Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Upholding the Karnataka High Court order, the Supreme Court held that the Karnataka High Court has not committed any error in permitting the respondents to file affidavits/additional evidence in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. However, permitted the appellant to cross-examine and/or produce contrary evidence.
Where there exists any iota of inconsistency between two provisions of a same instrument, the former clause shall prevail over the latter one
Delhi High Court: In a review petition filed under Section 114 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code on behalf
The Court has a duty to ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice and when an award has been passed without complying with the mandatory principles of natural justice, this Court being the custodian of rights and liberties of parties must take its guard to correct the infirmities which have already been carried out.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an application filed for “recall of earlier order” under Section 151 of CrPC and held that the settled things could not be permitted to be unsettled at the behest of a person who had not been careful enough with regard to his rights and claims.
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court setting aside the arbitral award observing that the application for the Principle of Separability requires a binding arbitration agreement.
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.
Any document in writing exchanged between the parties which provide a record of the agreement and in respect of which there is no denial by the other side, would squarely fall within the ambit of Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and would amount to an arbitration clause.
The parties may choose to enter two different contracts covering the same transaction at different points of time, however, the purchase orders do not in any manner supersede the contract between the parties.
The Court, while exercising powers under Section 11 of the Act, can refuse to refer the parties to arbitration only where “it is manifestly and ex facie certain that the arbitration agreement is nonexistent, invalid or the disputes are non-arbitrable, though the nature and facet of non-arbitrability would, to some extent, determine the level and nature of judicial scrutiny.”
With 1263 judgments delivered; three Chief Justices of India taking turns to lead the judiciary; a number of judges retiring and a
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.
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.
The International Arbitration & Mediation Centre, Hyderabad in association with Disputandum and Goel & Associates organized a conference on the topic “Changing
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”
About The SUN LAW JOURNAL It is the flagship journal of the School of Law, Sandip University, Nashik, Maharashtra. It
This roundup revisits the analyses of Supreme Court’s judgments/orders on constitutionality of EWS Quota and dissent; Juvenility of Kathua gangrape-murder accused; acquittal of all Chhawla gangrape-murder accused; why Rajiv Gandhi assassination convicts were set free, and more. It also covers reports on Justice Chandrachud’s appointment as the 50th CJI and his to-do-list; CJI UU Lalit’s retirement; explainers on important law points; some Never Reported Judgments; and career trajectory and important decision of Justice BR Gavai.
Supreme Court: In an appeal against the judgment passed by Telangana High Court, wherein the High Court dismissed the application
Supreme Court: On the issue of the scope of judicial review of action by the State in a matter arising from a
Gujarat High Court: While deciding the instant petition, Aravind Kumar, C.J., said that the prayer for appointment of an arbitrator