{"id":205614,"date":"2018-11-22T12:12:45","date_gmt":"2018-11-22T06:42:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=205614"},"modified":"2018-11-22T12:12:45","modified_gmt":"2018-11-22T06:42:45","slug":"2018-scc-vol-9-november-21-2018-part-5","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/22\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-21-2018-part-5\/","title":{"rendered":"2018 SCC Vol. 9 November 21, 2018 Part 5"},"content":{"rendered":"

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 Ss. 7 and 11(5) \u2014 Arbitration agreement\/clause \u2014 Existence of:<\/strong> 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. v. Jade Elevator Components, (2018) 9 SCC 774<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Constitution of India \u2014 Art. 226 \u2014 Appeal against order of Single Judge under Art. 226 (Writ Appeal\/Letters Patent Appeal):<\/strong> Once legal and factual issues are raised in intra-court appeal challenging order passed by Single Judge, it is incumbent upon Division Bench to deal with all such issues raised. Then record its finding on such issues keeping in view the submissions urged and applicability of legal provisions. [BDA v. B.N. Ramalingaswamy, (2018) 9 SCC 778<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Constitution of India \u2014 Art. 32 \u2014 CBI Investigation:<\/strong> Prayer for CBI investigation into degradation of forest due to illegal mining activities declined as requisite steps has been taken by State Government. [T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2018) 9 SCC 760<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Constitution of India \u2014 Art. 32 \u2014 Public Interest Litigation \u2014 Frivolous or vexatious PIL:<\/strong> In PIL filed seeking guidelines for conducting Caesarean deliveries, it was alleged that there was flagrant violation of health norms and C-sections performed without there being medical necessity. Through this PIL, constitution of Medical Board for supervising such activities was prayed for. Treating this writ petition as abuse of process of court, Supreme Court dismissed it by imposing costs of Rs 25,000. [Reepak Kansal v. Union of India, (2018) 9 SCC 744]<\/a><\/p>\n

Constitution of India \u2014 Arts. 19(1)(a) and 19(2) \u2014 Restrictions upon free speech, expression, creativity and imagination of poets and authors:<\/strong> Meesha published in the weekly Mathrubhumi<\/em> is not derogatory to women nor obscene, thus does not require intervention of the Court. Creative voices cannot be stifled or silenced and intellectual freedom cannot be annihilated and the culture of banning books directly impacts the free flow of ideas and is an affront to the freedom of speech, thought and expression. Further, a creative work has to be read with a matured spirit, catholicity of approach, objective tolerance and a sense of acceptability founded on reality that is differently projected but not with the obsessed idea of perversity that immediately connects one with the passion of didacticism or, for that matter, perception of puritanical attitude. The freedom enjoyed by an author is not absolute, but before imposition of any restriction, the duty of the Court is to see whether there is really something that comes within the ambit and sweep of Art. 19(2) of the Constitution. Also, a book should not be read in a fragmented manner and has to be read as a whole. The language used, the ideas developed, the style adopted, the manner in which the characters are portrayed, the type of imagery taken aid of for depiction, the thematic subsidiary concepts projected and the nature of delineation of situations have to be understood from an objective point of view. Further, there may be subjective perception of a book as regards its worth and evaluation but the said subjectivity cannot be allowed to enter into the legal arena for censorship or ban of a book. The craftsmanship of a writer deserves respect by acceptation of the concept of objective perceptibility. [N. Radhakrishnan v. Union of India, (2018) 9 SCC 725<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Constitution of India \u2014 Arts. 226, 32, 21 and 22(2) \u2014 Habeas corpus petition \u2014 Maintainability:<\/strong> When no challenge has been made to remand order in force, writ petition filed restricting it to relief of habeas corpus with respect to a person who is in police custody pursuant to the said remand order passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate in connection with the offence under investigation is not maintainable in such a case. [State of Maharashtra v. Tasneem Rizwan Siddiquee, (2018) 9 SCC 745<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Education Law \u2014 Medical and Dental Colleges \u2014 New College\/Courses\/Upgradation of College\/Increase in capacity\/seats:<\/strong> Medical Council of India (MCI) conducting surprise inspection in spite of observation of Hearing Committee (of Central Government) that deficiencies detected earlier had been prima facie removed, held, permissible and valid. In case where actual physical verification is required, it is within discretion of MCI to cause such physical verification. MCI can conduct compliance verification in manner in which it decides. It can look for additional deficiencies and if deficiencies detected earlier are not removed or additional deficiencies detected, college is not entitled for renewal of permission. [Medical Council of India v. KMCT Medical College, (2018) 9 SCC 766]<\/a><\/p>\n

Election \u2014 Election Petition\/Trial \u2014 Maintainability \u2014 Limitation\/Delay\/Laches:<\/strong> The Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 is a complete code for presentation of election petitions. It mandates that an election petition must be filed within 30 days from the date of declaration of results of election. Under the Act, there is no provision for condoning delay or extending the period of limitation. Hence, extension of that period of limitation by virtue of provisions under Limitation Act, 1963 (i.e. S. 14, Limitation Act, 1963 herein), not permissible. Legislature having prescribed a specific period for filing an election petition, any petition which fails to comply therewith is liable to be dismissed. [Suman Devi v. Manisha Devi, (2018) 9 SCC 808<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 \u2014 S. 15 \u2014 Interpretation of:<\/strong> Restriction placed on second marriage under S. 15 till dismissal of appeal, held, would not apply to such cases, where the facts establish, that the parties have decided not to pursue appeal. [Anurag Mittal v. Shaily Mishra Mittal, (2018) 9 SCC 691<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Income Tax Act, 1961 \u2014 S. 80-IC (as inserted by virtue of the Finance Act, 2003, applicable w.e.f. 1-4-2004):<\/strong> Availing of 100% deduction from sixth year onwards, in lieu of 25% deduction otherwise available, on the premise of having made substantial