Where there exists any iota of inconsistency between two provisions of a same instrument, the former clause shall prevail over the latter one
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 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.
The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas in the Union Government had instituted proceedings under Sections 14(2) read with Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) for a declaration that the majority of the members of the Arbitral Tribunal were de jure/de facto unable to discharge their functions and consequently their mandate stands terminated in terms of Section 14 of the Act.
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Dr DY Chandrachud*, Surya Kant and Sanjiv Khanna*, JJ has held that arbitrators do not have
Calcutta High Court: While deciding a review petition, Debangsu Basak, J. held that the court while exercising powers under Section
Delhi High Court: While addressing the ineligibility of an arbitrator to be appointed, Vibhu Bhakru, J., elaborated on the expression ‘close family
Orissa High Court: S. Muralidhar, CJ. dismissed the petition, declined the appointment of arbitrator and left it open to the petitioners to
Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bakhru, J., held that whether claims are barred by limitation is a mixed question of fact and law
Delhi High Court: Mukta Gupta, J., decided that mere use of word ‘Arbitration’ in the heading of an Agreement would not mean
by Shivam Kumar*
by Shamik Sanjanwala*
Delhi High Court: Suresh Kumar Kait, J., addressed an appeal under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the
by Shalaka Patil† and Amoga Krishnan††
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 16
Bombay High Court: B.P. Colabawalla, J., addressed an arbitration application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Instant
Supreme Court: The 3-judge Bench comprising of N.V. Ramana, CJ., A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli*, JJ., held that Arbitral Tribunal is empowered
Supreme Court: Explaining the provision of remission under Section 34 (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the bench of R.
Allahabad High Court: Noting the significance of Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Jayant Banerji, J., expressed
Supreme Court: The bench of SA Nazeer* and Krishna Murari, JJ has held that if the contract contains a specific clause which
Delhi High Court: While observing that the role of ICADR Rules shall come into play with regard to the procedure to be