Calcutta High Court emphasised the need for caution in granting relief at the interlocutory stage, particularly when it resembles final relief.
Supreme Court reiterated that a co-ordinate Bench cannot comment upon the judgment rendered by another co-ordinate Bench of equal strength and that subsequent decision or a judgment of a co-ordinate Bench or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.
High Courts are superior Courts of records, and the power to review orders is not restricted by the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is a clear and unequivocal embodiment of the Legislature‘s intent to balance the competing facets of arbitration, I.e., on one hand, while courts are enjoined to follow the minimalist intervention route, it would clearly be a travesty of justice if they were to fail to intervene where circumstances warrant, and demand corrective measures being adopted.
Gurgaon Court: In a complaint filed under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (‘CrPC’) to take cognizance of
The primary duty of the office of a Judge is to render justice to the litigants by deciding the cases that are assigned to him and a Judge appointed under Article 224 of the Constitution of India is as much under oath to perform this duty, as a Judge appointed under Article 217.
While exercising the power conferred by Section 11 of the Act, the Court ceases to be a Court of Record and the review or reopening of proceedings which is sought is not with respect to any power exercised by the Court under Section 11 on merits but on account of the evident factual mistake in that order.
Mere expression “place of arbitration” cannot be the basis to determine the intention of the parties that they have intended that place as the “Seat of Arbitration”
Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Ravi Malimath, CJ. and Vishal Mishra, J. dismissed a second review petition holding that
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Fateh Deep Singh, J., dismissed a review application on the ground that no mistake or error was
Supreme Court: In the case where the division bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed a review petition by merely stating that
Delhi High Court: Expressing that, Minor mistakes of inconsequential importance are insufficient to seek a review, Asha Menon, J., elaborated that, while
“The limited judicial review, which is available, can in no circumstance trespass upon a business decision arrived at by the majority of CoC.”
Special Court, CBI, Ghaziabad- The Court of Shivank Singh, Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI), allowed the application where permission to lead secondary evidence
Supreme Court of The United States: In a significant decision, the Court by a ratio of 6:3, declined to review petitions challenging
Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a case seeking review of an order of this particular Court by the petitioner, Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava,
Islamabad High Court: The Bench of Athar Minallah, C.J., Aamer Farooq and Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, JJ., while observing that the right to
Supreme Court: The bench of UU Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ has refused to review the 2017 order by the bench of
Supreme Court: A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra, JJ has reserved its order on the review petition filed by former Maharashtra