The Metaverse consists of interconnected virtual worlds, often built on blockchain technology and governed by decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs). Users engage in activities such as gaming, trading virtual assets, creating digital businesses, and socializing through avatars.This unique environment raises several legal questions:
The Delhi High Court ruled that an arbitrator must be appointed strictly per the contract's terms. Justice Jasmeet Singh emphasized that arbitration is governed by the contract, and any deviation from the agreed mechanism renders the arbitrator's appointment void. Consequently, an award passed by such an arbitrator is non-est in law and invalid. The Court reaffirmed that jurisdiction arises solely from the contract, and failure to adhere to its provisions nullifies the arbitration process. This ruling underscores the importance of following contractual procedures in arbitration appointments to ensure their legality and enforceability.
The doctrine of separability posits that an arbitration agreement is independent of the substantive contract in which it is contained. In other words, the arbitration clause suvives independently of the contract's fate.
Mediation is a structured yet flexible process in which a neutral third party, known as the mediator, facilitates communication between disputing parties to help them reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Unlike a judge or arbitrator, a mediator does not impose a decision. Instead, they guide the parties in exploring their needs, interests, and options for resolution.
LIFEFORCE CRYOBANK SCIENCES INC [Petitioner] Vs.
CRYOVIVA BIOTECH PVT. LTD. & ORS. [Respondent(s)]
Arbitration Petition No. 15/2018
(2JB, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Manoj Misra JJ., delivered by MANOJ MISRA, J.) A U.S.-incorporated company filed a petition under Sections 11(6) and (12) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator for disputes arising from two agreements. The petitioner claims to have acquired Cryobank USA's assets, stepping into its contractual obligations. The respondents argued that the license agreement was non-assignable without consent, disputing privity of contract. The court, limited to examining the existence of an arbitration agreement, noted no dispute regarding arbitration clauses in the agreements. The matter was referred to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre for arbitrator appointment, leaving all contentions open for tribunal review.
The Supreme Court, in the case of Serosoft solutions vs Dexter capital advisors pvt. ltd. (CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 51-52 OF 2025) reaffirmed that judicial restraint in arbitration matters, as mandated under Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, overrides other laws. The case involved Dexter Capital seeking additional time to cross-examine Serosoft’s witness, despite the Arbitral Tribunal rejecting the request due to lack of preparedness. The High Court granted the extension, citing exceptional circumstances. Overruling this, the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal had already provided sufficient opportunity, with over 12 hours of cross-examination conducted. The Court emphasized that interference under Article 227 is permissible only for glaring perversity, which the High Court failed to demonstrate.
In an increasingly globalized world, international arbitration has become a preferred mechanism for resolving cross-border commercial disputes. It offers parties flexibility, neutrality, and enforceability that traditional litigation often cannot match. However, like any system. it is not immune to challenges such as delays, high costs, and procedural inefficiencies.
The Petitioner challenged an arbitral award dated 22.08.2017 under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, citing delay in filing objections. The award required the Petitioner to pay Rs. 2.63 crore with interest, but the challenge was filed without supporting documents and refiled after the statutory deadlines. The Respondent argued that the petition was time-barred, as the award had been duly served. Despite the Petitioner's claims of non-receipt, the court found insufficient evidence to support this. Citing precedents, the court deemed the filing invalid and dismissed the petition, holding it time-barred under Section 34(3).
Central Organisation for Railway Electrification [Appellant] Vs. M/s ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company [Respondents]
Civil Appeal Nos. 9486-9487 of 2019
(5JB, HON'BLE CJI, HRISHIKESH ROY, P.S. NARASIMHA, PANKAJ MITHAL, MANOJ MISRA JJ.)
Our Senior Partner Mr S Ravi Shankar argued the above said case before the five Judge Bench of Supreme Court of India for and on behalf of M/S. Conarch Associates. The Supreme Court examined the balance between party autonomy and the impartiality of arbitral tribunals under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Though parties can choose arbitrators, the Act requires fairness and neutrality in the arbitral process. Following the Law Commission’s recommendation, the 2015 amendment introduced Section 12(5), restricting arbitrators with certain relationships to the parties. Notable cases like Voestalpine, TRF Ltd., and Perkins Eastman illustrate challenges in ensuring independence when government or influential parties appoint arbitrators. A Constitution Bench addressed these issues, as the government considers broader reforms recommended by an Expert Committee on arbitration law.
Given the complexity and technical nature of construction disputes, arbitration has become a favored method for resolving such conflicts. Arbitration allows parties to choose arbitrators with specific expertise in construction law, engineering, or project management, ensuring a more informed decision-making process compared to a generalist judge in a court of law.
Skip & continue
Disclaimer
In Compliance with Indian Regulations, Kindly Review the User Acknowledgement and Disclaimer below and then Proceed.
User Acknowledgement
By proceeding further and clicking on the "ACCEPT" button herein below, I acknowledge that I of my own accord wish to know more about Law Senate (LS) for my own information and use. I further acknowledge that there has been no solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from Law Senate (LS) or any of its members to create an Attorney-Client relationship through this website. I further acknowledge having read and understood the Disclaimer below
This website (www.lawsenate.com) is a resource for informational purposes only and is intended, but not promised or guaranteed, to be correct, complete, and up-to-date. Law Senate (LS) does not warrant that the information contained on this website is accurate or complete, and hereby disclaims any and all liability to any person for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident or any other cause. Law Senate (LS) further assumes no liability for the interpretation and/or use of the information contained on this website, nor does it offer a warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The owner/Partners of this website do not intend links from this site to other internet websites to be referrals to, endorsements of, or affiliations with the linked entities. Law Senate (LS) is not responsible for, and makes no representations or warranties about, the contents of Web sites to which links may be provided from this Web site.
This website is not intended to be a source of advertising or solicitation and the contents of the website should not be construed as legal advice. The reader should not consider this information to be an invitation for a lawyer-client relationship and should not rely on information provided herein and should always seek the advice of competent counsel licensed to practice in the reader's country/state. Transmission, receipt or use of this website does not constitute or create a lawyer-client relationship. No recipients of content from this website should act, or refrain from acting, based upon any or all of the contents of this site.
Furthermore, the owner of this website does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based solely upon viewing this Web site or in a country/state where this website fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state. Finally, the reader is warned that the use of Internet e-mail for confidential or sensitive information is susceptible to risks of lack of confidentiality associated with sending email over the Internet.
As per the rules of the Bar Council of India, lawyers are not permitted to advertise themselves. The information about the Firm, its Key Practice Areas or its Key Team Members provided under this website is only for informational purposes and it should not be interpreted as soliciting or advertisement of any nature whatsoever.
The information provided on this website is for general information only. It is not intended to create or promote an attorney-client relationship and does not constitute and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice.
Communications via this website also do not create an attorney-client relationship. Visitor should always seek appropriate professional advice before acting on the basis of any information contained herein.
