{"id":185284,"date":"2018-02-01T15:30:50","date_gmt":"2018-02-01T10:00:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=185284"},"modified":"2018-02-01T15:30:50","modified_gmt":"2018-02-01T10:00:50","slug":"2018-scc-vol-1-january-28-2018-part-4","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/01\/2018-scc-vol-1-january-28-2018-part-4\/","title":{"rendered":"2018 SCC Vol. 1 January 28, 2018 Part 4"},"content":{"rendered":"

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 S. 34 \u2014 Award \u2014 Setting aside of, when the same is allegedly contrary to public policy of India, being violative of Indian statute (FEMA) and effected and induced by fraud:<\/strong> Arbitration dispute between Satyam Computer Services Ltd. and Venture Global Engineering LLC, referred to a larger bench in view of divergent opinions. [Venture Global Engg. LLC v. Tech Mahindra Ltd.,\u00a0(2018) 1 SCC 656<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Armed Forces \u2014 Promotion \u2014 Criteria\/Eligibility \u2014 Zone of consideration:<\/strong> In terms of Promotion Policy, Board Members were empowered to award marks not exceeding two (2) out of total marks of 95 on overall profile of officer while 93 marks were to be objectively quantified on basis of ACR, academic qualifications as well as military awards and decorations. In original SPB meeting dt. 20-1-2016, one S awarded 1.70 out of 2 marks by Board Members while respondent was awarded 1.50 marks since marks allotted to him out of 93 were less than S i.e. marks commensurate with quantified marks awarded instead of overall profile of candidates. Subsequently, in terms of redressal granted to respondent vide letter dt. 30-1-2017, quantified marks of respondent became higher than S necessitating Review SPB. However, in Review SPB, Board Members granted him same marks as in original SPB. The Supreme Court held that Review SPB should be on same standards as original SPB since it is only extrusion of original SPB, which would be in conformity with Art. 14 of the Constitution. After redressal, since respondent\u2019s quantified marks had become higher than S, he was entitled to commensurate marks by Board Members. No interference with impugned judgment was called for. It was also clarified that in future selections, Board Members would be at liberty to award 2 marks on basis of overall profile of candidate in terms of Promotion Policy dt. 14-1-2004 as amended vide letter dt. 17-5-2006. [Union of India v. Manomoy Ganguly, (2018) 1 SCC 552<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Citizenship Act, 1955 \u2014 S. 6-A \u2014 Special provision as to citizenship for persons covered under Assam Accord \u2014 Verification of claims by Tribunal under S. 6-A for inclusion in National Register of Citizenship (NRC) \u2014 Illustrative list of documents admissible:<\/strong> Document No. xiii, that is, married woman\u2019s migration certificate issued by Secretary of the Village Panchayat and countersigned by local revenue official in respect of females who have migrated to other villages after marriage or such certificates issued by jurisdictional circle officers in respect of urban areas is only a supportive document which enables holder to establish a link with her legacy prior to marriage. Though said document is no proof of citizenship, there is no reason why it cannot be used along with other evidence for establishing claim of citizenship under S. 6-A, if it can be properly verified. [Rupajan Begum v. Union of India, (2018) 1 SCC 579<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 \u2014 S. 96 and Or. 41 R. 31 \u2014 First appeal \u2014 Proper mode of disposal of \u2014 Principles reiterated:<\/strong> As first appellate court dismissed appeals very cursorily and without undertaking any appreciation of evidence, dealing with various issues arising in case and discussing arguments raised by parties in support of their case, disposal of two first appeals could not be said to be in conformity with requirements of S. 96 r\/w Or. 41 R. 31 CPC. Hence, matter remanded for disposal afresh. [C. Venkata Swamy v. H.N. Shivanna, (2018) 1 SCC 604<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Constitution of India \u2014 Art. 136 \u2014 Ram Janmabhoomi\/Babri Masjid suit \u2014 Dispute ownership of land on which stood as to place of worship:<\/strong> Documents and oral evidence in regional languages directed to be translated to English within time specified. Prayer for substitution and deletion of parties, also permitted. [M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, (2018) 1 SCC 649<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Constitution of India \u2014 Art. 32 \u2014 Successive writ petition intending to scandalise highest judicial functionaries with frivolous allegations:<\/strong> As the prayer for constitution of Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by retired Chief Justice with regard to same FIR has already been dismissed by earlier writ petition, present petition, held to be wholly frivolous, contemptuous, unwarranted and without any accountability by petitioner who professes to espouse cause of accountability. Hence, writ petition dismissed with costs of Rs 25 lakhs and warning that such petitions\/contemptuous conduct can result in debarring petitioner from filing PILs in future. [Campaign for Judicial Accountability & Reforms v. Union of India, (2018) 1 SCC 589<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 \u2014 Ss. 138, 142 to 147 [as amended by Negotiable Instruments (Amendment & Misc. Provisions) Act, 