expansion is not permissible when the assessee had already claimed deduction under S. 80-IC @ 100% for five years. [CIT v. Classic Binding Industries, (2018) 9 SCC 753<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Insurance \u2014 Repudiation\/Rescission of Insurance Policy \u2014 Repudiation of claim on ground of delay \u2014 When permissible:<\/strong> It is the duty of insured to inform insurer of loss forthwith so that insurer may make a meaningful investigation into cause of damage and nature of loss. This is of crucial importance in insurance claims. Breach of policy term stipulating such condition, given the crucial importance of such term, held, is a material breach. It is not a technical matter but sine qua non for a valid claim to be pursued by the insured. [Sonell Clocks & Gifts Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 9 SCC 784<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Insurance \u2014 Repudiation\/Rescission of Insurance Policy \u2014 Repudiation of claim on ground of delay \u2014 When permissible:<\/strong> As per terms of insurance policy insured is duty-bound to inform insurer about the loss immediately after the incident. On account of delayed intimation, insurer was deprived of its legitimate right to get an inquiry conducted into cause and nature of the loss, hence, held, repudiation of claim on ground of delay, was proper. [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvesh Chander Chadha, (2018) 9 SCC 798<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 \u2014 Ss. 166 and 147:<\/strong> When death of owner-cum-driver of motor vehicle has been caused due to his own negligence, claim for compensation is not maintainable. [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ashalata Bhowmik, (2018) 9 SCC 801<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 \u2014 Ss. 42, 43 and 20(b)(ii)(C) \u2014 Search and seizure:<\/strong> In case of search and seizure in public place, when contraband has been recovered from bag carried by accused, compliance with S. 42 is not mandatory in such circumstances. Rather it is S. 43 which would apply. [Raju v. State of W.B., (2018) 9 SCC 708<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Penal Code, 1860 \u2014 Ss. 304 Pt. II\/34, 323\/34 & 324\/34 or 307\/34:<\/strong> In this case regarding dispute between neighbours with regard to cattle which had strayed and resulted in assault by accused persons which led to death of one and injuries to others, it was held by the Supreme Court that as occurrence took place on the spur of the moment without premeditation and assault was not made on vital part of body and no common intention was found to kill or knowledge that death was likely to ensue, conviction under Ss. 307\/34 set aside, but under Ss. 304 Pt. II\/34, 323\/324\/34, confirmed. [Lakshmi Chand v. State of U.P., (2018) 9 SCC 704<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Practice and Procedure \u2014 Appeal \u2014 Locus standi\/Standing \u2014 Appeal at the instance of stranger to proceedings:<\/strong> A stranger to proceedings does not have locus standi to question legality of order passed in those proceedings. [Ashok Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 9 SCC 723<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Service Law \u2014 Promotion \u2014 Ad hoc promotion:<\/strong> Ad hoc promotions in excess of eligible quota, not permissible. [Abdul Jawad M.F. v. R. Raj Pradeep, (2018) 9 SCC 781<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Specific Relief Act, 1963 \u2014 S. 16(c) \u2014 Readiness and willingness on part of plaintiff as condition precedent:<\/strong> Plaintiff must always plead and prove that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract \u2014 It must be established that he was ready and willing and has had capacity to perform his part of contract from date of contract up to date of filing of suit. If case of failure of plaintiff to establish readiness and willingness on his part, he is disentitled to specific performance of contract. [Jagjit Singh v. Amarjit Singh, (2018) 9 SCC 805<\/a>]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 Ss. 7 and 11(5) \u2014 Arbitration agreement\/clause \u2014 Existence of: Agreement between the parties giving an <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":91,"featured_media":102451,"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-205614","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. 9 November 21, 2018 Part 5 | 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\/11\/22\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-21-2018-part-5\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"2018 SCC Vol. 9 November 21, 2018 Part 5\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 Ss. 7 and 11(5) \u2014 Arbitration agreement\/clause \u2014 Existence of: Agreement between the parties giving an\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/22\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-21-2018-part-5\/\" \/>\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=\"2018-11-22T06:42:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.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=\"7 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\/11\/22\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-21-2018-part-5\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/22\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-21-2018-part-5\/\",\"name\":\"2018 SCC Vol. 9 November 21, 2018 Part 5 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/22\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-21-2018-part-5\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/22\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-21-2018-part-5\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-11-22T06:42:45+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/22\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-21-2018-part-5\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/22\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-21-2018-part-5\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/22\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-21-2018-part-5\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/22\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-21-2018-part-5\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"2018 SCC Vol. 9 November 21, 2018 Part 5\"}]},{\"@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. 