{"id":210869,"date":"2019-02-25T11:00:09","date_gmt":"2019-02-25T05:30:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=210869"},"modified":"2019-02-25T10:38:47","modified_gmt":"2019-02-25T05:08:47","slug":"2019-scc-vol-2-february-21-2019-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/25\/2019-scc-vol-2-february-21-2019-part-2\/","title":{"rendered":"2019 SCC Vol. 2 February 21, 2019 Part 2"},"content":{"rendered":"

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 Ss. 2(1)(f)(ii) and (iii) and 11 \u2014 \u201cInternational commercial arbitration\u201d \u2014 Requirements of:<\/strong> In this case a contract was entered into between MMRDA and a Consortium, comprising, of an Indian and a Malaysian company in which the Indian Company was the lead partner, it was held that an association in S. 2(1)(f)(iii) would include a Consortium consisting of two or more bodies corporate, at least one of whom is a body corporate incorporated in a country other than India. Further, the order of the High Court, in the earlier litigation, holding that it was not open for the petitioners to rely upon their independent identities and that they would have to deal with the respondent as a consortium only, not having appealed against had attained finality. Thus, held, the unincorporated \u201cassociation\u201d referred to in S. 2(1)(f)(iii) would be attracted on the facts of this case and not S. 2(1)(f)(ii) as the Malaysian body could not be referred to as an independent entity. Also, considering that the Indian company was the lead partner, the Consortium\u2019s office was in Mumbai as also that the lead member was to lead the arbitration proceedings, held, that the central management and control of this Consortium appeared to be exercised in India. Thus, petition under S. 11 was dismissed as there was no \u201cinternational commercial arbitration\u201d. [L&T-Scomi v. MMRDA, (2019) 2 SCC 271<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Consumer Protection \u2014 Services \u2014 Medical practitioners\/services \u2014 Medical negligence \u2014 Test to determine:<\/strong> Test laid down in Bolam<\/em>, (1957) 1 WLR 582 and subsequently reiterated in Eckersley<\/em>, (1988) 18 Con LR 1 (CA), is consistently followed by all the courts all over the world including Indian courts. Principles of law on above issue as stated by Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew<\/em>, (2005) 6 SCC 1<\/a> after extensively referring to Bolam case <\/em>and Eckersley case<\/em>, reiterated. Said principles being: (a) a professional may be held liable for negligence either (i) when he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, (ii) when he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess, (b) the fact that the defendant charged with negligence acted in accord with the general and approved practice, is enough to clear him of the charge, (c) the standard of care, when assessing the practice as adopted, is judged in the light of knowledge available at the time of incident and not at the date of trial, and (d) the standard to be applied for judging the negligence would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. [S.K. Jhunjhunwala v. Dhanwanti Kaur, (2019) 2 SCC 282<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Crimes Against Women and Children \u2014 Death Sentence \u2014 Kidnapping, rape and murder of minor, and causing disappearance of evidence \u2014 Sentence \u2014 Death Sentence:<\/strong> Death penalty to be imposed only when alternative of life imprisonment is totally inadequate and after balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances crime falls in \u201crarest of rare\u201d category. [Viran Gyanlal Rajput v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 2 SCC 311<\/a>]<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 \u2014 S. 482 \u2014 Quashment application:<\/strong> For proper disposal of quashment application there is need to refer to factual matrix of case. [Omveer Singh v. State of U.P., (2019) 2 SCC 182<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Criminal Trial \u2014 Identification \u2014 Test Identification Parade \u2014 Delay \u2014 Effect \u2014 Proper mode of conduct of:<\/strong> In this case there were allegations of offence of rioting and firing at police personnel causing death of senior official and injuring others. Out of seven eyewitnesses who participated in TIP, five of them identified accused with 100% precision. On the issue of credibility of the TIP, the Supreme Court held, such specific identification from group of 200-300 rioters, without mentioning of any distinguishing marks seem highly improbable considering distance of witnesses from place of occurrence. Furthermore, no documentary evidence was provided to prove that the identity of accused was kept concealed. Besides, there was an inordinate delay of 55 days in conducting TIP for which no reasonable explanation was put forth. Hence, it was held that aforesaid circumstances create doubt about genuineness of TIP. [State of U.P. v. Wasif Haider, (2019) 2 SCC 303<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Election \u2014 Conduct of Election \u2014 Voting Mechanism: Ballot Paper\/Electronic Voting Machine \u2014 Electronic Voting Machine:<\/strong> Claim for VVPAT verification, rejected on basis of the decision in Prakash Joshi<\/em>, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1734<\/a>. [Kamal Nath v. Election Commission of India, (2019) 2 SCC 260<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Government Grants, Largesse, Public Property and Public Premises \u2014 Modes of Allocation of State Largesse:<\/strong> In this case, auction and sale pursuant to the auction was cancelled, when the reserve price fixed was very less and also when the auction itself was otherwise subject to the outcome of writ proceedings. It was held, (i) the auction proceedings conducted by the Parishad were made subject to final outcome of the writ petition filed by appellant (bidder) and, therefore, even if the Parishad had proceeded to finalise the sale of the land in question in favour of respondent (second bidder), it did not affect any of the rights of the appellant, (ii) Parishad did not give adequate publicity for sale of the land while conducting the auctions and only two bidders could participate in the auctions, (iii) Parishad committed an error in fixing reserve price of the land at a very less amount and it should have seen that the land had a tremendous potential in commercial market. In view thereof, it was held, the land deserved to be re-auctioned. [Suresh Chandra v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, (2019) 2 SCC 172<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Government Grants, Largesse, Public Property and Public Premises \u2014 Modes of Allocation of State Largesse \u2014 Auction: <\/strong>Arbitrariness in acceptance of offers for sale of flats, non-consideration of offer made by one of the interested parties makes validity of sale\/disposal of such flats, vitiated as being unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of the principles enshrined in Art. 14 and not legally sustainable. Powai Panchsheel Coop. [Housing Society v. MHADA, (2019) 2 SCC 294<\/a>]<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 \u2014 S. 166 \u2014 Non-exhibition of documents i.e. a procedural lapse:<\/strong> Non-exhibition of documents i.e. a procedural lapse does not disentitle a claim, when otherwise sufficient evidence is adduced and documents established the identity of the offending vehicle. [Vimla Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2019) 2 SCC 186<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Penal Code, 1860 \u2014 Ss. 148\/149 r\/w S. 302:<\/strong> Conviction with aid of Ss. 148\/149 cannot be recorded in the absence of at least 5 accused: either at least 5 accused should stand convicted, or total number of convicted accused plus unnamed accused should not be less than 5. [Ramvir v. State of U.P., (2019) 2 SCC 237<\/a>]<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 (21 of 1976) \u2014 S. 16 \u2014 Civil suit barred under: <\/strong>Suit being against State and its authorities without notice under S. 80 CPC, also not maintainable on this ground. [Gopal Singh v. Swaran Singh, (2019) 2 SCC 177<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 \u2014 Ss. 17(1) and 13(4):<\/strong> Application under S. 17(1) of SARFAESI Act, at the instance of a borrower before physical or actual possession of secured assets is taken by banks\/financial institutions i.e. at the stage of possession notice under Rr. 8(1) and 8(2), maintainable. [Hindon Forge (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2019) 2 SCC 198<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Service Law \u2014 Recruitment Process \u2014 Panel\/Select List\/Reserve List\/Waiting List\/Merit List\/Rank List \u2014 Wait List:<\/strong> In terms of government orders issued, validity of wait list was for period of one year only. Against requisition for 178 number of posts, appellant Commission initially recommended 156 candidates vide letter dt. 12-8-2010 while last recommendation for one post was made on 28-8-2012, the Supreme Court held that when recommendations for substantive number of posts were made on 12-8-2010 period of one year for operating wait-list is to be computed from that day. Hence, impugned judgment quashing communication dt. 23-7-2013 issued by the appellant rejecting request to recommend 7 more names on ground that validity of wait list had expired and further directing names of requisite number of candidates to be recommended, was held unsustainable. [U.P. Public Service Commission v. Surendra Kumar, (2019) 2 SCC 195<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Specific Relief Act, 1963 \u2014 S. 14(3)(c) \u2014 Specific performance of a development agreement:<\/strong> Giving a purposive interpretation to S. 14(3)(c)(iii), held, where the developer brings a suit for specific performance against the owner, he will have to satisfy the two conditions laid out in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of S. 14(3)(c). However, when a pure construction contract is entered into, the contractor has no interest in either the land or the construction which is carried out, it was held that the terms of the agreement are crucial in determining whether any interest has been created in the land or in respect of rights in the land in favour of the developer and if so, the nature and extent of the rights. [Sushil Kumar Agarwal v. Meenakshi Sadhu, (2019) 2 SCC 241<\/a>]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 Ss. 2(1)(f)(ii) and (iii) and 11 \u2014 \u201cInternational commercial arbitration\u201d \u2014 Requirements of: In this case <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":182154,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-210869","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-supremecourtcases"],"yoast_head":"\n2019 SCC Vol. 2 February 21, 2019 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\/2019\/02\/25\/2019-scc-vol-2-february-21-2019-part-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"2019 SCC Vol. 2 February 21, 2019 Part 2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 Ss. 2(1)(f)(ii) and (iii) and 11 \u2014 \u201cInternational commercial arbitration\u201d \u2014 Requirements of: In this case\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/25\/2019-scc-vol-2-february-21-2019-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=\"2019-02-25T05:30:09+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=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\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\/2019\/02\/25\/2019-scc-vol-2-february-21-2019-part-2\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/25\/2019-scc-vol-2-february-21-2019-part-2\/\",\"name\":\"2019 SCC Vol. 2 February 21, 2019 Part 2 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/25\/2019-scc-vol-2-february-21-2019-part-2\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/25\/2019-scc-vol-2-february-21-2019-part-2\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-02-25T05:30:09+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/25\/2019-scc-vol-2-february-21-2019-part-2\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/25\/2019-scc-vol-2-february-21-2019-part-2\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/25\/2019-scc-vol-2-february-21-2019-part-2\/#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\/2019\/02\/25\/2019-scc-vol-2-february-21-2019-part-2\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"2019 SCC Vol. 2 February 21, 2019 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\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"2019 SCC Vol. 2 February 21, 2019 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\/2019\/02\/25\/2019-scc-vol-2-february-21-2019-part-2\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"2019 SCC Vol. 2 February 21, 2019 Part 2","og_description":"Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 Ss. 2(1)(f)(ii) and (iii) and 11 \u2014 \u201cInternational commercial arbitration\u201d \u2014 Requirements of: In this case","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/25\/2019-scc-vol-2-february-21-2019-part-2\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2019-02-25T05:30:09+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":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/25\/2019-scc-vol-2-february-21-2019-part-2\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/25\/2019-scc-vol-2-february-21-2019-part-2\/","name":"2019 SCC Vol. 2 