Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Delhi High Court was of the view that it would be within its right to dismiss the petition at the threshold if the petition is not maintainable, otherwise an unacceptable position of law would arise where despite a petition being not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction would need to be entertained.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 11, 8 and 16 — Arbitrability — Accord and Satisfaction — Plea of claims being
All that the respondent wished for was a better roof over the head of his family. It was for this objective that the collaboration agreement was devised, but the appellant subjected the respondent to undue harassment on account of his illegal designs which led to the registration of the FIR, and the respondent had to run from pillar to post due to the direct acts of the appellant. Such circumstances do warrant awarding of damages on account of mental agony and harassment.
The Court observed that the Tribunal after holding that there was a fundamental breach of contract, factored in the contributory delay caused by the appellant and fairly awarded ‘Loss of Profit’ by slashing it to 50% of the original claim put forth by the appellant.
by Kartikey Mahajan, Siddhant Sharma and Jatan Rodrigues
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 87
by Manavendra Mishra† and Alok Vajpeyi††
Supreme Court: In an appeal against the judgment passed by Telangana High Court, wherein the High Court dismissed the application
Supreme Court: The division bench of Uday Umesh Lalit, C.J. and Bela M. Trivedi*, J. has held that the provisions
by Swarnendu Chatterjee† and Dhriti Bole††
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 58
Telangana High Court: The Division Bench of P. Naveen Rao and Sambasivarao Naidu, JJ. allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned
Supreme Court: Holding that an award passed by Emergency Arbitrator is enforceable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a Division Bench
by Lakshmi Subramaniam Iyer* and Aishwarya Dash**
“Detailed arguments on whether an agreement which contains an arbitration clause has or has not been novated cannot possibly be decided in exercise of a limited prima facie review as to whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties.”
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of RF Nariman, BR Gavai and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ has held that given the object of speedy
Kerala High Court: The Division Bench of C. T. Ravikumar and K. Haripal, JJ., partly allowed the instant petition filed under Section
Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bakhru, J. held that an order of the arbitrators terminating the arbitral proceedings under Section 32(2)(c) of the
Allahabad High Court: In a case revolving around the appointment of the arbitrator, Sangeeta Chandra, J., disposed of the application in respondent’s