Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Applying the ‘eye of the needle’ test, the Court has no hesitation in observing that the prima facie scrutiny of the facts of the present case, leads to a clear conclusion that there is not even a vestige of doubt that the claim is non-arbitrable.”

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“When no opportunity is given to deal with an argument which goes to the root of the case based on evidence which go behind the back of the party and results in a denial of justice to the prejudice of the party, the same would amount to violation of principle of natural justice.”

telangana high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The expression ‘public policy’ is of wider amplitude and hence, where award passed by arbitral tribunal is against the terms of contract or against law of land for time being in force, such an award is against public policy of India and is liable to be set aside under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.”

madras high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“If the plea of the petitioners is accepted, it would amount to opening a Pandora box and several other similarly candidates would start knocking at the doors of this Court with the similar demand and in that case, recruitment will turn out to be a never-ending process as the examination is scheduled on 19-08-2023.”

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

India has long hoped to become an arbitration hub and providing time bound mechanisms for resolving disputes will certainly be a feather in the cap. Introducing Section 29A by way of amendment is therefore intentioned to ensure that the disputes in arbitration are adjudicated in a time-bound manner.

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court observed that in the present case, the natural resource viz. natural gas was neither ‘bought’ nor ‘sold’ as between Reliance and the Ministry; thus, the public trust doctrine was not contravened.

article 142 of indian constitution
Case BriefsSupreme CourtSupreme Court (Constitution/Larger Benches)

Given the expansive amplitude of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution, the exercise of power must be legitimate, and clamours for caution, mindful of the danger that arises from adopting an individualistic approach as to the exercise of the Constitutional power, observed the Supreme Court