Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Deletion of party is an issue to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal, it cannot be looked into by the Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act”
The Court said that the disposal letter by the Railways neither suggested that any effort was made nor provided any measure to help evade such fatal situations in the future.
Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR registered under Sections 376 (rape), 363 (kidnapping), and 6 of the POCSO Act (aggravated penetrative assault). The decision was based on an amicable settlement between the parties, with no costs imposed on either side. This case underscores the court’s recognition of mutually agreed resolutions in certain criminal proceedings.
by Abhisaar Bairagi*, Milind Sharma** and Ausaf Ayyub***
“Perusal of the affidavit filed by the director of the Indian company of the defendant, categorically shows that it has been stated in categorical terms that the company has been inoperative since its incorporation rendering the same as being ‘Defunct’.
GCMMF has been given liberty by the Court to intimate all three platforms of any other URL containing the impugned post/video apart from the ones enlisted in the plaint, which would have to be deleted by them within 36 hours.
The Court opined that the proper venue for addressing a breach, such as the one in the present matter, would be the civil courts where contractual disputes are adjudicated.
The Court emphasized the necessity of adhering to the specific terms and limitations outlined in contractual clauses. This decision underscores the importance of clear contractual provisions and their binding nature on arbitral tribunals, reaffirming that such limitations must be respected and enforced in arbitral awards.
Have a quick look at what the High Courts across the country adjudicated on through this week.
The SIM card purchased by the co-accused after the alleged murder was used to misguide the investigation of the case and the family members of the deceased girl.
The applicant must have spent considerable resources fighting the suit for the last 20 years and therefore, it would not be appropriate to deprive him of the opportunity to execute the decree obtained in his favour.
Supreme Court requested the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court to assign the hearing of the petition under Section 34 to a Judge other than the Judge who heard and passed the impugned order.
Decisions along with the speaking orders passed by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office to reject the OCI applications of the Russian nationals were quashed.
Read July’s share of criminal law discussions at the Supreme Court and various High Courts
The Delhi Police was directed to file an updated status report of the missing woman based on updated Aadhar card information.
“The Court said the Family Court judge was correct in holding that divorce petition could not be rejected merely because a part of the cause of action was not viable in law if the Court otherwise had jurisdiction to entertain the action, and therefore, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 was not sustainable.”
The right to freedom of expression of the press in the present case must give way to the right to privacy of the plaintiff, especially when he has been exonerated of all the allegations leading to his honourable acquittal.
“Section 34, quite apart from its classically limited scope, is certainly not intended to be used as a tool for a litigant to desist from participating in the arbitral proceedings, despite being fully aware thereof, and, thereafter, seek a second bite at the arbitral cherry.”
Supreme Court has referred the case to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre to explore the possibility of any out-of-court settlement.
The very branding and labelling of the said Tablet as Coronil appear to suggest that the drug nullifies the coronavirus, it cures the disease, which may even amount to mis-labelling and/or mis-branding of the drug, which is impermissible under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.