We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 87

‘Delhi High Court dismisses anti-arbitration suit filed by the government of India’
  • Khaitan & Co
  • India
  • May 10 2018

The Delhi High Court (Court) pronounced its judgment in Union of India v. Vodafone Group PLC United Kingdom & Anr. dismissing Union of India's


Enforcement of 'minority award': law or flaw?
  • Khaitan & Co
  • India
  • March 22 2018

Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 sets out the conditions for setting aside an arbitral award. In this context, the term


Daichii- Ranbaxy Dispute: Implications for Buyers and Sellers
  • Khaitan & Co
  • India
  • March 7 2018

The recent dispute between Daichii Sankyo Company Limited and Singh Brothers has reignited several interesting questions on buyer seller dynamics in M


DTAB appoints committee to review fixed dose combinations
  • Khaitan & Co
  • India
  • February 19 2018

The Drugs Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) has reportedly appointed an expert committee under Ms Nilima Shirsagar, retired dean of Mumbai's KEM


Supreme Court clarifies the appropriate jurisdiction for enforcement of an arbitral award
  • Khaitan & Co
  • India
  • February 16 2018

By a judgment delivered on 15 February 2018 in Sundaram Finance v Abdul Samad & Anr (Civil Appeal No 1650 of 2018), a two Judge bench of the Hon'ble


Delhi High Court upholds foreign award in favour of daiichi (except qua minor respondents)
  • Khaitan & Co
  • Singapore, India
  • February 6 2018

By a judgment delivered on 31 January 2018, the Delhi High Court has held that the award passed in favour of Daiichi Sankyo Company Ltd. (the


Supreme Court says no to arbitration in landlord-tenancy disputes
  • Khaitan & Co
  • India
  • January 29 2018

A Supreme Court (Court) bench consisting of the Hon'ble Justices R K Agarwal and Abhay Manohar Sapre recently reaffirmed the non-arbitrability of


Pre-arbitral steps: Indian law perspective
  • Khaitan & Co
  • India
  • January 25 2018

Multi-tiered dispute resolution clauses prescribing pre-arbitral steps are common in commercial contracts in order to allow parties to resolve their


Supreme Court expands government’s powers to ban drugs under section 26a of the Drugs & Cosmetics act, 1940
  • Khaitan & Co
  • India
  • January 3 2018

On 10 March 2016, the Central Government issued 344 identically worded notifications (Notifications) prohibiting the manufacture, sale and


No relief for Toyota from Supreme Court in the PRIUS matter. Decision may have implications on the provisions of well-known mark.
  • Khaitan & Co
  • India
  • December 15 2017

In Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v Prius Auto Industries Ltd & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos 5375-5377 of 2017), the Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court