February 21, 2019 Part 2 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/25\/2019-scc-vol-2-february-21-2019-part-2\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/25\/2019-scc-vol-2-february-21-2019-part-2\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg","datePublished":"2019-02-25T05:30:09+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/25\/2019-scc-vol-2-february-21-2019-part-2\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/25\/2019-scc-vol-2-february-21-2019-part-2\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/25\/2019-scc-vol-2-february-21-2019-part-2\/#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\/2019\/02\/25\/2019-scc-vol-2-february-21-2019-part-2\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"2019 SCC Vol. 2 February 21, 2019 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\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"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":268453,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/15\/joinder-of-non-signatories-a-stepping-stone-towards-international-commercial-arbitrations\/","url_meta":{"origin":210869,"position":0},"title":"Joinder of Non-Signatories: A Stepping Stone Towards International Commercial Arbitrations","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 15, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"by Simran Pahwa\u2020 and Yasha Goyal\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\/2022\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-252.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-252.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-252.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-252.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-252.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":245450,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/12\/where-one-party-habitually-resides-in-a-foreign-country-arbitration-becomes-an-international-commercial-arbitration-even-when-the-business-is-being-carried-through-an-office-in-india-sc\/","url_meta":{"origin":210869,"position":1},"title":"Where one party habitually resides in a foreign country, arbitration becomes an international commercial arbitration even when the business is being carried through an office in India: SC","author":"Editor","date":"March 12, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The Division Bench of R.F. Nariman* and B.R. Gavai, JJ., addressed an important case regarding nature of arbitration under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Bench ruled, \"If at least one of the parties was either a foreign national, or habitually resident in any country other than India;\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\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":217692,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/05\/nclat-relief-for-consortium-of-banks-which-extended-loans-to-jaiprakash-associates-nclt-order-cancelling-mortgage-of-858-acres-of-land-by-jil-in-favour-of-banks-quashed\/","url_meta":{"origin":210869,"position":2},"title":"NCLAT | Relief for Consortium of Banks which extended loans to Jaiprakash Associates, NCLT order cancelling mortgage of 858 acres of land by JIL in favour of Banks quashed","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 5, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT):\u00a0A 2-Member Bench of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya (Chairperson) and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat, Member (Judicial), set aside the order of National Company Law Tribunal (Allahabad), whereby it had cancelled the mortgage of 858 acres of land worth around Rs 5900 crores made by Jaypee Infratech\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\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":283286,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/06\/supreme-court-upholds-nclat-order-on-payment-of-dues-to-former-employees-of-jet-airways-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":210869,"position":3},"title":"Supreme Court upholds NCLAT order on payment of dues to former employees of Jet Airways","author":"Editor","date":"February 6, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea moved by the consortium and upheld the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's order directing the consortium to pay the provident fund and gratuity dues of the employees of Jet Airways","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\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-300.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":204772,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/03\/loss-of-consortium-means-loss-of-love-and-affection-and-aggrieved-cannot-claim-compensation-for-the-same-under-two-separate-heads\/","url_meta":{"origin":210869,"position":4},"title":"\u2018Loss of consortium\u2019 means \u2018loss of love and affection\u2019 and aggrieved cannot claim compensation for the same under two separate heads","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 3, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Kerala High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. while hearing a motor accident claims appeal, ruled that compensation towards \u2018loss of consortium\u2019 includes compensation for \u2018loss of love and affection\u2019. The present appeal arises out of a motor accident claim petition filed by the appellant\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":201977,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/19\/court-duty-bound-to-provide-just-compensation-under-mv-act-irrespective-of-plea-compensation-for-loss-of-consortium-awarded-under-article-142-sc\/","url_meta":{"origin":210869,"position":5},"title":"Court duty-bound to provide \u2018just compensation\u2019 under MV Act irrespective of plea; compensation for \u2018loss of consortium\u2019 awarded under Article 142: SC \u00a0","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 19, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The Bench comprising of Rohinton Fali Nariman and Indu Malhotra, JJ. disposed of an appeal filed challenging the compensation awarded by the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The deceased was riding on a bike when he was hit by the vehicle driven by\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":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210869","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\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=210869"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210869\/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=210869"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=210869"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=210869"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}