. The article discussed
the role ADR plays in corporate and commercial disputes, and it can be said that ADR plays a
significant role in these disputes through the case laws mentioned in the article. Each case was
seen to be promoting ADR and how it is constantly evolving through judiciary. Therefore,
ADR has come a long way through the Indian Judicial System. Although awareness of ADR
is still needed, developing capacities for the same will help expedite the shift from adversarial
litigation to methods of alternate dispute resolution in a big way which in turn would reduce
the pendency of the cases in the Courts.

REFERENCES

i
Vijay Kumar Singh, “Resolving Commercial Disputes in India: Focus on ‘Mediation’ as an Effective
Alternative ‘Towards Ease of Doing Business” (December 20, 2018). Available
at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3507589
ii
KK Sharma, “India: Commercial Mediation in India” (June 9, 2020) Available at:
https://www.mondaq.com/india/arbitration-dispute-resolution/945614/commercial-mediation-in-india
iii
Salem Bar Association v. Union of India, (2003)1 SCC 49
iv
Dr. Marisport “Resolving Pending Cases Through Alternative Dispute Resolution Under Section 89 Of Civil
Procedure Code: A Case Study”(2019) Available at: https://doj.gov.in/sites/default/files/GNLU.pd
v
Supra note iv
vi
Afcons Infrastructure v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. Ltd, (2010) 8 SCC 24
vii
Supra note vi
viii
Vikram Bakshi v. Sonia Khosla, (2014) 15 SCC 80
ix
MR Krishna Murthi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd, 2019 SCC Online SC 315

15
Id at 11

12 | P a g e

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4144301

x
Id at iv
xi
Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd, (2011) 5 SCC 532
xii
N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. vs. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. and Ors (MANU/SC/0014/2021)
xiii
Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC vs. Future Retail Limited and Ors (MANU/SC/0510/2021)
xiv
Vidya Drolia vs Durga Trading Corporation (2019) 20 SCC 406
xv
Id at xi

13 | P a g e

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4144301