Case BriefsSupreme Court

“If the Courts are allowed to interfere with the arbitral process beyond the ambit of the enactment, then the efficiency of the process will be diminished.”

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Manmohan and Sanjeev Narula, JJ., upheld the validity of Sections 132 and 69 of the

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Orissa High Court: A Division Bench of S.K Mishra and Savitri Ratho JJ. dismissed the appeal and directed to adjudication application for

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Sindhu Sharma, J., while allowing the present petition, issued directions to the police authorities, to ensure that

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Patna High Court: The Division Bench of Shivaji Pandey and Partha Sarthy, JJ., addressed the demand of Bihar Public Service Commission to

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: Raj Beer Singh, J., observed that: “The object of the Section 125 CrPC being to afford a swift remedy,

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: Anil Kshetrapal, J., addressed the validity of the order granting extension in the service to respondent 6

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: The Division Bench of C.T. Ravikumar and K. Haripal, JJ., partially allowed the instant appeal challenging the correctness of

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Telangana High Court: P. Naveen Rao, J., discussed and reiterated the scope of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Hot Off The PressNews

Taking another step towards e-governance and encouraging participation of citizen as stakeholders in curbing tax evasion, the Central Board of Direct Taxes

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: Manoj K. Tiwari, J., disposed of a writ petition while issuing directions which was filed by the member of

Legislation UpdatesNotifications

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Central Government establishes a National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to be known as the National Commission. The

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Calcutta High Court: Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J., while allowing the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Op EdsOP. ED.

by Ishmeet Kaur*

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-Judge Bench of Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, JJ., observed that “Developer cannot compel the

Op EdsOP. ED.

by Rahul M. Shankhar*

Op EdsOP. ED.

by Alankrita Singh*

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: N. Nagaresh, J., while allowing the present revision petition, made additional compensation citing settled precedents.  Background Respondent 3 (insurer)

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Jayant Nath, J., reiterated the consistent position of law that right to access to clean drinking water is a