Stamping of Substantive Agreement: Better Late Than Never
by Hiroo Advani†, Tariq Khan†† and Mahi Mehta †††
Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 39
by Hiroo Advani†, Tariq Khan†† and Mahi Mehta †††
Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 39
by Divyanshu Srivastava*
by Abhinay Sharma† and Lakshmi Subramaniam Iyer††
by Hiroo Advani† and Chaiti Desai††
Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 45
“Detailed arguments on whether an agreement which contains an arbitration clause has or has not been novated cannot possibly be decided in exercise of a limited prima facie review as to whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties.”
by Pratyush Miglani*, Nikhil Varma** and Prakhar Srivastava***
“Government must have freedom of contract.”
by Baglekar Akash Kumar†
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of RF Nariman, BR Gavai and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ has held that given the object of speedy
Delhi High Court: In the notable ruling of Amazon v. Future Retail, J.R. Midha, J. of Delhi High Court considered three crucial
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of R.F. Nariman* and B.R. Gavai, JJ., addressed an important case regarding nature of arbitration under Arbitration
“The exercise of inherent power of the High Court is an extraordinary power which has to be exercised with great care and circumspection before embarking to scrutinise the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet in deciding whether the case is the rarest of rare case, to scuttle the prosecution at its inception.”
3 years is an unduly long period for filing an application under Section 11, since it would defeat the very object of the Act, which provides for expeditious resolution of commercial disputes within a time bound period.
Jharkhand High Court: The Division Bench comprising of Aparesh Kumar Singh and Anubha Rawat Choudhary, JJ., heard the instant Commercial Appeal challenging
Supreme Court: In the light of the “prima facie” test laid down last year in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation, (2021) 2
Supreme Court: The bench of Indu Malhotra* and Ajay Rastogi, JJ was posed with the question as to whether the period of
Delhi High Court: C. Hari Shankar, J., expressed while addressing a dispute that: “Where a valid arbitration agreement exists, the decision also
“Undoubtedly, a limited right of appeal is given under section 37 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. But it is not the province or duty of this Court to further limit such right by excluding appeals which are in fact provided for, given the language of the provision.”
by Shuchi Sejwar* and Arpit Lahoti**