9 November 21, 2018 Part 5 | 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\/11\/22\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-21-2018-part-5\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"2018 SCC Vol. 9 November 21, 2018 Part 5","og_description":"Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 Ss. 7 and 11(5) \u2014 Arbitration agreement\/clause \u2014 Existence of: Agreement between the parties giving an","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/22\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-21-2018-part-5\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2018-11-22T06:42:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Saba","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Saba","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/22\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-21-2018-part-5\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/22\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-21-2018-part-5\/","name":"2018 SCC Vol. 9 November 21, 2018 Part 5 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/22\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-21-2018-part-5\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/22\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-21-2018-part-5\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","datePublished":"2018-11-22T06:42:45+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/22\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-21-2018-part-5\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/22\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-21-2018-part-5\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/22\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-21-2018-part-5\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/22\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-21-2018-part-5\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"2018 SCC Vol. 9 November 21, 2018 Part 5"}]},{"@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\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":203082,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/04\/petition-under-article-226-or-227-challenging-interlocutory-order-passed-in-arbitration-proceedings-not-to-be-entertained\/","url_meta":{"origin":205614,"position":0},"title":"Petition under Article 226 or 227 challenging interlocutory order passed in arbitration proceedings not to be entertained","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 4, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court: A Division Bench comprising of B.R. Gavai and M.S. Karnik, JJ. dismissed a petition filed against the order of the Arbitrator whereby petitioner\u2019s application challenging the arbitration proceedings was rejected. In view of the agreement between the parties, arbitration proceedings were commenced with one R.S. Bhandurge as\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":200373,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/20\/arbitration-clause-held-to-survive-even-when-leave-and-licence-agreement-was-mutually-terminated\/","url_meta":{"origin":205614,"position":1},"title":"Arbitration Clause held to survive even when Leave and Licence Agreement was mutually terminated","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 20, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Mridula Bhatkar, J. directed the trial court to refer the matter before it to the Arbitrator holding that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The respondent \u2013 original plaintiff \u2013 had filed a suit based on an agreement entered\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":278722,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/29\/supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-section-116-scope-explained\/","url_meta":{"origin":205614,"position":2},"title":"Explained| Three types of issues that can be considered in an application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996","author":"Editor","date":"November 29, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Supreme Court: In an appeal against the judgment passed by Telangana High Court, wherein the High Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (\u2018Act of 1996\u2019), the division bench of B.R Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna*, JJ. held\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\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image11.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":275309,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/10\/madras-high-court-arbitral-tribunal-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-arbitral-award-specific-relief-act-public-policy-specific-performance-legal-research-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":205614,"position":3},"title":"Madras High Court | Courts will not interfere or set aside an arbitral award, merely because an alternative view is possible; Adopt a hands-off approach","author":"Editor","date":"October 10, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Madras High Court: In an intra-Court appeal filed against the order of the single judge, whereby, the judge allowed the original petition filed by the respondents under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (\u2018the Act\u2019) and set aside the award, passed by the Arbitral Tribunal\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Madras High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Madras-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":181054,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/13\/grounds-not-urged-appeal-arbitral-award-may-not-raised-second-appeal\/","url_meta":{"origin":205614,"position":4},"title":"Grounds not urged in an appeal against arbitral award may not be raised in second appeal","author":"Saba","date":"January 13, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of G.S Sistani and V Kameswar Rao, JJ., dismissed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter \u201cArbitration Act\u201d) read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 and Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":375652,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/15\/2026-scc-vol-1-part-4-latest-supreme-court-cases\/","url_meta":{"origin":205614,"position":5},"title":"2026 SCC Vol. 1 Part 4","author":"Sonali Ahuja","date":"February 15, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"2026 SCC Vol. 1 Part 4: Explore the latest Supreme Court Cases on Arbitration, Constitution Law, Criminal Procedure Code, and Trusts Act.","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. 1 Part 4","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/2026-SCC-Vol.-1-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\/02\/2026-SCC-Vol.-1-Part-4.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/2026-SCC-Vol.-1-Part-4.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/2026-SCC-Vol.-1-Part-4.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205614","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=205614"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205614\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/102451"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=205614"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=205614"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=205614"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}