Lawyers at the Police Station: Protection of the Accused or Interference in the Investigation Process?
by Gautam Khazanchi* and Vinayak Chawla**
interference
Can allegations of coercion be looked into u/s 11 of the Arbitration Act by the referral Court? Delhi HC explains
“Consequent on introduction of sub-Section 6(A) in Section 11, the Supreme Court has in several decisions held that the jurisdiction of the referral Court is now circumscribed.”
‘Scope of interference in arbitration award passed u/s 34, 37 of A&C Act is limited unless error appears on face of record’; Telangana HC dismisses appeal
“The expression ‘public policy’ is of wider amplitude and hence, where award passed by arbitral tribunal is against the terms of contract or against law of land for time being in force, such an award is against public policy of India and is liable to be set aside under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.”
Court’s interference in regard to arbitral awards: Limited or Not? Del HC explains with the view taken by SC decision
Delhi High Court: On finding no ground for interference in the arbitral award, Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J., upheld the decision of Single
Judicial review or judicial restraint? Supreme Court explains where the virtue itself turns into vice
Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising of Rohinton Fali Nariman* and B.R. Gavai, JJ., addressed the issue of overstepping of review jurisdiction
Do consent decrees put an end to further litigation between parties in all cases? Not a blanket rule, holds Supreme Court
Supreme Court: The bench of MM Shantanagoudar* and Vineet Saran, JJ has lucidly explained the law governing consent decree and has held
Issues pertaining to UT of J&K, solely internal matter of India, China’s interference firmly rejected: MEA
Ministry of External Affairs issues statement with regard to China’s discussion in UNSC on Jammu and Kashmir: “We have noted that China
MP HC | No interference of Court required in auction process if account has been rightly declared NPA
Madhya Pradesh High Court: This petition was filed before a 2-Judge Bench comprising of S.C. Sharma and Virender Singh, JJ., against a
State Government has power under Section 91 of the Panchayat Raj and Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 to interfere with an order passed by an authority under the Adhiniyam
Madhya Pradesh High Court: A review petition was filed before a Single Judge Bench of Sujoy Paul, J., to review an order
Police cannot interfere in a civil case unless directed by a competent Court: Hyderabad HC
Hyderabad High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Gudiseva Shyam Prasad, J. dismissed a writ petition at the admission stage on
Adverse affect on family life no ground for interference in order of transfer: Madhya Pradesh HC
Madhya Pradesh High Court: This appeal was filed under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam,
Peaceful living is a right of adult married couple, no interference allowed
Allahabad High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J., partly allowed the writ petition where petitioner prayed for
Show cause notice cannot be challenged in writ proceedings unless issued without jurisdiction
Uttaranchal High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Manoj K. Tiwari, J., dismissed a writ petition as premature holding that there
No interference is warranted in an intra-court mandamus appeal unless there is palpable infirmity in the impugned judgment
Calcutta High Court: Biswanath Somadder, J. speaking for the Court comprising of himself and Arindam Mukherjee, J. dismissed an appeal challenging the
No interference with arbitral award under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act till manifest fraud, bias, or injustice perceived
Gauhati High Court: The appellant company invited tenders for transportation of gas cylinders to which the respondent company replied and was accepted
State Women Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere in service matters which are governed by statutory rules
Allahabad High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Amit Sthalekar, J. ordered the petitioner (wife of a retired government servant) to
An order of acquittal does not entail interference unless gross perversity is shown
Karnataka High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Ravi Malimath, J., decided a criminal appeal filed by the State under Section
Courts must be slow in interfering with the interpretation given to the tender document by the owner/employer of the project
Supreme Court: In the controversy relating to bids invited by the Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited for the design and construction of