Contract Act, 1872

Supreme Court Upholds NCLT Jurisdiction in Contractual Disputes Arising from Insolvency: Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited vs. Amit Gupta & Ors. (2021) INSC 123

/ Alteration of Contracts, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Electricity Act, 2003, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 86, Formation of Contracts, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 14, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 60(5), Judges, M. R. Shah, Novation of Contracts, Tariff Regulation

Supreme Court Upholds NCLT Jurisdiction in Contractual Disputes Arising from Insolvency: Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited vs. Amit Gupta & Ors. (2021) INSC 123 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has jurisdiction over contractual disputes arising from insolvency proceedings and the validity of ipso facto clauses in Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs). CASE […]

Supreme Court Upholds NCLT Jurisdiction in Contractual Disputes Arising from Insolvency: Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited vs. Amit Gupta & Ors. (2021) INSC 123 Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies bank’s duty of care for locker management: Amitabha Dasgupta vs. United Bank of India (2021)

/ Bailment, Banking Regulation Act, 1949, Banking Regulation Act, 1949 with Sections 45ZC to 45ZF, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 148, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 149, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court clarifies bank’s duty of care for locker management: Amitabha Dasgupta vs. United Bank of India (2021) Date of the Judgment: 19 February 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 79 Judges: Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Justice Vineet Saran Can a bank be held responsible for the loss of valuables from a locker, even if they claim

Supreme Court clarifies bank’s duty of care for locker management: Amitabha Dasgupta vs. United Bank of India (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Enforceability of Arbitration Agreements in Unstamped Contracts: NN Global Mercantile vs. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. (2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 16, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 8, Contract Act, 1872, Contract Act, 1872 with Section 17, Contract Act, 1872 with Section 7, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 with Section 33, Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 with Section 34

Supreme Court Clarifies Enforceability of Arbitration Agreements in Unstamped Contracts: NN Global Mercantile vs. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. (2021) Date of the Judgment: January 11, 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 19 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J., Indu Malhotra, J., and Indira Banerjee, J. (authored by Indu Malhotra, J.) Can an arbitration agreement within an unstamped

Supreme Court Clarifies Enforceability of Arbitration Agreements in Unstamped Contracts: NN Global Mercantile vs. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies “Owner” Definition in Motor Vehicle Insurance Claims: Surendra Kumar Bhilawe vs. New India Assurance Company Limited (2020)

/ Contract Act, 1872, Contract Act, 1872 with Section 10, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Section 157, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Section 2(30), Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Section 50, R. Banumathi, Sale of Goods Act, 1930, Sale of Goods Act, 1930 with Section 19, Sale of Goods Act, 1930 with Section 20

Supreme Court Clarifies “Owner” Definition in Motor Vehicle Insurance Claims: Surendra Kumar Bhilawe vs. New India Assurance Company Limited (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of “owner” under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in the context of insurance claims. CASE TYPE: Motor Vehicle Insurance/Consumer Dispute Case Name: Surendra Kumar Bhilawe vs. The New India

Supreme Court Clarifies “Owner” Definition in Motor Vehicle Insurance Claims: Surendra Kumar Bhilawe vs. New India Assurance Company Limited (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Mandates Pension for SBI Employees with 15 Years Service Under VRS 2000 Scheme: Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Radhey Shyam Pandey (2 March 2020)

/ Arun Mishra, B.R. Gavai, Breach of contract, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Contract Act, 1872, Contract Act, 1872 with Section 19, Contract Act, 1872 with Section 23, Fundamental Rights, Judges, M.R. Shah

Date of the Judgment: 2 March 2020 Citation: Where available, provide the case citation in the Indian Supreme Court (INSC) format. Judges: Justice Arun Mishra, Justice M.R. Shah, and Justice B.R. Gavai Can a public sector bank deny pension benefits to employees who opted for voluntary retirement after completing 15 years of service, as per

Supreme Court Mandates Pension for SBI Employees with 15 Years Service Under VRS 2000 Scheme: Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Radhey Shyam Pandey (2 March 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 11 of the Arbitration Act on Limitation: Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. vs. Northern Coal Field Ltd. (27 November 2019)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 16, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 21, Contract Act, 1872, Contract Act, 1872 with Section 7, Indu Malhotra, Judges

Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 11 of the Arbitration Act on Limitation: Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. vs. Northern Coal Field Ltd. (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in rejecting an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on the grounds that it was barred by

Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 11 of the Arbitration Act on Limitation: Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. vs. Northern Coal Field Ltd. (27 November 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies hotel liability for valet parking theft in consumer cases: Taj Mahal Hotel vs. United India Insurance (2019)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Bailment, Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Consumer Law, Deficiency in Service, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 148, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 151, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

Supreme Court Clarifies Hotel Liability for Valet Parking Theft: Taj Mahal Hotel vs. United India Insurance (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Determining the extent of liability of hotels for theft of vehicles under valet parking. CASE TYPE: Consumer Law Case Name: Taj Mahal Hotel vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 14 November 2019

Supreme Court clarifies hotel liability for valet parking theft in consumer cases: Taj Mahal Hotel vs. United India Insurance (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Clause 59 in construction contracts: K. Marappan vs. The Superintending Engineer (27 March 2019)

/ Arbitration Act, 1940, Arbitration Act, 1940 with Section 15, Arbitration Act, 1940 with Section 30, Arbitration Act, 1940 with Section 33, Construction Contracts, Contract Act, 1872, Contract Act, 1872 with Section 70, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Ranjan Gogoi, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Date of the Judgment: 27 March 2019 Citation: 2019 INSC 263 Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, CJI, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., K.M. Joseph, J. Can a contractor claim compensation for additional expenses incurred due to unforeseen circumstances during a project, even if the contract has a clause limiting such claims? The Supreme Court of India addressed this

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Clause 59 in construction contracts: K. Marappan vs. The Superintending Engineer (27 March 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Pay Scale for Officiating Employees: State of Punjab vs. Dharam Pal (2017)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Contract Act, 1872, Contract Act, 1872 with Section 23, D.Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Judges, Pay Scale, Punjab Civil Services Rules, Service Law, Service Law with Rule 4.13

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an employee is entitled to the pay scale of a higher post when they are officiating in that post, despite conditions in the appointment order stating otherwise. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: The State of Punjab & Another vs. Dharam Pal [Judgment Date]: September 5, 2017 Date of the Judgment: September

Supreme Court Upholds Pay Scale for Officiating Employees: State of Punjab vs. Dharam Pal (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Demurrage Liability for Port Authorities: Rasiklal Kantilal vs. Board of Trustee (2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Bailment, Customs Act, 1962, Customs Act, 1962 with Section 29, Customs Act, 1962 with Section 7, Customs Port, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 148, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 158, J. Chelameswar, Judges, Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 with Section 48, Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 with Section 59, Port Authority

LEGAL ISSUE: Determining liability for demurrage charges at ports. CASE TYPE: Civil Law, Port Trust Case Name: M/S. RASIKLAL KANTILAL & CO. vs. BOARD OF TRUSTEE OF PORT OF BOMBAY & OTHERS Judgment Date: 28 February 2017 Date of the Judgment: 28 February 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 147 Judges: J. Chelameswar, J. Abhay Manohar Sapre

Supreme Court Clarifies Demurrage Liability for Port Authorities: Rasiklal Kantilal vs. Board of Trustee (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court holds Periyar & Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. liable for sales tax dues as an agent of its lessee: Periyar & Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. vs. State of Kerala (2008)

/ Agency Law, Contract Law, Harjit Singh Bedi, Judges, Kerala General Sales Tax Act, Kerala General Sales Tax Act with Section 19C, Lease Agreement, Registered Dealer, S.B. Sinha

Date of the Judgment: March 7, 2008 Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 1804-1807 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 18346 – 18349 of 2004) Judges: S.B. Sinha, J., Harjit Singh Bedi, J. Can a lessor be held responsible for the sales tax dues of its lessee if the lessee defaults? The Supreme Court of

Supreme Court holds Periyar & Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. liable for sales tax dues as an agent of its lessee: Periyar & Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. vs. State of Kerala (2008) Read Post »

Scroll to Top