Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 34(3): Limitation period under S. 34(3) for filing petition challenging arbitral award is considered as three months and not 90 days, from date of receipt of award by the party concerned, but by excluding the said day vide application of S. 12(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963. Petition filed beyond three months [and thirty days extendable under S. 34(3) proviso], as in the present case on 31-10-2022, dismissed as no extension of time is permissible beyond three months and thirty days, S. 5 of the Limitation Act being inapplicable, [State of W.B. v. Rajpath Contractors & Engineers Ltd., (2024) 7 SCC 257]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 37 — Power of remand under: Power of remand under S. 37 A&C Act is available only in exceptional cases. Law clarified on limits of Appellate jurisdiction under S. 37, [Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corpn. (P) Ltd. v. Samir Narain Bhojwani, (2024) 7 SCC 218]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 48(2)(b) — Enforcement of foreign award: Permissibility and restraints on arbitral bias, as an objection against enforcement of foreign award, explained. “Public policy of India” as used in domestic sphere i.e. under S. 34(2)(b)(ii) of the 1996 Act is not applicable to objection raised against enforcement of the award under S. 48(2)(b), [Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd., (2024) 7 SCC 197]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 7(5), 8 and 11 — Incorporation of arbitration agreement — Requirements of: Mere reference to the contract/document containing arbitration clause i.e. without the intention to incorporate the arbitration clause is not sufficient to invoke arbitration, [NBCC (India) Ltd. v. Zillion Infraprojects (P) Ltd., (2024) 7 SCC 174]
Constitution of India — Arts. 131 and 293 — Injunction/Interim injunction — Grant of — Requisites for, particularly when mandatory injunction is sought: Triple-test of: (i) Prima facie case; (ii) Balance of convenience; and (iii) Irreparable injury, explained, [State of Kerala v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 183]
Constitution of India — Arts. 137 and 145 — Review — Grounds for review of order/judgment: Law clarified on applicability of bar against review if decision on question of law on which the judgment of court is based, is reversed/modified by subsequent decision, [State (NCT of Delhi) v. K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd., (2024) 7 SCC 315]
Constitution of India — Arts. 233 to 235 — Judiciary — Recruitment process — Interview/Viva voce: Significance/Relevance of interview/viva voce, reiterated, Prescription of minimum qualifying marks for viva voce for recruitment in District Judiciary in States of Bihar and Gujarat, upheld, [Abhimeet Sinha v. High Court of Patna, (2024) 7 SCC 262]
Family and Personal Laws — Muslim Law — Family Property, Succession and Inheritance — Ancestral/Family Property/Arrangement/Settlement/Partition — Agreement for settlement of family property with a distant heir — Enforcement of — Entitlement to: When the agreement is proved and established and it was not the case of defendant that Personal law prohibits sharing by the agreement with a distant heir, held, there is no legal impediment to giving effect to the agreement between parties, [Naseem Kahnam v. Zaheda Begum, (2024) 7 SCC 245]
Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Ss. 20 and 22 — Suit for specific performance — Refund of earnest money — Proof of payment of advance: In this case, plaintiff proved payment of certain amount initially paid. However, he could not prove payment made after agreement to sell was entered into. It was held, plaintiff entitled to refund of only that amount which had been proved, [R. Radhakrishna Prasad v. Swaminathan, (2024) 7 SCC 240]
