Confidentiality - The Legal Chamber

This Supreme Court judgment holds that a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement has no legal right to be present in the arbitral proceedings as the award would not bind them, violating the confidentiality mandate under Section 42A. Furthermore, a court becomes functus officio after appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and cannot entertain subsequent applications for intervention or issue ancillary directions. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an oral family settlement between Pawan Gupta (PG) and Kamal Gupta (KG), later recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding/Family Settlement Deed (MoU/FSD) dated 09.07.2019, which was not signed by KG’s son, Rahul Gupta (RG). PG initiated proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Arbitra...

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the 'In-House Procedure' for investigating allegations of judicial misconduct. It ruled that the mechanism, which can recommend a judge's removal, is a valid exercise of the CJI's authority under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, and does not violate the constitutional scheme for impeachment. Facts Of The Case: In March 2025, a fire broke out in the store-room of a Delhi High Court judge's official bungalow while he was away. During efforts to douse the flames, officials discovered burnt currency notes on the premises. This discovery raised serious suspicions of misconduct, potentially violating the values outlined in the Restatement of Judicial Life. Consequently, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court sought an explanation from the ...

Tag: Confidentiality

Supreme Court Reins In Judicial Intervention in Arbitration After Appointment

Beyond Impeachment: Supreme Court Validates Its Internal Mechanism for Judicial Misconduct