Contract Law

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of “sum” under Section 31(7) of the Arbitration Act: Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (2022)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Proceedings, B.R. Gavai, Breach of contract, Concession Agreement, Contract Law, Contractual Agreements, Interest in Arbitration, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Section 31, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Supreme Court Clarifies Interest Calculation Under Section 31(7) of the Arbitration Act: Delhi Airport Metro vs. Delhi Metro Rail (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the “sum” awarded under Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 includes interest pendente lite. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited vs. Delhi Metro […]

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of “sum” under Section 31(7) of the Arbitration Act: Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Tribunal’s Decision on Bank Guarantee Invocation in FM Radio License Dispute: Union of India vs. Millenium Delhi Broadcast LLP (2 May 2022)

/ B. R. Gavai, Bank Guarantee, Contract Law, Contract Law with Specific Clauses, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Performance Guarantee, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 with Section 14A(1)

Supreme Court Upholds Tribunal’s Decision on Bank Guarantee Invocation in FM Radio License Dispute Date of the Judgment: May 2, 2022 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., B. R. Gavai, J. Can a bank guarantee be invoked if the conditions for its invocation are not met? The Supreme Court addressed this

Supreme Court Upholds Tribunal’s Decision on Bank Guarantee Invocation in FM Radio License Dispute: Union of India vs. Millenium Delhi Broadcast LLP (2 May 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of marine insurance policies in fire loss claims: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Levi Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2 May 2022)

/ Contract Interpretation, Fire Insurance, General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972, General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972 with Section 25, Insurance Law, Judges, Marine Insurance, Marine Insurance Act, 1963, Marine Insurance Act, 1963 with Section 2(d), Marine Insurance Act, 1963 with Section 2(e), Marine Insurance Act, 1963 with Section 3, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, S. Ravindra Bhat, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of marine insurance policies in fire loss claims: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Levi Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of “marine policy” and its interplay with standard fire and special perils policies. CASE TYPE: Insurance Law. Case Name: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Levi Strauss

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of marine insurance policies in fire loss claims: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Levi Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2 May 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies auction sale obligations in Rajasthan Financial Corporation vs. Jain Bandhu Sneh Resorts (27 April 2022)

/ Auction Law, B.R. Gavai, Civil Law, Contract Law, Default, Financial Corporation, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao

Rajasthan Financial Corporation vs. Jain Bandhu Sneh Resorts: Supreme Court on Auction Sales LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a sale in auction can be set aside solely on the ground of price escalation. CASE TYPE: Civil, Contract Law, Auction Law Case Name: Rajasthan Financial Corporation vs. M/s Jain Bandhu Sneh Resorts Private Limited Judgment Date: 27 April

Supreme Court clarifies auction sale obligations in Rajasthan Financial Corporation vs. Jain Bandhu Sneh Resorts (27 April 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell, Orders Additional Payment: Satnam Singh vs. Satnam Singh (2022)

/ Agreement to Sell, Ajay Rastogi, Bela M. Trivedi, Contract Law, Judges, Specific Performance of Contract, Specific Relief Act, 1963

Supreme Court Upholds Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell, Orders Additional Payment: Satnam Singh vs. Satnam Singh (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell should be upheld, and what considerations should be made regarding the payment of the sale consideration when there is a significant time lapse between

Supreme Court Upholds Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell, Orders Additional Payment: Satnam Singh vs. Satnam Singh (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the definition of “Despatch” in Export Credit Insurance: Haris Marine Products vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (25 April 2022)

/ Contract Law, Contract Law with Standard Form Contract, Export Credit Insurance, Insurance Law, Insurance Law with Contra Proferentem, Interpretation of Contracts, Judges, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, S. Ravindra Bhat, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies “Despatch” Date in Export Insurance: Haris Marine Products vs. ECGC (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of “despatch/shipment” date in export credit insurance policy. CASE TYPE: Consumer Law/Insurance Law Case Name: Haris Marine Products vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (ECGC) Limited Judgment Date: 25 April 2022 Date of the Judgment: 25 April 2022 Citation:

Supreme Court settles the definition of “Despatch” in Export Credit Insurance: Haris Marine Products vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (25 April 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds State’s Decision to Cancel Fair Price Shop Vacancies: State of West Bengal vs. Gitashree Dutta (2022)

/ Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Estoppel, Judges, Legitimate Expectation, National Food Security Act, 2013, National Food Security Act, 2013 with Section 12, S. Abdul Nazeer, Targeted Public Distribution System, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Upholds State’s Decision to Cancel Fair Price Shop Vacancies: State of West Bengal vs. Gitashree Dutta (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the State of West Bengal was justified in cancelling the declaration of Fair Price Shop (FPS) vacancies due to the implementation of the National Food Security Act, 2013. CASE TYPE: Civil Appeal (Public

Supreme Court Upholds State’s Decision to Cancel Fair Price Shop Vacancies: State of West Bengal vs. Gitashree Dutta (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell: P. Ramasubbamma vs. V. Vijayalakshmi & Ors. (2022)

/ Agreement to Sell, B.V. Nagarathna, Judges, M.R. Shah, Specific Performance of Contract, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 20

Supreme Court Upholds Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell: P. Ramasubbamma vs. V. Vijayalakshmi & Ors. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell can be granted when a subsequent sale deed has been executed, and whether it is necessary to seek cancellation of the subsequent sale deed in

Supreme Court Upholds Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell: P. Ramasubbamma vs. V. Vijayalakshmi & Ors. (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Contractor’s Claim: No Abandonment of Contract in Shripati Lakhu Mane vs. Maharashtra Water Supply Board (2022)

/ Breach of contract, Contract Law, Contract Law with Section 67, Hemant Gupta, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Judges, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Upholds Contractor’s Claim: No Abandonment of Contract in Shripati Lakhu Mane vs. Maharashtra Water Supply Board (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a contractor’s refusal to continue work due to material alterations in the original contract terms constitutes abandonment of contract. CASE TYPE: Civil Contract Law Case Name: Shripati Lakhu Mane vs. The Member Secretary,

Supreme Court Upholds Contractor’s Claim: No Abandonment of Contract in Shripati Lakhu Mane vs. Maharashtra Water Supply Board (2022) Read Post »

MSME Act Jurisdiction Clarified: Supreme Court Rules on Foreign Buyers in Vaishno Enterprises vs. Hamilton Medical AG (24 March 2022)

/ Arbitration Clause, B. V. Nagarathna, Contract Law, Judges, Jurisdiction, M. R. Shah, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 with Section 18, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 with Section 2(n)

Supreme Court clarifies MSME Act applicability to foreign buyers: Vaishno Enterprises vs. Hamilton Medical AG (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act) to disputes where the buyer is a foreign entity. CASE TYPE: Commercial Dispute Resolution. Case Name: M/s. Vaishno Enterprises vs. Hamilton Medical AG &

MSME Act Jurisdiction Clarified: Supreme Court Rules on Foreign Buyers in Vaishno Enterprises vs. Hamilton Medical AG (24 March 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Road Project Completion, Emphasizes Minimal Interference in Tenders: N.G. Projects vs. Vinod Kumar Jain (21 March 2022)

/ Contract Law, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Judicial Review in Contract Matters, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 41(ha), Tender Process, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Allows Road Project Completion, Emphasizes Minimal Interference in Tenders: N.G. Projects vs. Vinod Kumar Jain (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can interfere with a tender process and halt an infrastructure project based on minor deviations in bid documents. CASE TYPE: Contract Law, Infrastructure Development, Tender Process. Case Name: M/S. N.G. Projects

Supreme Court Allows Road Project Completion, Emphasizes Minimal Interference in Tenders: N.G. Projects vs. Vinod Kumar Jain (21 March 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Bangalore Development Authority’s Right to Alter Site Prices: Bangalore Development Authority vs. R. Jayakumar & Ors. (9 March 2022)

/ Allotment of Sites, Bangalore Development Authority Rules, 1984, Bangalore Development Authority Rules, 1984 with Rule 12, Bela M. Trivedi, Breach of contract, Contract Law, Judges, Sanjiv Khanna, Specific Performance

Supreme Court Upholds Bangalore Development Authority’s Right to Alter Site Prices: Bangalore Development Authority vs. R. Jayakumar & Ors. (2022) Date of the Judgment: 9 March 2022 Citation: Not Available Judges: Sanjiv Khanna, J. and Bela M. Trivedi, J. Can a development authority alter the price of a site after the initial application? The Supreme

Supreme Court Upholds Bangalore Development Authority’s Right to Alter Site Prices: Bangalore Development Authority vs. R. Jayakumar & Ors. (9 March 2022) Read Post »

Scroll to Top