𝗖𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗡𝗮𝗺𝗲: Disortho S.A.S. v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗲: 18 March 2025
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India in Disortho S.A.S. v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. held that I𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗷𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗿𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘆, provided the contract specifies Indian law as the governing law.
The dispute arose from a 2016 distribution agreement between Disortho, a Colombian company, and Meril, an Indian medical devices firm. While the agreement designated Bogotá, Colombia, as the arbitration venue, it also explicitly stated that Indian law would govern the agreement. Disortho filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking an arbitrator’s appointment. Meril opposed the petition, arguing that Colombian authorities had exclusive jurisdiction.
Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, leading the bench, clarified that a “venue” is merely a geographical location, while a “seat” determines the legal framework of arbitration. Applying established legal principles, the Court concluded that the governing law of the contract also extended to the arbitration agreement. Consequently, the Court appointed Justice S.P. Garg as the sole arbitrator, with arbitration proceedings to be conducted under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre Rules.
This ruling reinforces the primacy of party autonomy and strengthens India’s position as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction.
𝗝𝗼𝗶𝗻 mentblue 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆.
𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁𝘀𝗔𝗽𝗽 : https://lnkd.in/g9gBHk9j
𝗧𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗺 : https://t.me/mentblue
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that High Courts can quash FIRs at the nascent stage of investigation under Section 482 CrPC/ Section 528 BNSS if the allegations do not disclose a prima facie offence. In a recent judgment, the Court quashed an FIR against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi, stating that the case was a clear abuse of the legal process.
The Delhi High Court, in 𝑭𝒂𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒖𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒗𝒔. 𝑵.𝑾.𝑮.𝑬.𝑳 𝑪𝒉𝒖𝒓𝒄𝒉 (𝑨𝑹𝑩.𝑷. 1318/2024), ruled that when an arbitration agreement does not specify a seat or venue, the court's jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, must be determined based on Sections 16 to 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The ruling, delivered by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri on March 20, 2025, emphasized that 𝗷𝘂𝗿𝗶�...
The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the transfer of Justice Yashwant Varma from the Delhi High Court back to the Allahabad High Court, his parent institution. This decision follows reports of a significant amount of unaccounted cash discovered at Justice Varma's official residence after a fire incident. Firefighters, responding to the blaze, reportedly found substantial cash in various rooms of his bungalow.