Liquidated Damages: In this article, the author clarifies misconceptions which have arisen about Section 74 of the Contract Act because of certain
The Court is not meant to act as a Court of first appeal and cannot supplant its view over that of the Arbitral Tribunal.
The principle governing the evidence in civil cases is that there should be a preponderance of the events which should be proved unlike in criminal matters, where the evidence have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, the burden of proof is on the party which will suffer if such evidence is not proved.
The agreement between the parties is not a contract between an employee-employer or a manager-sportsperson contract, rather they are commercial contracts entered into between parties with equal bargaining power and for mutual commercial benefit. Thus, the agreements between the parties are neither ‘excessively one sided’ nor they impose a ‘bondage’.
by Vasanth Rajasekaran*
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 67
NCLAT observed that in the instant matter “there was no title defect in the Corporate Debtor”.
by Balram Pandey∗
by Ketan D. Parikh†
by Swarnendu Chatterjee† Anwesha Pal†† and Yashwardhan Singh†††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 11
by Tarun Jain
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 1
by Rakshit Agarwal†
Supreme Court: In an appeal against the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘NCDRC’), wherein the commission having
by Tarun Jain †
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 74
Supreme Court: In an Insolvency and Bankruptcy case, the bench of Indira Banerjee* and JK Maheshwari, JJ has explained the difference between
by Tarun Jain†
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 68
National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad: The Bench of N. Venkata Ramakrishna Badarinath, Judicial Member, and Veera Brahma Rao Arekapud, Technical Member held
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of G.S.Patel and Madhav J Jamdar, JJ. dismissed an appeal ruling that lenders are entitled to
Supreme Court: The bench of MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna*, JJ has held that mere exercise of the right by the pawnee
Supreme Court: The 3-Judge Bench comprising of Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud*, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath, JJ., affirmed the impugned order of
“…the statutory regime requiring that a thing be done in a certain manner, also implies (even in the absence of any express terms), that the other forms of doing it are impermissible.”