allahabad high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The parties to an arbitration have an autonomy to decide not only on the procedural law to be followed, but also on the substantive law”

Permissibility of Arbitration Proceedings
Op EdsOP. ED.

by Hiresh Choudhary* and Surbhi Sharma**

allahabad high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court noted that the issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Executing Court was neither doubted nor was referred.

bombay high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court held the instant applications under Section 11 of Arbitration Act as non-maintainable and dismissed the said applications.

calcutta high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

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.

jharkhand high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The MSMED Act, 2006 is a beneficial legislation with an object to promote and develop micro, small and/or medium enterprises, and the interpretation regarding a reference for the interest component alone would be in consonance with the object of the Act”

calcutta high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

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.

allahabad high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court said that the MSMED Act, 2006 is a special law and in view of Section 24 the discretion given to Council for selecting the forum of arbitration between the parties has an overriding effect and therefore, at the stage of selection of forum for arbitration by the Council the prohibition contained in Section 80 of the A&C Act will not be applicable.

calcutta high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“…being a special statute the MSMED Act will have an overriding effect vis-à-vis the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.”

Case BriefsSupreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the provisions of Section 15 to 23 read with Section 24 of the MSMED Act and the provisions of SARFAESI Act and stated that there is no repugnancy between the two enactments and no conflict between the specific subject of ‘priority' . It, hence, upheld the subsequent enactment of law with non-obstante clause in SARFAESI Act over MSMED Act.

MSMED Act
Op EdsOP. ED.

by Hiresh Choudhary† and Surbhi Sharma††

Case BriefsSupreme Court

    Supreme Court: The division bench of Uday Umesh Lalit, C.J. and Bela M. Trivedi*, J. has held that the provisions

SCC Part
Cases ReportedSCC Weekly

    Advocates Act, 1961 — S. 16 — Procedure for designation of Senior Advocates: Clarification of Guidelines prescribed for Supreme Court