Employment analysis: Craig Orr QC and Mehdi Baiou, of One Essex Court, examine a Supreme Court decision which looks at when negotiating damages (‘Wrotham Park damages’) may be awarded for breach of restrictive covenants.

The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal by a majority, setting aside the order directing convictions against protesters outside the Defence and Security International arms fair at the Excel Centre in East London during September 2017. In addition, it restores the dismissal of the charges against the appellants by Stratford magistrates’ court. Raj Chada, partner at Hodge Jones & Allen, who represented the appellants in the case, comments on the Supreme Court’s judgment.

The Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in Barton and others (Respondents) v Morris and another in place of Gwyn-Jones (deceased) (Appellants) [2023] UKSC 3. By a narrow majority, the court has allowed the appeal, stating that a seller is not obliged to pay reasonable remuneration to an introducer for their services, where the underlying oral contract merely provides for an introduction fee to be payable upon a property being sold for a certain amount and the property is ultimately sold for less than that conditional amount. The majority rejected the claim on both the contractual interpretation and unjust enrichment claim bases. James Saunders, barrister at New Square Chambers, discusses the implications of the judgment.

Arbitration analysis: The Supreme Court of India has held that the date for determining the exchange rate for converting a foreign currency arbitral award to Indian rupees is the date of deposit if the award holder is permitted to withdraw the amount, even conditionally. This decision emphasizes the importance of the date of deposit over the date of actual withdrawal or conversion, which is crucial for practitioners dealing with foreign arbitral awards. The court clarified that even if conversion is delayed due to regulatory restrictions, the deposit date remains the key date for exchange rate determination. This ruling impacts how foreign currency awards are enforced in India, ensuring that award holders cannot benefit from exchange rate fluctuations due to procedural delays. For commercial practitioners it is crucial to devise an express contractual clause providing for currency in which an award should be satisfied to ensure that the award sum is available for use in the form required by international trade without delay. Written by Dipen Shah, solicitor and member of Gujarat High Court Advocates Association.

The Supreme Court of India has handed down judgment on 17 October 2023 regarding the recognition of same-sex marriages. The Supreme Court did not grant recognition for same-sex marriages and has indicated that it is for the legislature to decide on this matter. The court held that same-sex couples have right to cohabit without any threat of violence or coercion of interference but did not make any judgment formally recognizing a same-sex relationship as a marriage.

Arbitration analysis: In a decision given in August 2025, a division bench of the Supreme Court of India (SC) held that a valid and binding arbitration agreement existed between the parties, even though the parent contract containing the agreement had not been signed by one of the parties, on the basis that there was an implied acceptance of the contract (and therefore, the arbitration agreement contained therein) based on the parties’ performance of the contract. In holding so, the SC reversed the High Court of Delhi’s (DHC) decisions and referred the parties to arbitration under Section 45 of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). Written by Juhi Gupta, Counsel and Shamik Datta, associate at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co.

Arbitration analysis: The Supreme Court held that a legal representative of a deceased party to an arbitration agreement must challenge an arbitral award under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and cannot invoke the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Interpreting sections 34, 35 and 40 of the Act, the court confirmed that arbitration agreements, and the rights and obligations arising from them, survive death and remain enforceable by or against legal representatives. The decision reinforces the Arbitration Act as a self-contained code, limits judicial intervention outside the statutory framework to exceptional circumstances, and provides important guidance on the procedural remedies available to legal representatives affected by arbitral awards. Produced in partnership with Juhi Gupta, counsel and Nikita Banatwala, associate, of Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co.

Arbitration analysis: This case preserves a respondent’s valuable right to file a counter-claim under section 23(2A) of the Indian Arbitration & Conciliation Act 2015 (A&C Act 2015), without the need to follow the pre-arbitration procedure in an arbitration clause and to make a separate or new reference, as long as the counter-claim falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement. The court held that once any dispute, difference or controversy is notified by a claimant under the arbitration clause, the entire subject matter including counter claim/set off would form subject matter of arbitration as a dispute arising out of the arbitration clause. In view of A&C Act 2015, s 23(2A), there is no reason for and additionally requiring a respondent to make a new reference and curtailing a respondent’s right to make the counter claim. Dis-allowing the counter claim in proceedings arising out of the claims made by a claimant may lead to parallel proceedings before various fora. Written by Adimesh Lochan, member, International Dispute Resolution Practice and Kshama A Loya, leader, International Dispute Resolution Practice at Nishith Desai Associates.

Arbitration analysis: In March 2024, the Supreme Court of India (SC) delivered a significant judgment under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), clarifying that an application for the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act must be filed within three years from the date on which the respondent refuses or fails to comply with the notice of invocation of arbitration. The SC also held that the appointment of an arbitrator may be refused if the claims sought to be arbitrated are ex-facie non-arbitrable or hopelessly time barred. Written by Juhi Gupta, Counsel and Ojaswi Shankar, associate, of Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co.

Arbitration analysis: In October 2023, the Supreme Court of India (SC) delivered a landmark judgment, holding that an award for loss of profit that is not substantiated with credible evidence is in conflict with the public policy of India under section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). The SC also delineated the conditions that must be necessarily satisfied to establish a claim for loss of profit and provided guidance on the nature of evidence that arbitrators can consider while deciding such a claim. Written By: Juhi Gupta, principal associate and Abhijeet Sadikale, senior associate, of Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co.

Arbitration analysis: While the Indian Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 (Act) does not expressly sanctify modification of awards by a court, over the years, there have been conflicting rulings of various courts on their power to modify an arbitral award. This resulted in the issue being referred to a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, in Gayatri Balasamy v ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd. The majority judgment held that notwithstanding this silence in the Act, courts did have a limited power (under Sections 34 and 37 of the Act) to modify an award (in certain limited circumstances) to correct any clerical, computational, typographical errors as well as other manifest errors (provided that such modification did not necessitate a merits-based evaluation), and also to modify post-award interest if justified. Critically, the Supreme Court’s power under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution ‘for doing complete justice’ was expressly recognised in the context of modification of awards, which may result in an invitation to review the award on merits. The dissenting/minority opinion held to the contrary, ie that no power of modification had been granted under the Act, and it could not be interpreted as to confer such a power on courts, including in relation to post-award interest. In relation to computational / clerical errors, or the like, he opined that this power was in any event available to the arbitral tribunal under Section 33 of the Act and that in case the arbitral tribunal did not correct such errors thereunder, a court under Section 34 using ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit’ (an act of the court shall prejudice no one) could invoke the power and correct computational errors, clerical or typographical errors or any errors of similar nature without modifying, altering or adding to the original award. Written by Shaneen Parikh, partner and head—International Arbitration and Rahul Mantri, principal associate at Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas.

Arbitration analysis: The Supreme Court of India (SC) recently clarified that the dispute resolution mechanism provided in the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (the MSME Act) for disputes concerning delay in payment of a micro or small supplier’s payments overrides the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the A&C Act), notwithstanding the existence of a valid arbitration agreement between the parties. In arriving at this conclusion, the SC examined the objective of both statutes to hold that the MSME Act is a special statute, which prevails over the A&C Act, which is to be treated as a general statute. By way of this decision, the SC has provided instructive guidance on the commencement and conduct of disputes between a buyer and a micro or small enterprise supplier. Written by Shreya Gupta, partner, Juhi Gupta, principal associate, and Siddharth Doshi, associate, of Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co.