Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
‘It was undisputed that the respondents would be entitled to the benefit of Note 1 below Rule 7(4) of Schedule II to the Indian Revenue Service Rules, 2015.’
‘The reasoning given for a fresh inquiry was a mere lip service to the requirement of Rule 9(1) and was delightfully left in the realm of conjecture.’
‘The person at whose instance a Bank Guarantee has been issued by the bank is not a party to it and is merely a benefactor from whose account the payment would be realized.’
“Deletion of party is an issue to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal, it cannot be looked into by the Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act”
“Section 34, quite apart from its classically limited scope, is certainly not intended to be used as a tool for a litigant to desist from participating in the arbitral proceedings, despite being fully aware thereof, and, thereafter, seek a second bite at the arbitral cherry.”
The Delhi High Court said that the scope of interference with arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has now become heavily circumscribed.
“Consequent on introduction of sub-Section 6(A) in Section 11, the Supreme Court has in several decisions held that the jurisdiction of the referral Court is now circumscribed.”
The petitioner’s daughter is a child belonging to DG in the SC category within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (“the RTE Act”) and is, therefore, entitled to free, compulsory and elementary education till its completion under Section 12(c) of the RTE Act.