Indian Contract Act, 1872

Supreme Court Clarifies the Scope of Section 138 NI Act in Cases of Settlement: Gimpex Private Limited vs. Manoj Goel (2021) INSC 580 (08 October 2021)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Dishonour of Cheques, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 39, Judges, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with Section 139, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Clarifies the Scope of Section 138 NI Act in Cases of Settlement: Gimpex Private Limited vs. Manoj Goel (2021) INSC 580 (08 October 2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether parallel prosecutions can be initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for the same underlying liability when a settlement agreement has been made […]

Supreme Court Clarifies the Scope of Section 138 NI Act in Cases of Settlement: Gimpex Private Limited vs. Manoj Goel (2021) INSC 580 (08 October 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Tenure-Based Appointment in CPRI: Union of India vs. N Murugesan (2021)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 16, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 3, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 39, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 7, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court Upholds Tenure-Based Appointment in CPRI: Union of India vs. N Murugesan (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a tenure-based appointment through direct recruitment is valid under the Central Power Research Institute (CPRI) rules. CASE TYPE: Service Law. Case Name: Union of India & Others vs. N Murugesan ETC. Judgment Date: 07 October 2021 Introduction Date

Supreme Court Upholds Tenure-Based Appointment in CPRI: Union of India vs. N Murugesan (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Contractual Bar on Pendente Lite Interest in Arbitration: Garg Builders vs. BHEL (2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 31(7)(a), Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 28, Interest Act, 1978, Interest Act, 1978 with Section 3, Judges, Krishna Murari, M.A. Khan, S. Abdul Nazeer

Supreme Court Upholds Contractual Bar on Pendente Lite Interest in Arbitration: Garg Builders vs. BHEL (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitrator can award pendente lite interest when the contract between the parties explicitly bars it. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Garg Builders vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited [Judgment Date]: October 4, 2021 Introduction Date

Supreme Court Upholds Contractual Bar on Pendente Lite Interest in Arbitration: Garg Builders vs. BHEL (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Sale Deed Despite Claims of Misrepresentation: Placido Francisco Pinto vs. Jose Francisco Pinto (2021)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order VI Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order VI Rule 4, Hemant Gupta, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 25, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 91, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 92, Judges, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Upholds Sale Deed Despite Claims of Misrepresentation: Placido Francisco Pinto vs. Jose Francisco Pinto (2021) Date of the Judgment: September 30, 2021 Citation: 2021 INSC 711 Judges: Hemant Gupta, J. and V. Ramasubramanian, J. Can a registered sale deed be invalidated based on claims of misrepresentation and lack of consideration, especially when the

Supreme Court Upholds Sale Deed Despite Claims of Misrepresentation: Placido Francisco Pinto vs. Jose Francisco Pinto (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Regularization of Teachers Appointed Under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973: Somesh Thapliyal vs. HNB Garhwal University (2021)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Central Universities Act, 2009, Central Universities Act, 2009 with Section 27, Central Universities Act, 2009 with Section 4(d), Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 23, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit, Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 with Section 21(1), Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 with Section 31, Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 with Section 4(1)

Supreme Court Orders Regularization of Teachers Appointed Under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973: Somesh Thapliyal vs. HNB Garhwal University (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether teachers appointed through a regular selection process under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, can be denied substantive appointments based on arbitrary contractual conditions imposed by the University. CASE

Supreme Court Orders Regularization of Teachers Appointed Under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973: Somesh Thapliyal vs. HNB Garhwal University (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Contract Formation in Tender Cases: South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. M/s. S. Kumar’s Associates (2021)

/ Breach of contract, Contract Law, Formation of Contract, Hemant Gupta, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 7, Judges, Letter of Intent, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court Clarifies Contract Formation in Tender Cases: South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. M/s. S. Kumar’s Associates (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a contract is formed when a Letter of Intent (LoI) is issued and some preliminary steps are taken, but the formal contract is not executed and the required security deposit and integrity pact are

Supreme Court Clarifies Contract Formation in Tender Cases: South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. M/s. S. Kumar’s Associates (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies the Bar on Suits Challenging Compromise Decrees in Family Property Disputes: R. Janakiammal vs. S.K. Kumarasamy (30 June 2021)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XXIII Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XXIII Rule 3A, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 10, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 14, Judges, R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court Clarifies the Bar on Suits Challenging Compromise Decrees: R. Janakiammal vs. S.K. Kumarasamy (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a separate suit can be filed to challenge a compromise decree. CASE TYPE: Civil Property Dispute Case Name: R. Janakiammal vs. S.K. Kumarasamy(Deceased) Through Legal Representatives and Others Judgment Date: 30 June 2021 Date of the

Supreme Court Clarifies the Bar on Suits Challenging Compromise Decrees in Family Property Disputes: R. Janakiammal vs. S.K. Kumarasamy (30 June 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Notification on Personal Guarantors under IBC: Lalit Kumar Jain vs. Union of India (2021)

/ Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 128, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 1(3), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 31, Insolvency Resolution, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, S. Ravindra Bhat

Supreme Court Upholds Notification on Personal Guarantors under IBC LEGAL ISSUE: Validity of a notification extending the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to personal guarantors of corporate debtors. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: Lalit Kumar Jain vs. Union of India & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 21 May 2021 Introduction Date of the Judgment: May 21,

Supreme Court Upholds Notification on Personal Guarantors under IBC: Lalit Kumar Jain vs. Union of India (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the enforceability of foreign arbitral awards between two Indian parties: PASL Wind Solutions vs. GE Power Conversion (20 April 2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 2(1)(f), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 44, B.R. Gavai, Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 with Section 10, Hrishikesh Roy, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 23, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 28, International Commercial Arbitration, Judges, R.F. Nariman

Date of the Judgment: 20 April 2021 Citation: 2021 INSC 208 Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., B.R. Gavai, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J. Can two Indian companies choose a foreign country as the seat of arbitration? The Supreme Court of India addressed this important question in a recent judgment, clarifying the scope of “foreign awards” under the

Supreme Court clarifies the enforceability of foreign arbitral awards between two Indian parties: PASL Wind Solutions vs. GE Power Conversion (20 April 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Arbitration in Family Dispute Over Company Shares: Sanjiv Prakash vs. Seema Kukreja (2021)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 16, B.R. Gavai, Hrishikesh Roy, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 62, Judges, Kompetenz-Kompetenz, Novation, Rohinton Fali Nariman

Supreme Court Orders Arbitration in Family Dispute: Sanjiv Prakash vs. Seema Kukreja (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a prior Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between family members regarding shareholding in a private company is superseded by a subsequent Shareholders’ Agreement (SHA) with a third-party investor, specifically concerning an arbitration clause. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Sanjiv

Supreme Court Orders Arbitration in Family Dispute Over Company Shares: Sanjiv Prakash vs. Seema Kukreja (2021) Read Post »

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 »

Scroll to Top