Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Delhi High Court said that the petitioner had no prima facie right, title, and interest in the allotted units, and a case was not made out to restrain the respondents from creating any third-party interest.
The public interest asserted cannot be entertained since dealers registered under earlier VAT regime, now shifted to GST regime, by virtue of Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016 cannot be said to be a marginalized section, who are incapable of agitating their rights before the courts of law.
The allegations which assassinate the character of the spouse amounts to the highest level of cruelty, which no doubt shall shake the foundation of their marriage.
“The Engineer, in terms of the Agreement, does not have the power to review the decision of 08-05-2015 made by the earlier Engineer who has adjudicated upon the issue regarding change in the liability of petitioner on account of reduced BCD.”
“District Court, Karnal where the first petition was filed pertaining to the Agreement in question alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of the Licence Agreement. No other Court can entertain any subsequent application.
The Court also upheld the validity of the termination notice issued by the NHIDCL and refused to interfere with its actions against the construction company.
Sections 20-A and 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 expresses the legislative intent to not grant injunctions relating to infrastructure projects where delay may be caused by such an injunction. Thus, the role of Courts in this exercise is to interfere to the minimum extent so that public work projects are not impeded or stalled.
The ground of Patent illegality gives way to setting aside an Arbitral Award with a very minimal scope of intervention. A party cannot simply raise an objection on the ground of patent illegality if the Award is simply against them. Patent illegality requires a distinct transgression of law, the clear lack of which thereof makes the petition simply a pointless effort of objection towards an Award made by a competent Arbitral Tribunal.
The Delhi High Court denied permanent injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) and held that Section 9 did not permit passing of an order in the nature of a permanent measure.
by Shalaka Patil† and Rahul Mantri††
Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 65