Articles and Updates

• Gautam Bhatikar and Madhavi Doshi - 11-05-2021

Subhash Khandelwal v. Max Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited In a petition filed against Max Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited ("Max Bupa"), the Bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh of the Delhi High Court1 ("Court") held that there can be no discrimination between insurance provided for mental illness and physical illness. The Petitioner had an insurance policy from Max Bupa for the sum assured of INR 35 lakhs and paid premium regularly. The Petitioner contended that when he raised his claim in respect of mental illness, he was informed of a clause in the policy, restricting the sum assured to INR 50 lakhs with certain additional conditions. The Petitioner argued that most prevalent mental conditions were restricted under the policy to an assured sum of INR 50 lakhs; which was contradictory to Section 21 (4) of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 ("Act").

• Gautam Bhatikar and Biswadeep Chakravarty - 10-05-2021

In yet another landmark decision1, the Supreme Court of India ("Supreme Court") reinforced party autonomy under arbitration law and allowed two (or more) Indian parties to have their disputes arbitrated outside India and clarified the meaning and import of foreign awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act").

• Vasanth Rajasekaran and Saurabh Babulkar - 04-05-2021

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment in Gujrat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Amit Gupta and Ors.1held that the National Company Law Tribunal would have jurisdiction to adjudicate all matters relating to the insolvency resolution and the liquidation of the corporate debtor. However, for adjudication of disputes that do not have any connection with the insolvency of the corporate debtor, the relevant authority must be approached. The instant decision was rendered while the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided whether a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) could be terminated during the subsistence of a moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The present article briefly examines how the Hon'ble Supreme Court construed the key provisions of law to arrive at its judgment.

• Vasanth Rajasekaran and Saurabh Babulkar - 04-05-2021

In the recent decision of PASL Wind Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. GE Power Conversion India Pvt. Ltd.,1 a three-judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was faced with the issue of whether two Indian parties could elect a foreign seat in an arbitration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, answering in the affirmative, held that nothing stood in the way of party autonomy in designating a seat of arbitration outside India, even when both parties happened to be Indian nationals. The present article briefly examines the findings rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned matter.

• Vasanth Rajasekaran and Saurabh Babulkar - 04-05-2021

In a recent case titled M/s Inox Renewables Ltd. v. Jayesh Electricals Ltd.1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that where the parties to a dispute change the venue of the arbitration by mutual agreement, such venue will become the seat of the arbitration. This article briefly examines the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the matter mentioned above.