Author name: G.R. Hari

Supreme Court Appoints Arbitrator in Dispute Over Assigned Contracts: Lifeforce Cryobank vs. Cryoviva Biotech (2024)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 11, Assignment of Contracts, Contract Law, Contract Law with Privity of Contract

Supreme Court Appoints Arbitrator in Dispute Over Assigned Contracts: Lifeforce Cryobank vs. Cryoviva Biotech (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitration agreement can be assigned along with the main contract, even without explicit consent from all parties. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Lifeforce Cryobank Sciences Inc. vs. Cryoviva Biotech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [Judgment Date]: […]

Supreme Court Appoints Arbitrator in Dispute Over Assigned Contracts: Lifeforce Cryobank vs. Cryoviva Biotech (2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Profit Sharing After Dissolution of Partnership: Crystal Transport vs. Fathima Fareedunisa (2024)

/ Dissolution of Partnership, Indian Partnership Act, 1932, Indian Partnership Act, 1932 with Section 37, Indian Partnership Act, 1932 with Section 48

Supreme Court Clarifies Profit Sharing After Dissolution of Partnership: Crystal Transport vs. Fathima Fareedunisa (2024) Date of the Judgment: November 8, 2024 Citation: 2024 INSC 859 Judges: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJI., J.B. Pardiwala, J., Manoj Misra, J. Can a partner claim a share of profits from a company that continues to use the partnership’s assets

Supreme Court Clarifies Profit Sharing After Dissolution of Partnership: Crystal Transport vs. Fathima Fareedunisa (2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court Mandates Mandatory Accessibility Rules for Persons with Disabilities: Rajive Raturi vs. Union of India (2024) INSC 858 (8 November 2024)

/ Accessibility Standards, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Fundamental Rights, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with Section 40, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 with Section 44

Supreme Court Mandates Mandatory Accessibility Rules for Persons with Disabilities Date of the Judgment: 8 November 2024 Citation: 2024 INSC 858 Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, J. B. Pardiwala, J, Manoj Misra, J Can guidelines alone ensure accessibility for persons with disabilities, or are mandatory rules necessary? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed

Supreme Court Mandates Mandatory Accessibility Rules for Persons with Disabilities: Rajive Raturi vs. Union of India (2024) INSC 858 (8 November 2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Minority Educational Institution Criteria in Landmark Judgment: Aligarh Muslim University Case (2024)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 30, Education Law, Education Law with Societies Registration Act 1860, Fundamental Rights, Minority Educational Institutions

Supreme Court Clarifies Minority Educational Institution Criteria in Landmark Judgment: Aligarh Muslim University Case (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Criteria for determining minority educational institution status under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Education Law. Case Name: Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 8 November 2024 Introduction Date of the

Supreme Court Clarifies Minority Educational Institution Criteria in Landmark Judgment: Aligarh Muslim University Case (2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 11 of the Arbitration Act in Goqii Technologies vs. Sokrati Technologies (2024)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 8, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 11 of the Arbitration Act in Goqii Technologies vs. Sokrati Technologies (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Scope of interference by a referral court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law. Case Name: Goqii Technologies Private Limited vs. Sokrati Technologies Private Limited Judgment Date:

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 11 of the Arbitration Act in Goqii Technologies vs. Sokrati Technologies (2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the limited scope of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in Goqii Technologies vs. Sokrati Technologies (2024)

/ Appointment of Arbitrator, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 8, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Scope of Judicial Interference

Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 11 of Arbitration Act in Goqii Technologies vs. Sokrati Technologies (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Scope of interference by a referral court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Goqii Technologies Private Limited vs. Sokrati Technologies Private Limited Judgment Date: 7th November

Supreme Court clarifies the limited scope of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in Goqii Technologies vs. Sokrati Technologies (2024) Read Post »

Royalty Calculation on Minerals: Supreme Court Examines Compounding Effect in Kirloskar Ferrous Industries vs. Union of India (2024)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Mineral Concession Rules, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 with Section 9

Supreme Court Addresses Royalty Calculation in Mining: Kirloskar Ferrous Industries vs. Union of India (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the method of calculating royalty on minerals, which includes previous royalty payments in the base calculation, is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. CASE TYPE: Mining Law, Mineral Concession Case Name: Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Limited

Royalty Calculation on Minerals: Supreme Court Examines Compounding Effect in Kirloskar Ferrous Industries vs. Union of India (2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Aside Quashing of POCSO FIR Based on Compromise: Ramji Lal Bairwa vs. State of Rajasthan (2024)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 372, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 136, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 354A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 509, Offences Against Women, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 with Section 7, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 with Section 8, Sexual Assault

Supreme Court Sets Aside Quashing of POCSO FIR Based on Compromise: Ramji Lal Bairwa vs. State of Rajasthan (2024) Date of the Judgment: November 7, 2024 Citation: 2024 INSC 846 Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J. and Sanjay Kumar, J. Can a criminal case involving sexual assault on a minor be quashed based on a compromise between

Supreme Court Sets Aside Quashing of POCSO FIR Based on Compromise: Ramji Lal Bairwa vs. State of Rajasthan (2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Liquidation of Jet Airways, Rejects PBG Adjustment in Insolvency Case (7 November 2024)

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 30(2)(a), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 33(3)

Supreme Court Orders Liquidation of Jet Airways, Rejects PBG Adjustment LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) can be adjusted against the first tranche payment in a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. CASE TYPE: Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) Case Name: State Bank of India & Ors. vs. The

Supreme Court Orders Liquidation of Jet Airways, Rejects PBG Adjustment in Insolvency Case (7 November 2024) Read Post »

Seat of Arbitration: Supreme Court Defines the Scope in Cross-Border Disputes (2024) INSC 850 (7 November 2024)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 2(2), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 20

Supreme Court Clarifies the Seat of Arbitration in International Disputes Date of the Judgment: 7 November 2024 Citation: 2024 INSC 850 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI, J.B. Pardiwala, J., Manoj Misra, J. When parties from different countries agree to resolve disputes through arbitration, where should that arbitration take place? The Supreme Court of India

Seat of Arbitration: Supreme Court Defines the Scope in Cross-Border Disputes (2024) INSC 850 (7 November 2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court Addresses Compensation for Vacant Medical Seats Due to Interim Orders: Ramkrishna Medical College vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024)

/ Civil Procedure Law, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Interim Orders, Judicial Review, Restitution

Supreme Court Addresses Compensation for Vacant Medical Seats Due to Interim Orders: Ramkrishna Medical College vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024) Date of the Judgment: 7th November 2024 Citation: 2024 INSC 845 Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and K.V. Viswanathan, J. Can interim court orders, intended to protect individual student interests, inadvertently harm educational institutions? The

Supreme Court Addresses Compensation for Vacant Medical Seats Due to Interim Orders: Ramkrishna Medical College vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Arbitration Despite Limitation Concerns in Shareholder Dispute

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 43, International Commercial Arbitration, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 22

Supreme Court Directs Arbitration Despite Limitation Concerns in Shareholder Dispute LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Supreme Court should refer a dispute to arbitration when there are concerns that the substantive claims might be time-barred. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: Aslam Ismail Khan Deshmukh vs. ASAP Fluids Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. [Judgment Date]: 7th November 2024 Date

Supreme Court Directs Arbitration Despite Limitation Concerns in Shareholder Dispute Read Post »

Scroll to Top