The Arbitration Workshop

The article examines the Supreme Court’s decision in Nagreeeka Indcon Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Cargocare Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2026), which held that a clause stating disputes “can be settled by arbitration” does not constitute a valid arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It argues that the judgment marks a shift from India’s p...

This blog post examines the ruling of the Supreme Court in Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd., in which the Court affirmed the Group of Companies Doctrine as a consent-based principle under Sections 2(1)(h) and 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and laid down a five-factor test for binding non-signatories to arbitration.

Public policy cannot be used to reopen issues already settled at the seat of arbitration. This article argues that Nagaraj v. Mylandla reshapes Section 48 by disciplining public‑policy review through transnational issue estoppel, preventing enforcement from becoming a disguised appeal. Examining Indian and comparative cases, it shows how the ruling strengthens finality while exp...