
2022 SCC Vol. 10 Part 2
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 14(1)(a) and 2(1)(e) r/w Ss. 11(5) and 11(6) — Application seeking termination of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 14(1)(a) and 2(1)(e) r/w Ss. 11(5) and 11(6) — Application seeking termination of
by Sucheta Sarkar†
Income Tax Act, 1961 — Ss. 260-A, 269 and 120 — Appropriate High Court for filing appeal or reference against
Karnataka High Court: While deciding the instant appeal for restoration assailing the order passed by the Trial Court wherein the
Madras High Court: In a petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to quash the criminal complaint filed
Supreme Court: In the case where the Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the offence under Section 138 of the
National Company Law Tribunal, Allahabad (NCLT): The bench of Rajasekhar V.K., Judicial Member and Virendra Kumar Gupta, Technical Member decided that for
Delhi High Court: Asha Menon, J. refused to allow a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of summoning order passed
Unmissable Stories Sedition Law under scanner| All pending cases to be kept in abeyance; Centre/States urged not to register fresh cases till
Madras High Court: Teekaa Raman, J., observed that there is no mandatory provision under the Negotiable Instruments Act that both the signature
Karnataka High Court: M. Nagaprasanna, J. allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order regarding attachment of property and auction notification. The
Delhi High Court: Rajnish Bhatnagar, J., dismissed a matter revolving around the dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
In compliance with the Supreme Court’s decision dated 16-4-2021, passed in (2021) 10 SCC 598 “In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under
Dwarka Court, New Delhi: Shipra Dhankar, MM (NI Act) on noting that the dishonour of cheque occurred in consequence of an illegal
Telangana High Court: Shameem Akhter J. allowed criminal petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner/A.2 on the ground that it is
The bench of Ashok Bhushan* and KM Joseph, JJ, in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418, lucidly summarized the following principles relating to the
Allahabad High Court: Sameer Jain, J., decided that whether for summoning an accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, recording
Allahabad High Court: Vivek Varma, J., refused to quash a complaint case filed under Section 138 NI Act and directed the trial