Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“We find the conduct of HMDA not only to be in blatant disregard of the law but also evincing desperation to avoid the processes of law by pushing back their obligation to make payment to CEL by filing one vexatious proceeding after another.”
The doors of justice cannot selectively be shut to a few and not to others, particularly where the life and liberty of the accused is at stake.
Calcutta High Court directed the Joint Special Officers to conduct a fresh auction for the vessel in conformity with the order of sale and appoint a fresh valuer who will reflect a more realistic value of the vessel.
Calcutta High Court opined that the “allegations of encroachment are essentially a title dispute which is beyond the jurisdiction of a Writ Court.”
Calcutta High Court refused to cancel the impugned Notification as the vacancy in question could not be filled up for more than 20 years due to one litigation after another.
The Calcutta High Court emphasised the need for a clear and unequivocal expression of intent to arbitrate.
Calcutta High Court emphasised that the purpose of the preliminary inquiry is not to determine guilt or innocence but to decide whether an inquiry is expedient in the interest of justice.
Calcutta High Court noted that discrepancies in service date and providing inadequate time for response to show-cause notice, indicates a breach of natural justice.
The Calcutta High Court opined that the onus is on the award-holder to provide irrefutable evidence of delivery, and any doubt in this regard favors the award-debtor.
“The limitation for filing an application will start to run from the day when the cause of action accrues regardless of the existence of an arbitration clause.”
Calcutta High Court emphasized the distinction between vigilant litigants and those contributing to unnecessary delays in the arbitration process, ultimately ruling in favor of the petitioner.
Calcutta High Court held Arbitrator’s refusal to decide question of interest under the MSMED Act constitutes a “decision” and therefore, can be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
While cautioning the parties to the Arbitration proceedings, Calcutta High Court stated that parties should be vigilant in applying for extensions within the prescribed periods and dismissed the petitions seeking an extension of the arbitrator’s mandate.
High Courts are superior Courts of records, and the power to review orders is not restricted by the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
In the instant matter, the primary issue was the incorporation of arbitration clauses from the Master Facility Agreement and Settlement Agreement and the maintainability of a composite reference.
The Calcutta High Court held that failure to comply with procedural requirements under Section 19 of the MSMED Act renders application for stay of Arbitral Award as not maintainable.
“Award-holder must be given the fruits of the victory unless the Court finds that the enjoyment may be deferred subject to the award-debtor securing the award pending a shot at having the award set aside.”
“The irrationality of the quantum of the costs imposed will be considered at the time of determining whether the Award should be set aside under Section 34 of the 1996 Act.”
LOCs not only cause immediate and irrevocable violation of a person’s fundamental right of movement but also have an inexplicably long shelf-life.
“The MSMED Act of 2006 is a special statute as it was specifically enacted for facilitating the promotion and development of micro, small and medium Enterprises and enhancing their competitiveness.”