Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“A Section 138 proceeding can be said to be a “civil sheep” in a “criminal wolf’s” clothing, as it is the interest of the victim that is sought to be protected, the larger interest of the State being subsumed in the victim alone moving a court in cheque bouncing cases.”
“Undoubtedly, a limited right of appeal is given under section 37 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. But it is not the province or duty of this Court to further limit such right by excluding appeals which are in fact provided for, given the language of the provision.”
Federal Court of Australia: While deciding the instant appeal dealing with interpretational technicalities associated with international arbitration, the Court clarified the principles
Supreme Court: Dealing with the question whether the Parliament was competent to enact the National Highways Act, 1956 and the National Highway
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of AM Khanwilkar*, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ has held that it is not necessary for
Supreme Court analyses whether the right of pre-emption can be enforced for an indefinite number of transactions or it is exercisable only the first time.
Supreme Court: The bench of UU Lait and Indira Banerjee, JJ has explained that Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
Supreme Court: Asking Telecom Operators to make the payment of 10% of the total AGR dues as by 31.3.2021, the 3-judge bench
Supreme Court: The bench of Indira Banjerjee and Indu Malhotra, JJ that the Courts are duty bound to issue a writ of
Supreme court: The 2-judge bench of Indira Banerjee and Indu Malhotra, JJ has held that Section 88 of Maharashtra Regional and Town
Supreme Court: In a major turnaround in the AGR case, with respect to Public Sector Undertakings, the Department of Telecommunication has decided
Supreme Court: Dealing with the questions relating to interpretation of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Tamil Nadu
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, SA Nazeer and MR Shah, JJ has given 5 days to Telecom Service Providers
Supreme Court: The 2-judge bench of AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ has held that for bringing any particular foreign exchange receipt
Supreme Court: The bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi, JJ Section 37 of the Architects Act 1972 does not prohibit
Supreme Court: The bench of Arun Mishra and MR Shah, JJ has dismissed a petition filed by Vodafone against the levy of
Supreme Court: In a landmark ruling the 5-judge bench of Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah, and Ravindra Bhat, JJ
Supreme Court: A 3-judge bench of RF Nariman, Aniruddha Bose and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ has held that enforcement of a foreign award
Supreme Court: Taking a strong note of non-compliance of its order asking telecom companies to pay adjusted gross revenue of Rs 1.47
Supreme Court: Refusing to change the definition of gross revenue as defined in clause 19.1 of the licence agreement granted by the