This case concerns a bail application of the petitioners who were accused of being involved in the Hindu-Muslim riots that took place in North-East Delhi, during the CAA protests. Brief facts of the case This is a bail application filed by...
Arbitration Clause in Contract Does Not Bar the Writ Jurisdiction of High Court Under Article 226:Supreme Court
This case discussed whether the arbitration clause in a contract between the state instrumentality and a private developer bars the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226.
The Offence of Sedition Cannot Be Invoked To Quieten the Disquiet Under the Pretense of Muzzling Miscreants: Delhi High Court
This case concerns a bail application of a person accused of an offence of sedition under Section 124A IPC.
Section 10A of IBC Bars CIRP in Respect of Default Post 25 March 2020, Even if CIRP Application Is Filed Before Section 10A Was...
Excerpt This case concerns whether Section 10A introduced through the amendment can be retrospectively applied. Brief Facts The Appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was invoked to challenge the Decision and Order...
Admitted Signature on Blank Check Attracts Presumption Under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act: Supreme Court
Excerpt This case concerns whether the High Court erred in reversing the findings of the trial Court in exercise of its powers under Section 378 of Cr. P.C. Brief Facts In the instant proceedings, a cheque was issued by the Appellant- M/s....
Commercial Courts May Also Dismiss Appeal Under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration Act to Set Aside an Award: Delhi High Court
Excerpt This case concerns whether the appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration is maintainable against the order refusing to condone the delay in applying Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Brief Facts This appeal was filed by the appellant (Chintels India...
Consumer Fora Cannot Accept Reply or Written Statement to Consumer Complaint After 45 Days: Supreme Court
Excerpt This case concerns the dispute of whether the written statement/reply can be accepted by the consumer fora beyond the stipulated period of 45 days. Brief Facts This appeal was filed against the impugned order dated 04.09.2020 passed by the National Consumer...
Supreme Court Directs Banks & Financial Institutions to Disclose Details of Encumbered and Sold Shares of FHL Held by FHHPL From 2017
This was a contempt petition against the promoters of FHHPL who did not adhere to the orders of the Court to maintain the status quo of the shares of the FHL held by FHHPL. Brief facts of the case A notice...
This case discussed the way the Central Government approached the Supreme Court without taking into consideration the statutory limitation.
This case concerned the dispute relating to the regularization of illegally occupied panchayat land by the villagers in the state of Haryana
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
The government will spend around Rs. 1000 Crore for the new parliament building, right in the center of India’s capital.
In the recent past, our government has come up with three different ordinances related to agriculture which has infuriated the farmers of our nation.
Sony Pictures Networks India Private Limited is looking to hire an Associate with 3-5 years of PQE from Media and Entertainment Industry, preferably with...
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Hereinafter “Act”) lays down the basis for setting aside arbitral awards made in domestic and foreign arbitrations held in India. Though international awards cannot be contested in India, the compliance of such awards in India may be validly challenged by the award debtor on the grounds set out in Section 48 of the Act. The grounds set under both these sections are almost similar, one of the grounds being that the arbitral award is found contrary to the “public policy of India”. The question of the constituent elements of “public policy” have been discussed in a number of cases, however, in a recent case of Vijay Karia & Ors. V. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Srl & Ors, the SC drew attention to this point viz-a-viz foreign award.