Owner & Director
Part-Time Educator
Part-Time Educator & Advocate
In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court, presided by Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, emphasized that the determination of whether arbitration claims are time-barred should ideally be left to the arbitral tribunal. This was highlighted in the case where Capri Global Capital Limited (Petitioner) filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to resolve disputes with Ms Kiran (Respondent) arising from a Facility Agreement.
In a pivotal judgment, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed the principle of judicial non-interference in arbitral proceedings, which remains fundamental not only in domestic arbitration but also in international commercial arbitration. The court highlighted that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, operates as a self-contained code, governing arbitration in India while minimizing judicial intervention. This decision is significant as it emphasizes party autonomy and arbitration's efficiency in resolving disputes
There have been many controversies regarding the procedure adopted by various high courts and the supreme court of India for senior designation. Indira Jaising Senior Advocate fights yet another battle for reforms.
On May 10, the Supreme Court granted interim release to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal until June 1. Kejriwal had been in judicial custody related to the Delhi liquor policy case, with the court noting the long gap between the case's registration in August 2022 and his arrest in March 2024. Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta issued the decision, considering the uniqueness of the case involving an elected Chief Minister and the timing of the arrest with respect to the upcoming Lok Sabha elections.
The Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) has postponed accrediting India’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) for the second consecutive year, impacting India's voting rights at the Human Rights Council and certain UNGA bodies. This decision, made on May 1,2024 cites issues such as opaque member appointments, police involvement in investigations, and inadequate representation of gender and minority groups, reflecting concerns about the NHRC's lack of diversity and pluralism. NHRC officials noted that implementing GANHRI's suggested structural changes was challenging during ongoing elections, with a review expected later this year.
In a significant judgement delivered on March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court of India addressed the complex issue of whether Members of Parliament (MPs) enjoy immunity under Article 105(2) of the Constitution of India, which provides immunity to all members of Parliament from any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by them in Parliament or any committee thereof from prosecution for bribery.
The recent judgment by the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma, clarifies the interplay between the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (MSCS Act) and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). The court harmoniously construed the aforesaid statutes and held that while the Central Registrar has exclusive authority to appoint an arbitrator under Section 84 of the MSCS Act, other procedural requirements of the Arbitration Act cannot be negated. Thus, requirements such as the mandate of sending a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act remain applicable.
The recent decision by the Madhya Pradesh High Court to refuse protection to an interfaith couple—a Muslim man and a Hindu woman—seeking to register their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, has sparked considerable debate.
In this case, the petitioners approached the High Court, seeking protection and permission to marry under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. They contended that the Act overrides personal laws, making their marriage valid without the need for religious conversion or other rituals. The respondents argued that the marriage was invalid under Islamic traditions and, hence, could not be recognized. Moreover, the respondents stated that the Special Marriage Act, 1954, cannot override Islamic traditions.
In a recent landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India overturned the Madras High Court’s order granting bail to members of the Popular Front of India (PFI), who were accused of conspiring to commit terrorist acts, raising funds for terrorist activities, and recruiting members to further their extremist ideology. The Division Bench, consisting of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, concluded that the High Court had grossly erred in its assessment of the evidence and legal provisions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The Bar Council of India (BCI) has taken a proactive stance in addressing the apprehensions raised by various bar associations regarding the recently introduced criminal laws. These new laws have sparked considerable debate and concern within the legal community. In response, the BCI has decided to engage directly with the Union Government to convey these concerns and seek clarifications or amendments where necessary
The current arbitration landscape in India lacks a statutory limitation period for parties to apply to courts for the appointment of an arbitrator. This gap has led to significant delays and inefficiencies, often defeating the very purpose of arbitration as a swift and effective dispute resolution mechanism.
The Rajasthan High Court recently delivered a noteworthy judgment in the case of Mahaveer Prasad Suman vs. Lalit Mohan Sharma, focusing on the implications of typographical errors in legal documents within the context of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act).