2002] \u2014 Trial proceedings:<\/strong> Offence under S. 138 primarily in nature of civil wrong and proceedings primarily compensatory in nature. Summary procedure should normally be followed except where exercise of power under second proviso to S. 143 considered necessary. Court has jurisdiction under S. 357(3) CrPC to award suitable compensation with default sentence under S. 64 IPC with further powers of recovery under S. 431 CrPC. Court may close proceedings if accused deposits amount as assessed by it having regard to cheque amount, interest\/costs, etc. within stipulated period. Compounding at initial stage and even at later stage is acceptable. Certain proceedings can be conducted online. [Meters And Instruments (P) Ltd. v. Kanchan Mehta, (2018) 1 SCC 560<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 \u2014 Ss. 139, 118, 119 and 138 \u2014 Presumptions in favour of holder of cheque \u2014 When do not arise \u2014 Advocate-client relationship \u2014 Burden to prove contract\/fee \u2014 On whom lies:<\/strong> Advocate claiming fees on contingent fee basis i.e. claim based on percentage of subject-matter\/expected decretal amount in litigation, not proper. It was held, firstly, mere issuance of cheque by client may not debar client from contesting liability to pay fees claimed by advocate. If liability is disputed, advocate has to independently prove contract. Secondly, a contingent fee claim cannot be the basis for a complaint by an advocate under S. 138, NI Act. Thirdly, in any case contingent fee claim is a professional misconduct and against public policy. [B. Sunitha v. State of Telangana, (2018) 1 SCC 638<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Penal Code, 1860 \u2014 Ss. 499, 500, 501 and 502 \u2014 Offence of defamation:<\/strong> To constitute an offence of defamation requires a person to make some imputation concerning any other person; (i) Such imputation must be made either (a) With intention, or (b) Knowledge, or (c) Having a reason to believe that such an imputation will harm the reputation of the person against whom the imputation is made. (ii) Imputation could be, by (a) Words, either spoken or written, or (b) By making signs, or (c) Visible representations (iii) Imputation could be either made or published. [Mohd. Abdulla Khan v. Prakash K.,\u00a0(2018) 1 SCC 615<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Property Law \u2014 Adverse Possession:<\/strong> Claim of adverse possession by member of one family against other members in respect of family property, not tenable. There cannot be adverse possession amongst members of one family for want of animus among them over land belonging to their family. [Nanjegowda v. Ramegowda, (2018) 1 SCC 574<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Schedule (Special Provisions as to Manner of Preparation of National Register of Indian Citizen in State of Assam) to the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003 \u2014 Paras 2 and 3 \u2014 National Register of Citizens (NRC) for State of Assam \u2014 Procedure of identification of citizens:<\/strong> Relaxed standards for original inhabitants, that is, on basis of proof of citizenship alone and nothing else. Apprehension that said procedure would make original inhabitants of Assam superior citizens, conferring on them special status, held to be baseless. All citizens whether original inhabitants of Assam or not are equally entitled to be registered as citizens of India. Clarification of expression \u201coriginally inhabitants of the State of Assam\u201d in Para 3(3), not necessary and prayer in this regard, rejected. [Kamalakhya Dey Purkayastha v. Union of India, (2018) 1 SCC 594<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 \u2014 Ss. 13(4), 17(1) & (2) and R. 9(5) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002:<\/strong> Proper forum before which challenge can be made to forfeiture of deposit money of auction-purchaser by secured creditor is DRT. In view of S. 17(2) and R. 9(5), an action of secured creditor in forfeiting the deposit made by the auction-purchaser is a part of the measures taken by the secured creditor under S. 13(4). Further, the expression \u201cany of the measures referred to in S. 13(4) taken by secured creditor or his authorized officer\u201d in S. 17(1) would include all actions taken by the secured creditor under the rules which relate to the measures specified in S. 13(4). Further, the auction-purchaser fell within the expression \u201cany person\u201d as specified under S. 17(1). Therefore, auction-purchaser is entitled to challenge the action of the secured creditor before the DRT by filing an application under S. 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act. [Agarwal Tracom (P) Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank,\u00a0(2018) 1 SCC 626<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Service Law \u2014 Appointment \u2014 Nature of \u2014 Ad hoc appointment, or, part-time appointment for fixed period and fixed salary:<\/strong> Respondents, have not applied pursuant to advertisement dt. 12-1-1988 inviting applications for post of ad hoc Lecturers but submitted independent applications thereafter seeking appointment against post of part-time Lecturer, in furtherance of which they were\u00a0appointed as such for a fixed period of three months on fixed salary till end of April 1990. Hence it was held that there was absolutely no question of respondents having been appointed on ad hoc basis or pursuant to advertisement dt. 12-1-1988 or any basis other than part-time. High Court