On 3-10-2023, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs notified that the provisions of Section 14 (1), relating to “Moratorium”, of the Insolvency and
The Court is not meant to act as a Court of first appeal and cannot supplant its view over that of the Arbitral Tribunal.
The MSMED Act, 2006 is a beneficial legislation for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises and ought to be construed in a manner that is beneficial to such enterprises.
Where parties decide to put an end to the original contract as if it never existed and substituted a new contract with it, then in such a situation the original contract is extinguished by the substituted one and the arbitration clause of the original one perishes with it.
Delhi High Court observed that an inadequately drafted agreement will be one that fails to include essential elements such as the name of all the relevant parties, the terms outlining the conditions of settlement, and the consequences in the event of non-compliance or breach.
The Delhi High Court opined that that technicalities and procedural defects, which do not go to the root of the matter, should not be permitted to defeat a just cause, more so in cases where suits are initiated or defended on behalf of public corporations.
The Delhi High Court upheld Single judge’s decision to set aside ICC Award of $562.5 million in favour of Devas Multimedia (P) Ltd. for a failed satellite agreement with Antrix Corporation Ltd., on the grounds of fraud and being in conflict with the public policy of India.
Grant of injunction in favour of the plaintiff company would cause irreparable injury to the Artist which cannot be compensated in monetary terms as he would be forced to continue with the contract of personal service even though mutual trust has been lost between parties.
The Delhi High Court ruled that the moratorium granted by the NCLAT, staying the institution of suits and proceedings against the Corporate Debtor, after the resolution process was initiated against it under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013, was akin to an order of moratorium passed under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
It is travesty of justice that an institution contributing for noble cause being that of running a charitable hospital on a public land and providing for sound research and treatment facilities has been made to suffer the rigors of cancellation of the Lease Deed and vacation of the property. Being a constitutional court and the conscience-keeper of the democracy, this Court cannot lend a blind eye when the ends of justice are being bulldozed in broad daylight.
A curious case presented itself before the Karnataka HC wherein they deliberated over an agreement for adoption entered between the biological parents and adoptive parents, when the child was still unborn.
Delhi High Court: In a case where application was filed by Nokia under Order 39 Rule 10 of CPC, the
The High Court of Justice (Technology and Construction Court): While deciding the instant matter revolving around the Dispute Resolution Procedure
Reported by Dikshi Arora
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of M.R. Shah* and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ., reversed concurrent findings of the Arbitral Tribunal and the Delhi
National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi: The Bench of Ashok Bhushan J., Chairperson, Rakesh Kumar Jain and Rakesh Kumar, JJ,
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi: While deciding the instant complaint filed under S. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, wherein the dispute revolved
Gauhati High Court: While addressing a matter with regard to maintenance of wife, Rumi Kumari Phukan, J., expressed that, the statutory right
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi: While addressing a case of alleged criminal conspiracy, Virender Bhat, ASJ-03, expressed that, “The circumstances in a case, when
Orissa High Court: S. Muralidhar, CJ. dismissed the petition, declined the appointment of arbitrator and left it open to the petitioners to