Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The view of the Full Bench in Kamla Yadav case, that a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under the Act is a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code, does not require reconsideration.
The Court, not doubting the bona fides of the District Judge, maintained the legal position of Section 5 stating that revision order was a defective one without condoning the delay. There may be instances where the interest of justice may demand Court’s interference to avoid frustration of proceedings due to technicalities, however, in the present instance nothing restrained the District Judge from deciding Section 5 application.
Madras High Court: The full bench of P.N. Prakash, Teekaa Raman and A.D Jagadish Chandira, JJ. held that the jurisdiction
Madras High Court: In an application filed by Viacom 18 praying for restraining several cable and internet service providers involved
Delhi High Court: In a case where application was filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 31(7) and Ss. 17, 21, 23(3), 24(1), 25, 26, 29 and 85(2)(a) —
Supreme Court: Principal question before the Division Bench of Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar*, JJ., for contemplation was whether the
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Indira Banerjee* and A.S. Bopanna, JJ., contemplated the scope of Section 9 of Arbitration
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of M.R. Shah* and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., explained the legal propositions governing Order 6 Rule
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Dinesh Maheshwari* and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., held that in cases disclosing deliberate defiance and elective non-performance
Madhya Pradesh High Court: G.S. Ahluwalia, J. dismissed a petition which was filed against the order passed by Twelfth Civil
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Dwarka Dhish Bansal, J., while dismissing a second appeal held that in presence of prior execution
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: While deciding the instant appeal wherein substantial questions of law were raised vis-a-vis SectionS 80,
by Soumyaa Sharma†
Calcutta High Court: Shekhar B. Saraf, J. upheld the award granted by the Arbitral Tribunal holding that the award holder
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Dwarka Dhish Bansal, J. allowed a civil revision under Section 115 of CPC against the order rejecting application
Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising of Ajay Rastogi* and Abhay S. Oka, JJ., held that a modification changing tariff for inadvertent
Meghalaya High Court: H.S. Thangkhiew, J. while hearing a revision application allowed the same and directed the lower court to deal with
Supreme Court: While clarifying the law on leave to defend, the Division Bench of Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari*, JJ., held that