In a pivotal corporate development, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has officially sanctioned the delisting of ICICI Securities' shares. This decision comes as a strategic maneuver by the parent company, ICICI Bank, which seeks to consolidate its holdings and potentially streamline its operations. The approval, however, has had immediate effects on the market, with ICICI Securities witnessing a substantial dip in its stock value.
In the landmark case of Chief Engineer vs. BSC&C, the Supreme Court of India addressed the critical issue of time limitations under Section 29-A of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. This section mandates the timeline for completing arbitral awards, which must typically be within 12 months of the tribunal's constitution, with a possible six-month extension by mutual consent. Beyond this period, any further extension requires judicial intervention.
The Gauhati High Court recently tackled the intricate question of whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution can be maintained in the presence of an arbitration agreement. The court reaffirmed the principle that arbitration is a preferred mode of dispute resolution in contractual matters, as it offers specialized and efficient adjudication. However, the court also recognized exceptions, particularly where there are public law elements involved or the issue affects public policy
A bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Abhay S. Oka sentenced a father to 6 months in prison and a fine of Rs.25 lacs holding him in contempt of orders of the apex court.
On July 1, 2024, India witnessed a pivotal change in its criminal justice system with the introduction of the *Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which replaced the **Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)*. The transition has created considerable legal debates and confusion across the judiciary regarding which code governs ongoing and newly instituted cases, leading to a series of conflicting rulings by various High Courts across the country.
In a recent judgment, the Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court presided over by Justice Rajnesh Oswal, quashed an FIR registered under Section 336/304-A IPC against Vinod Kumar. The case revolved around an application filed by Somi Devi under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., leading to the registration of FIR No. 11 of 2023 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishtwar.
In a landmark judgment, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court has ruled that interim compensation under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) cannot be granted unless the accused pleads guilty to the accusation. This ruling provides crucial clarity on the handling of interim compensations in cheque bounce cases.
The rules made it mandatory to have a live employment exchange registration for the candidates to be selected for in the MP Constable Recruitment Test 2019. The candidature of the petitiioners/appellants was cancelled for the same reason even though they qualified the written and phyical tests. A division bench comprising of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice DD Bansal of MPHC held that "the condition of possession with every candidate of live employment exchange registration card cannot be treated as a mandatory condition, non-compliance of which may lead to cancellation of candidature."
In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court tackled jurisdictional challenges in enforcing arbitration agreements in the case Ambrish H. Soni v. Chetan Narendra Dhakan (2024 BHC OS 10501). This decision sheds light on the interaction between contractual terms and jurisdictional claims in arbitration disputes.
The Supreme Court of India's decision in the case of Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Private Limited v. Samir Narain Bhojwani (2024 INSC 478) delves into the intricacies of appellate powers under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This pivotal judgment addressed whether an appellate court could remand a case to a lower court in arbitration matters.
On 02.09.2024, notices were issued in Writ Petition No. 25911 of 2024 (PIL), returnable on 03.09.2024, by a bench comprising Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Shri Sanjeev Sachdeva and Hon'ble Justice Shri Vinay Saraf. The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was collectively filed by Jabalpur Sikh Sangat and Shri Guru Singh Sabha, Indore, before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur.
Jabalpur, September 3, 2024: In a significant development, the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, has disposed of Writ Petition No. 25911 of 2024 (PIL), filed by Jabalpur Sikh Sangat and Shri Guru Singh Sabha, Indore, challenging the certification of the movie Emergency. The petition contended that the film portrays Sikhs in a negative light, associating them with the Khalistan movement and depicting them as violent separatists.
In a landmark judgment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M/s Kalpana Constructions v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others (Writ Petition No. 17224 of 2022) addressed the issue of delayed payments for public works contractors and clarified the application of Article 226 of the Indian Constitution in cases of recovery of dues where facts are undisputed. The case, expertly argued by Shri Narinderpal Singh Ruprah, Senior Partner at Ruprah Legal Chambers, stands as a critical precedent for contractors working on government projects and highlights the judiciary’s commitment to delivering prompt justice in cases where state authorities unjustly withhold payments.