{"id":272250,"date":"2022-08-25T14:00:21","date_gmt":"2022-08-25T08:30:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=272250"},"modified":"2022-08-25T14:00:21","modified_gmt":"2022-08-25T08:30:21","slug":"2022-scc-vol-7-part-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/25\/2022-scc-vol-7-part-3\/","title":{"rendered":"2022 SCC Vol. 7 Part 3"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

   <\/p>\n

\n

Advocates Act, 1961<\/a> — S. 16<\/a> — Procedure for designation of Senior Advocates<\/b>: Clarification of Guidelines prescribed for Supreme Court and all High Courts in Indira Jaising, (2017) 9 SCC 766<\/a>, given. Instead of ten marks to be allocated to a counsel who has put in between ten to twenty years of practice, held, marks be allocated commensurate with standing of person at Bar, that is to say, one mark each shall be allocated for every year of practice between ten to twenty years. [Amar Vivek Aggarwal<\/i> v. High Court of P&H<\/i>, (2022) 7 SCC 439<\/a>]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> — S. 34<\/a> r\/w S. 19<\/a> of the MSMED Act, 2006<\/a> — Setting aside of award<\/b>: Requirement of deposit of 75% of amount in terms of award as a pre-deposit as per S. 19<\/a> of the MSMED Act<\/a>, is mandatory. [Tirupati Steels<\/i> v. Shubh Industrial Component<\/i>, (2022) 7 SCC 429<\/a>]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Armed Forces — Pension — One Rank One Pension (OROP) Policy — Validity of OROP Policy Communication dt. 7-11-2015<\/b>: OROP Scheme as originally envisaged, envisaging future enhancement in rates of pension to be automatically applied to past pensioners, while Communication dt. 7-11-2015 issued by Ministry of Defence to Chiefs of Army, Air Force & Navy stipulating future revision in pension to past pensioners “at periodic intervals” i.e. every 5 yrs, OROP Policy Communication dt. 7-11-2015, affirmed. Implications of Expression “automatically passed on” in original policy vis-à-vis “at periodic intervals” in Communication dt. 7-11-2015, explained. [Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement<\/i> v. Union of India<\/i>, (2022) 7 SCC 323<\/a>]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Constitution of India<\/a> — Arts. 21<\/a> and 39-A<\/a> — Fair trial<\/b>: Challenge to fairness of trial on account of trial being expedited by the trial court is not tenable, if the due procedure appears to be followed during the course of trial. [Mohd. Firoz<\/i> v. State of M.P.<\/i>, (2022) 7 SCC 443<\/a>]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Debt, Financial and Monetary Laws — Non-Scheduled Banks\/NBFCs\/Chit Funds\/Saving Schemes\/Financial leasing — Generally<\/b>: Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) are solely and entirely regulated by RBI under the RBI Act, as opposed to under State regulations, namely, Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 and Gujarat Money Lenders Act, 2011. State enactments, as Kerala Act and the Gujarat Act are not applicable to NBFCs. [Nedumpilli Finance Co. Ltd.<\/i> v. State of Kerala<\/i>, (2022) 7 SCC 394<\/a>]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Penal Code, 1860<\/a> — S. 124-A<\/a> — Offence of sedition<\/b>: In this case instances of glaring misuse of S. 124-A alleged and validity of S. 124-A was challenged on that ground. Union of India agreeing to re-examination to find out the manner in which the requirement of security interests and integrity of the State should be balanced with the civil liberties of citizens. Interim order pending such re-examination by Government, issued that: till the re-examination of S. 124-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> by the Government is complete, held, it will be appropriate not to continue the usage of the aforesaid provision of law by any of the Governments. Directions with regard to pending FIRs, investigations and criminal proceedings relating to S. 124-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> also issued. Central Government given liberty to issue directions to States\/Union Territories to prevent misuse of S. 124-A<\/a> IPC<\/a>. [S.G. Vombatkere<\/i> v. Union of India<\/i>, (2022) 7 SCC 433<\/a>]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002<\/a> — Ss. 3<\/a>, 4<\/a> and 8(5)<\/a> r\/w Ss. 2(1)(u)<\/a>, 5(1)<\/a>, 5(5)<\/a> and 44(1)<\/a> Expln. — Prosecution for offences under Ss. 3 and 4 of the PMLA — Maintainability of — Requirements of<\/b>: It is the duty of court to look into the allegations and the material collected in support thereto and determine whether prima facie offence(s) under the PMLA are made out. Standard of proof for conviction for offences under Ss. 3 and 4 is that of proof beyond reasonable doubt. [J. Sekar<\/i> v. Enforcement Directorate<\/i>, (2022) 7 SCC 370<\/a>]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013<\/a> — S. 24<\/a> — Lapse of acquisition proceeding — Claim for, by subsequent purchaser<\/b>: Subsequent purchaser who purchased land after publication of notice under Ss. 4<\/a> and 6<\/a> of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894<\/a> and after award of Land Acquisition Collector, in view of law laid down in DDA, (2022) 8 SCC 771, held, not entitled to claim lapsing of proceedings under 2013 Act. [Delhi Admn.