by impugned judgment erred in remanding matter to Director of Education for regularisation of respondents after considering provision of S. 31-C of 1980 Act. Besides, since respondents were not appointed on ad hoc basis they had no right to be regularised even if they fulfilled S. 31-C. Moreover, neither did statue provide for regularisation of part-time Lecturers nor any evidence was produced to prove that they had worked beyond April 1990 and thus, no question of regularisation arose. [LLN Degree College v. Director, Higher Education,\u00a0(2018) 1 SCC 597<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 \u2014 S. 53-A \u2014 Prospective buyer in possession pursuant to part-performance of agreement for sale \u2014 Suit for specific performance filed by such prospective buyer dismissed \u2014 Effect thereof:<\/strong> Once suit for specific performance filed by such prospective buyer is dismissed, his possession becomes unauthorized and illegal. Protection under S. 53-A is thereafter no longer available. Seller entitled to claim back possession from prospective buyer on ground of ownership. [Revanasiddayya v. Gangamma,\u00a0(2018) 1 SCC 610<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 \u2014 S. 54 \u2014 Execution of sale deed:<\/strong> For proof of execution of sale deed absence of attesting witness, is irrelevant. [Bayanabai Kaware v. Rajendra,\u00a0(2018) 1 SCC 585<\/a>]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 S. 34 \u2014 Award \u2014 Setting aside of, when the same is allegedly contrary to public <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":91,"featured_media":182154,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,16],"tags":[27734],"class_list":["post-185284","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casesreported","category-supremecourtcases","tag-cases-reported-in-supreme-court-cases"],"yoast_head":"\n2018 SCC Vol. 1 January 28, 2018 Part 4 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/01\/2018-scc-vol-1-january-28-2018-part-4\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"2018 SCC Vol. 1 January 28, 2018 Part 4\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 S. 34 \u2014 Award \u2014 Setting aside of, when the same is allegedly contrary to public\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/01\/2018-scc-vol-1-january-28-2018-part-4\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-02-01T10:00:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Saba\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Saba\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/01\/2018-scc-vol-1-january-28-2018-part-4\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/01\/2018-scc-vol-1-january-28-2018-part-4\/\",\"name\":\"2018 SCC Vol. 1 January 28, 2018 Part 4 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/01\/2018-scc-vol-1-january-28-2018-part-4\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/01\/2018-scc-vol-1-january-28-2018-part-4\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-02-01T10:00:50+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/01\/2018-scc-vol-1-january-28-2018-part-4\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/01\/2018-scc-vol-1-january-28-2018-part-4\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/01\/2018-scc-vol-1-january-28-2018-part-4\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/01\/2018-scc-vol-1-january-28-2018-part-4\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"2018 SCC Vol. 1 January 28, 2018 Part 4\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\",\"name\":\"Saba\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Saba\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_2\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"2018 SCC Vol. 1 January 28, 2018 Part 4 | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/01\/2018-scc-vol-1-january-28-2018-part-4\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"2018 SCC Vol. 1 January 28, 2018 Part 4","og_description":"Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 S. 34 \u2014 Award \u2014 Setting aside of, when the same is allegedly contrary to public","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/01\/2018-scc-vol-1-january-28-2018-part-4\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2018-02-01T10:00:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Saba","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Saba","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/01\/2018-scc-vol-1-january-28-2018-part-4\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/01\/2018-scc-vol-1-january-28-2018-part-4\/","name":"2018 SCC Vol. 1 January 28, 2018 Part 4 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/01\/2018-scc-vol-1-january-28-2018-part-4\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/01\/2018-scc-vol-1-january-28-2018-part-4\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg","datePublished":"2018-02-01T10:00:50+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/01\/2018-scc-vol-1-january-28-2018-part-4\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/01\/2018-scc-vol-1-january-28-2018-part-4\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/01\/2018-scc-vol-1-january-28-2018-part-4\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/01\/2018-scc-vol-1-january-28-2018-part-4\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"2018 SCC Vol. 1 January 28, 2018 Part 4"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785","name":"Saba","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Saba"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_2\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":185354,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/01\/impact-fraud-arbitral-award-indian-supreme-court-divergence\/","url_meta":{"origin":185284,"position":0},"title":"Impact of fraud on arbitral award: Indian Supreme Court at divergence","author":"Saba","date":"February 1, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"by Anchit Oswal*","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/appoointment.