{"id":199376,"date":"2018-07-23T10:24:29","date_gmt":"2018-07-23T04:54:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=199376"},"modified":"2018-08-02T10:26:50","modified_gmt":"2018-08-02T04:56:50","slug":"2018-scc-vol-6-july-21-2018-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/23\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-21-2018-part-2\/","title":{"rendered":"2018 SCC Vol. 6 July 21, 2018 Part 2"},"content":{"rendered":"

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 Ss. 36 and 34 (before and after amendment of S. 36 in 2015):<\/strong> S. 36 as amended in 2015, applies to pending S. 34 applications even in arbitrations commenced prior to 23-10-2015 i.e. date of coming into force of Amendment Act, 2015, as S. 36 is a procedural provision. Rule of automatic stay of operation of award on filing of S. 34 application, even in absence of an order of stay\/imposition of conditions by court as per unamended S. 36, held, is no longer applicable. [BCCI v. Kochi Cricket (P) Ltd., (2018) 6 SCC 287<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Constitution of India \u2014 Arts. 32 and 21 \u2014 Issue of writs \u2014 Habeas corpus \u2014 Custody of petitioner \u2014 Found clearly illegal:<\/strong> Order related custody of petitioner is non est, nullity and without any jurisdiction. Petitioner\u2019s right under Art. 21 stands offended, as he was detained in custody by adopting totally faulty and illegal process. Petitioner directed to be released forthwith. [Champion R. Sangma v. State of Meghalaya, (2018) 6 SCC 348<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 \u2014 S. 406 \u2014 Transfer petitions \u2014 Apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial inquiry or trial besides inconvenience of petitioner in pursuing cases \u2014 Grounds of:<\/strong> Such apprehension is required to be reasonable and not based upon conjectures and surmises. Convenience for purposes of transfer means convenience of prosecution, other accused, witnesses and larger interest of society. Court has to visualise comparative inconvenience and hardships likely to be caused to witnesses besides burden to be borne by State Exchequer in making payment of travelling and other expenses of official and non-official witnesses, for attending court proceedings, if cases are ordered to be transferred to transferee court. [Harita Sunil Parab v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 6 SCC 358<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Infrastructure Laws \u2014 Energy and Power \u2014 Electricity \u2014 Connection\/Disconnection\/Reconnection \u2014 Electricity connection:<\/strong> Authorities, held, should point out all defects while rejecting application for electricity connection. [D. Saravanan v. TANGEDCO, (2018) 6 SCC 352<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 \u2014 S. 48 r\/w Ss. 4, 6 and 9 \u2014 Withdrawal from acquisition \u2014 When is fraudulent:<\/strong> Withdrawal of acquisition for the benefit of builders\/private entities, not permissible, when it through an unholy nexus between the government machinery and builders\/private entities deprives innocent and gullible landholders. [Rameshwar v. State of Haryana, (2018) 6 SCC 215<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 \u2014 Ss. 14(2)(b) and 149 \u2014 Statutorily mandated validity period of driving licence (DL) vis-\u00e0-vis errors made while issuing DL:<\/strong> As per S. 14(2)(b) licence issued should be for a period of 20 yrs or up to age of 50 yrs whichever is earlier. Date of issuance of original licence in this case was 27-2-1998 and date of birth of driver recorded in licence was 30-4-1961. Hence, licence would had been valid till 29-4-2011 as per statutory mandate, licensing authority erroneously issued DL for a period of 5 yrs when driver concerned was only 37 yrs but since petitioner attained age of 50 yrs on 30-4-2011, licence mentioned expiry date as 29-4-2011. Accident took place on 12-11-2005. High Court judgment setting aside award on ground of invalid licence, reversed. Thus, direction of High Court to recover amounts paid by insurance company to third party injured from appellant (owner of vehicle), set aside. [Compaq International v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 6 SCC 342<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Statute Law \u2014 Validating or Overriding Enactment\/Statute\/Legislation \u2014 Validating Act \u2014 Power to enact \u2014 Scope \u2014 Supersession by legislature, of a judicial verdict \u2014 Permissible limits of \u2014 Principles summarized:<\/strong> Though legislature has power to enact validating laws including power to amend laws with retrospective effect and thereby remove causes of invalidity i.e. correct errors\/mistakes committed in earlier legislation as pointed out by court in a judgment, the effect of which is to remove the basis and foundation of said judgment, but it cannot overturn or set aside that judgment, that too retrospectively by introducing a new provision in the Act concerned. What the legislature can do is that it can amend the provisions of the statute to remove the basis of the judgment. A judicial pronouncement is always binding unless the very fundamentals on which it is based are altered and the decision could not have been given in the altered circumstances. [State of Karnataka v. Karnataka Pawn Brokers Assn., (2018) 6 SCC 363<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Tenancy and Land Laws \u2014 Land Grabbing \u2014 Frivolous litigation:<\/strong> In this case as there is prolongation of fruitless litigation by the appellants in different forums, no interference is warranted. [M. Durga Singh v. Yadagiri, (2018) 6 SCC 209<\/a>]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 Ss. 36 and 34 (before and after amendment of S. 36 in 2015): S. 36 as <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":91,"featured_media":107571,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,16],"tags":[4751,26884,11411],"class_list":["post-199376","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casesreported","category-supremecourtcases","tag-scc","tag-cases-reported","tag-supreme-court-cases"],"yoast_head":"\n2018 SCC Vol. 6 July 21, 2018 Part 2 | 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\/07\/23\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-21-2018-part-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"2018 SCC Vol. 6 July 21, 2018 Part 2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 Ss. 36 and 34 (before and after amendment of S. 36 in 2015): S. 36 as\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/23\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-21-2018-part-2\/\" \/>\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=\"2018-07-23T04:54:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-02T04:56:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/scc_7-02-2017.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=\"4 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\/07\/23\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-21-2018-part-2\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/23\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-21-2018-part-2\/\",\"name\":\"2018 SCC Vol. 6 July 21, 2018 Part 2 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/23\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-21-2018-part-2\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/23\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-21-2018-part-2\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/scc_7-02-2017.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-07-23T04:54:29+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-02T04:56:50+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/23\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-21-2018-part-2\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/23\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-21-2018-part-2\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/23\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-21-2018-part-2\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/scc_7-02-2017.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/scc_7-02-2017.