<\/i> v. Pawan Kumar<\/i>, (2022) 7 SCC 470<\/a>]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Service Law — Penalty\/Punishment — Judicial review\/Validity — Interference with punishment imposed by disciplinary authority<\/b>: Order of substitution of punishment of removal imposed by disciplinary authority to compulsory retirement by Tribunal which was affirmed by High Court on ground that respondent delinquent had completed 39 yrs of unblemished service and since entire defrauded amount was paid by him with interest and no loss was caused to Department, held unsustainable. [Union of India<\/i> v. M. Duraisamy<\/i>, (2022) 7 SCC 475<\/a>]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Specific Relief Act, 1963<\/a> — Ss. 19(b)<\/a>, 10<\/a> and 20<\/a> — Specific performance of agreement to sell immovable property when property is sold to subsequent transferee with notice of the prior agreement to sell — Proper form of relief in such cases<\/b>: It is not necessary for the prior buyer-agreement-holder to seek cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of a subsequent purchaser. It is sufficient to implead subsequent purchaser in suit and seek relief of specific performance against original owner and also seek direction to subsequent purchaser to join in execution of sale deed in order to completely convey title to the prior buyer-agreement-holder. [P. Ramasubbamma<\/i> v. V. Vijayalakshmi<\/i>, (2022) 7 SCC 384<\/a>]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Advocates Act, 1961 — S. 16 — Procedure for designation of Senior Advocates: Clarification of Guidelines prescribed for Supreme Court <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":267145,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,16],"tags":[51196,12481,51197,10131,40741,3260,7601,13961,14531,35513,51198,51158,14261,36335,25244,34694,31855,50574],"class_list":["post-272250","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casesreported","category-supremecourtcases","tag-2022-scc-vol-7","tag-advocates-act","tag-advocates-act-1961","tag-arbitration-and-conciliation-act","tag-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996","tag-Constitution","tag-constitution-of-india","tag-ipc","tag-land-acquisition-act","tag-land-acquisition-act-1894","tag-msmed-act","tag-msmed-act-2006","tag-penal-code","tag-penal-code-1860","tag-prevention-of-money-laundering-act","tag-prevention-of-money-laundering-act-2002","tag-specific-relief-act","tag-specific-relief-act-1963"],"yoast_head":"\n2022 SCC Vol. 7 Part 3 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Clarification of Guidelines prescribed for Supreme Court and all High Courts in Indira Jaising, (2017) 9 SCC 766, given. Instead of ten marks\" \/>\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\/2022\/08\/25\/2022-scc-vol-7-part-3\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"2022 SCC Vol. 7 Part 3\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Clarification of Guidelines prescribed for Supreme Court and all High Courts in Indira Jaising, (2017) 9 SCC 766, given. Instead of ten marks\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/25\/2022-scc-vol-7-part-3\/\" \/>\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=\"2022-08-25T08:30:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/NEW-SCC.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=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/08\\\/25\\\/2022-scc-vol-7-part-3\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/08\\\/25\\\/2022-scc-vol-7-part-3\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"headline\":\"2022 SCC Vol. 7 Part 3\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-08-25T08:30:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/08\\\/25\\\/2022-scc-vol-7-part-3\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":832,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/08\\\/25\\\/2022-scc-vol-7-part-3\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2022\\\/05\\\/NEW-SCC.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"2022 SCC Vol. 7\",\"Advocates Act\",\"Advocates Act 1961\",\"arbitration and conciliation act\",\"Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996\",\"Constitution\u00a0\",\"Constitution of India\",\"IPC\",\"Land Acquisition Act\",\"Land Acquisition Act 1894\",\"MSMED Act\",\"MSMED Act 2006\",\"Penal Code\",\"Penal Code 1860\",\"Prevention of Money Laundering Act\",\"Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002\",\"Specific Relief Act\",\"Specific Relief Act 1963\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Cases Reported\",\"SCC Weekly\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/08\\\/25\\\/2022-scc-vol-7-part-3\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/08\\\/25\\\/2022-scc-vol-7-part-3\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/08\\\/25\\\/2022-scc-vol-7-part-3\\\/\",\"name\":\"2022 SCC Vol. 7 Part 3 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/08\\\/25\\\/2022-scc-vol-7-part-3\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/08\\\/25\\\/2022-scc-vol-7-part-3\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2022\\\/05\\\/NEW-SCC.