The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the word “may” in an arbitration clause does not make arbitration optional. Justice Deepak Khot ruled that parties’ intention must be examined from the agreement as a whole, allowing appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6).
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant highlighted the rising significance of mediation in commercial dispute resolution, noting that international arbitration increasingly faces delays and procedural complexities. He stressed that mediation should be regarded not merely as an alternative mechanism but as an essential pillar of modern justice systems.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observed that international arbitration is increasingly mirroring the delays, costs, and procedural complexities of traditional litigation. Speaking in London, he cautioned that arbitration faces growing challenges relating to efficiency, accessibility, affordability, and effective dispute resolution.
The Allahabad High Court held that Lok Adalats and District Legal Services Authorities cannot grant divorce decrees, ruling that only family courts possess jurisdiction to dissolve marriages, while Lok Adalats are limited to facilitating settlements and lack authority to exercise judicial powers in matrimonial disputes.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant urged creation of a national framework to utilise retired judges in ADR and legal awareness, stressing their engagement must be institutional, while noting, “The robe may be retired, the judge never is.”
The Election Commission of India told the Supreme Court that US court judgments cannot be blindly relied upon, questioning due process in recent American actions cited by petitioners. Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi argued that India’s constitutional framework on electoral roll revision cannot be compared with US practices while defending the SIR exercise.
India’s ADR system is emerging as a global model for efficient, fair, and investor-friendly dispute resolution. Arjun Ram Meghwal highlights its role in strengthening cross-border commerce and supporting modernity as an essential forward-looking instrument of justice.
ECI told the Supreme Court it is not legally required to publish a separate list of excluded voters or reasons for their exclusion in Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision. The poll body called the petitioner’s claims “patently false and erroneous.”
Today, On 6th August, Supreme Court tells ECI to submit a detailed reply by August 10 on deletion of 65 lakh names from Bihar draft voter list, saying, “We will ensure every affected voter is heard and considered.”
Today, On 29th July, The Supreme Court has scheduled a detailed hearing on August 12 in the Bihar voter list revision case. It warned, “If there is any mass exclusion, then the Court will step in,” amid concerns over the SIR process.