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/appoointment.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/appoointment.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/appoointment.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/appoointment.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":273538,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/12\/trajectory-of-international-commercial-arbitration-in-india-and-the-role-of-judiciary\/","url_meta":{"origin":185284,"position":1},"title":"Trajectory of International Commercial Arbitration in India and the Role of Judiciary","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 12, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"by Shivaprakash M. Nagarale\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-69-1-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-69-1-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-69-1-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-69-1-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-69-1-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":329285,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/24\/2024-scc-vol-7-part-2\/","url_meta":{"origin":185284,"position":2},"title":"2024 SCC Vol. 7 Part 2","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 24, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 S. 34(3): Limitation period under S. 34(3) for filing petition challenging arbitral award is considered","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"2024 SCC Vol. 7 Part 2","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/2024-SCC-Vol.-7-Part-2.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/2024-SCC-Vol.-7-Part-2.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/2024-SCC-Vol.-7-Part-2.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/2024-SCC-Vol.-7-Part-2.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":299153,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/14\/2023-scc-vol-7-part-1\/","url_meta":{"origin":185284,"position":3},"title":"2023 SCC Vol. 7 Part 1","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 14, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 Ss. 8, 11 and 7: Non-payment or deficient payment of stamp duty on substantive contract comprising\/containing arbitration clause, or on standalone arbitration agreement, in cases where payment of stamp duty is mandatory, renders such arbitration agreement as non-existent pending payment of (the balance) stamp\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"2023 scc vol. 7 part 1","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/2023-scc-vol.-7-part-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/2023-scc-vol.-7-part-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/2023-scc-vol.-7-part-1.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/2023-scc-vol.-7-part-1.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":379030,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/22\/2026-scc-vol-2-part-4-latest-supreme-court-cases\/","url_meta":{"origin":185284,"position":4},"title":"2026 SCC Vol. 2 Part 4: Key Supreme Court Cases on Arbitration and Criminal Law","author":"Sonali Ahuja","date":"March 22, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Explore the latest Supreme Court Cases in 2026 SCC Vol. 2 Part 2 on international commercial arbitration, limited scope of interference under Section 37, and registration of FIR.","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"2026 SCC Vol. 2 Part 4","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/2026-SCC-Vol.-2-Part-4.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/2026-SCC-Vol.-2-Part-4.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/2026-SCC-Vol.-2-Part-4.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/2026-SCC-Vol.-2-Part-4.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":205614,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/22\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-21-2018-part-5\/","url_meta":{"origin":185284,"position":5},"title":"2018 SCC Vol. 9 November 21, 2018 Part 5","author":"Saba","date":"November 22, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 Ss. 7 and 11(5) \u2014 Arbitration agreement\/clause \u2014 Existence of: Agreement between the parties giving an option to the parties to choose dispute resolution by \u201carbitration\u201d or \u201ccourt\u201d, can be considered as a valid arbitration agreement. [Zhejiang Bonly Elevator Guide Rail Manufacture Co. Ltd.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185284","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/91"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=185284"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185284\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/182154"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=185284"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=185284"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=185284"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}