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-08-25T08:30:21+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"description\":\"Clarification of Guidelines prescribed for Supreme Court and all High Courts in Indira Jaising, (2017) 9 SCC 766, given. Instead of ten marks\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/08\\\/25\\\/2022-scc-vol-7-part-3\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/08\\\/25\\\/2022-scc-vol-7-part-3\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/08\\\/25\\\/2022-scc-vol-7-part-3\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2022\\\/05\\\/NEW-SCC.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2022\\\/05\\\/NEW-SCC.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887,\"caption\":\"SCC Part\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2022\\\/08\\\/25\\\/2022-scc-vol-7-part-3\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"2022 SCC Vol. 7 Part 3\"}]},{\"@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\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"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":"2022 SCC Vol. 7 Part 3 | SCC Times","description":"Clarification of Guidelines prescribed for Supreme Court and all High Courts in Indira Jaising, (2017) 9 SCC 766, given. Instead of ten marks","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\/2022\/08\/25\/2022-scc-vol-7-part-3\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"2022 SCC Vol. 7 Part 3","og_description":"Clarification of Guidelines prescribed for Supreme Court and all High Courts in Indira Jaising, (2017) 9 SCC 766, given. Instead of ten marks","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/25\/2022-scc-vol-7-part-3\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2022-08-25T08:30:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/NEW-SCC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/25\/2022-scc-vol-7-part-3\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/25\/2022-scc-vol-7-part-3\/"},"author":{"name":"Bhumika Indulia","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"headline":"2022 SCC Vol. 7 Part 3","datePublished":"2022-08-25T08:30:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/25\/2022-scc-vol-7-part-3\/"},"wordCount":832,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/25\/2022-scc-vol-7-part-3\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/NEW-SCC.jpg","keywords":["2022 SCC Vol. 7","Advocates Act","Advocates Act 1961","arbitration and conciliation act","Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996","Constitution\u00a0","Constitution of India","IPC","Land Acquisition Act","Land Acquisition Act 1894","MSMED Act","MSMED Act 2006","Penal Code","Penal Code 1860","Prevention of Money Laundering Act","Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002","Specific Relief Act","Specific Relief Act 1963"],"articleSection":["Cases Reported","SCC Weekly"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/25\/2022-scc-vol-7-part-3\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/25\/2022-scc-vol-7-part-3\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/25\/2022-scc-vol-7-part-3\/","name":"2022 SCC Vol. 7 Part 3 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/25\/2022-scc-vol-7-part-3\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/25\/2022-scc-vol-7-part-3\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/NEW-SCC.jpg","datePublished":"2022-08-25T08:30:21+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"description":"Clarification of Guidelines prescribed for Supreme Court and all High Courts in Indira Jaising, (2017) 9 SCC 766, given. Instead of ten marks","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/25\/2022-scc-vol-7-part-3\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/25\/2022-scc-vol-7-part-3\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/25\/2022-scc-vol-7-part-3\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/NEW-SCC.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/NEW-SCC.jpg","width":1330,"height":887,"caption":"SCC Part"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/25\/2022-scc-vol-7-part-3\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"2022 SCC Vol. 7 Part 3"}]},{"@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\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","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\/2022\/05\/NEW-SCC.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":305053,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/17\/bombay-high-court-denied-appointment-arbitrator-dispute-against-msme\/","url_meta":{"origin":272250,"position":0},"title":"Bombay High Court denies appointment of arbitrator for dispute against MSME","author":"Ridhi","date":"October 17, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court held the instant applications under Section 11 of Arbitration Act as non-maintainable and dismissed the said applications.