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/23\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-21-2018-part-2\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"2018 SCC Vol. 6 July 21, 2018 Part 2\"}]},{\"@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. 6 July 21, 2018 Part 2 | 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\/07\/23\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-21-2018-part-2\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"2018 SCC Vol. 6 July 21, 2018 Part 2","og_description":"Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 Ss. 36 and 34 (before and after amendment of S. 36 in 2015): S. 36 as","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/23\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-21-2018-part-2\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2018-07-23T04:54:29+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-02T04:56:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/scc_7-02-2017.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Saba","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Saba","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/23\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-21-2018-part-2\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/23\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-21-2018-part-2\/","name":"2018 SCC Vol. 6 July 21, 2018 Part 2 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/23\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-21-2018-part-2\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/23\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-21-2018-part-2\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/scc_7-02-2017.jpg","datePublished":"2018-07-23T04:54:29+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-02T04:56:50+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/23\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-21-2018-part-2\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/23\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-21-2018-part-2\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/23\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-21-2018-part-2\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/scc_7-02-2017.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/scc_7-02-2017.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/23\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-21-2018-part-2\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"2018 SCC Vol. 6 July 21, 2018 Part 2"}]},{"@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\/2017\/02\/scc_7-02-2017.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":194071,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/03\/16\/arbitration-and-conciliation-amendment-act-2015-is-prospective-in-nature\/","url_meta":{"origin":199376,"position":0},"title":"Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 is prospective in nature","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"March 16, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: In the case where the Bench of RF Nariman and Navin Sinha, JJ was deciding the question as to the nature of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, it was held: \u201cthe Amendment Act is prospective in nature and will apply to those arbitral proceedings that are\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":89921,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/05\/amendment-to-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-to-have-retrospective-effect-on-pending-post-award-court-proceedings\/","url_meta":{"origin":199376,"position":1},"title":"Amendment to Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 to have retrospective effect on pending post-award court proceedings","author":"Saba","date":"December 5, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court:\u00a0In the case where Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) challenged both the arbitral awards ordered against it, by filing applications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an amendment was brought to the Act subsequently. The Bench of R.P. SondurBaldota, J., dismissing the applications upheld\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":222603,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/27\/section-87-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-struck-down-heres-why\/","url_meta":{"origin":199376,"position":2},"title":"Section 87 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 struck down. Here’s why","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"November 27, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of RF Nariman, Surya Kant and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ has held that Section 87 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must be struck down as manifestly arbitrary under Article 14. Section 87 as introduced by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019 states that\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":262786,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/02\/28\/the-indian-supreme-court-in-ellora-paper-mills-hindsight-is-20-15\/","url_meta":{"origin":199376,"position":3},"title":"The Indian Supreme Court in Ellora Paper Mills: Hindsight is 20\/15?","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 28, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"by Shalaka Patil\u2020 and Amoga Krishnan\u2020\u2020 Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 16","rel":"","context":"In "Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas"","block_context":{"text":"Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/experts_corner\/law-firm\/cam\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-41.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-41.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-41.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-41.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-41.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":252947,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/20\/sirpur-paper-mills\/","url_meta":{"origin":199376,"position":4},"title":"Sirpur Paper Mills case: Fate of an arbitral award after approval of resolution plan","author":"Editor","date":"August 20, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"by Priyal Jain\u2020 and Prasann Malviya\u2020\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\/2021\/08\/MicrosoftTeams-image-103.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/MicrosoftTeams-image-103.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/MicrosoftTeams-image-103.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/MicrosoftTeams-image-103.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/MicrosoftTeams-image-103.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":270673,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/26\/thin-line-between-adjudication-and-legislation-delhi-high-court-rules-out-retrospective-application-of-commercial-courts-amendment-act-2018\/","url_meta":{"origin":199376,"position":5},"title":"‘Thin line between adjudication and legislation’; Delhi High Court rules out retrospective application of Commercial Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018","author":"Editor","date":"July 26, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Satish Chandra Sharma, CJ and Subramonium Prasad, J. refused to transfer the civil suits pending before the Additional District Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, to the designated Commercial Court as the Commercial Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 (\u2018Amending Act') shall not apply retrospectively\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199376","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=199376"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199376\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/107571"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=199376"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=199376"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=199376"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}