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"bombay high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":295489,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/27\/prohibition-contained-under-s-80-of-arbitration-act-not-applicable-to-msmed-act-allahabad-hc-reiterates\/","url_meta":{"origin":272250,"position":1},"title":"Whether bar contained under S. 80 of Arbitration Act in selection of forum for arbitration applicable to MSMED Act? Allahabad HC answers","author":"Apoorva","date":"June 27, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Allahabad High Court said that the MSMED Act, 2006 is a special law and in view of Section 24 the discretion given to Council for selecting the forum of arbitration between the parties has an overriding effect and therefore, at the stage of selection of forum for arbitration by the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"allahabad high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":277264,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/11\/supreme-court-msmed-act-2006-has-an-overriding-effect-over-the-provisions-of-the-arbitration-act-1996-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":272250,"position":2},"title":"Supreme Court| Existence of arbitration agreement does not bar reference to Facilitation Council; MSMED Act has an overriding effect over the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1996","author":"Editor","date":"November 11, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Supreme Court: The division bench of Uday Umesh Lalit, C.J. and Bela M. Trivedi*, J. has held that the provisions of Chapter-V of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (\u2018 MSMED Act\u2019) have an overriding effect over the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation 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":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-236-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-236-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-236-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-236-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image-236-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":292770,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/22\/calcutta-high-court-appointment-arbitrator-pendency-reference-msme-facilitation-council-contrary-to-msmed-act-scc-blog-legal-research-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":272250,"position":3},"title":"Appointment of Arbitrator during pendency of reference before MSME Facilitation Council is contrary to MSMED Act: Calcutta High Court","author":"Ritu","date":"May 22, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201c\u2026being a special statute the MSMED Act will have an overriding effect vis-\u00e0-vis the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"calcutta high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":318653,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/29\/rajasthan-high-court-entertains-appeal-despite-prima-facie-view-on-non-maintainability-under-msmed-act-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":272250,"position":4},"title":"Rajasthan High Court entertains appeal despite prima facie view on non-maintainability under MSMED Act","author":"Ritu","date":"March 29, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Rajasthan High Court decided to entertain the appeal due to the significant question of the application\u2019s maintainability.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Rajasthan High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":321368,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/04\/del-hc-dismisses-section11-arbitration-petition-due-arbitration-proceedings-under-msme-act-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":272250,"position":5},"title":"Delhi High Court dismisses S. 11 Arbitration petition due to Debit Notes issued after MSMED registration in arbitration proceedings","author":"Arunima","date":"May 4, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"MSMED Act is a beneficial legislation for Micro Small & Medium Enterprises and provides that a buyer can also raise counter claims before the statutory arbitrator under the MSMED Act. Moreover, the scope of the Act as stated therein is to the extent that even if there is an agreement\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\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/272250","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=272250"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/272250\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/267145"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=272250"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=272250"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=272250"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}