Indian Contract Act, 1872

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Whether a prior Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between family members regarding shareholding in a private company is superseded by a subsequent Shareholders’ Agreement (SHA) with a third-party investor, specifically concerning an arbitration clause.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 »

Supreme Court clarifies definition of financial creditor under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: Phoenix ARC vs. Ketulbhai Patel (2021)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 126, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 172, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 5(7), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 5(8), Judges, M.R. Shah, R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court Clarifies Financial Creditor Status in Pledge Agreements: Phoenix ARC vs. Ketulbhai Patel (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a party holding a pledge of shares as security qualifies as a financial creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ketulbhai Ramubhai Patel [Judgment Date]:

Supreme Court clarifies definition of financial creditor under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: Phoenix ARC vs. Ketulbhai Patel (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies contract formation: Conditional Acceptance and Counter-Offers in Padia Timber Case (2021)

/ Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 4, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 7, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 73, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Navin Sinha

Supreme Court Clarifies Contract Formation: Conditional Acceptance and Counter-Offers in Padia Timber Case (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a contract is formed when a conditional offer is met with a further condition, regardless of whether the original offeror accepts the new condition. CASE TYPE: Contract Law Case Name: M/s. Padia Timber Company(P) Ltd. vs. The Board

Supreme Court clarifies contract formation: Conditional Acceptance and Counter-Offers in Padia Timber Case (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Interest on Refund for Unusable Shipbreaking Plot: Gujarat Maritime Board vs. Asiatic Steel Industries Ltd. (2020)

/ Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 64, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 65, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 73, Indira Banerjee, Judges, S. Ravindra Bhat

Supreme Court Orders Interest on Refund for Unusable Shipbreaking Plot: Gujarat Maritime Board vs. Asiatic Steel Industries Ltd. (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a party is entitled to interest on a refund of contract consideration when a contract is not fulfilled due to the other party’s inaction. CASE TYPE: Contract Law, Writ Jurisdiction Case Name: Chief

Supreme Court Orders Interest on Refund for Unusable Shipbreaking Plot: Gujarat Maritime Board vs. Asiatic Steel Industries Ltd. (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Addresses Retirement Age for Employees Joining Service as Minors: Gopal Prasad vs. Bihar School Examination Board (28 May 2020)

/ Age of Majority, Ajay Rastogi, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 11, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Retirement Age, Service Law, Service Law with Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code

Supreme Court Addresses Retirement Age for Employees Joining Service as Minors: Gopal Prasad vs. Bihar School Examination Board (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an employee who joined service as a minor should be retired based on a deemed age of 18 years at the time of joining, or on their actual date of birth. CASE TYPE:

Supreme Court Addresses Retirement Age for Employees Joining Service as Minors: Gopal Prasad vs. Bihar School Examination Board (28 May 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies if a stranger can challenge a compromise decree: Triloki Nath Singh vs. Anirudh Singh (2020)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Ajay Rastogi, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 23 Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 23 Rule 3A, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Compromise, Judges, Lis Pendens, Order 23, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 52, Void and Voidable Contracts

Supreme Court on Challenge to Compromise Decree by a Stranger: Triloki Nath Singh vs. Anirudh Singh (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Can a person not party to a compromise decree challenge it in a separate suit? CASE TYPE: Civil Case Name: Triloki Nath Singh vs. Anirudh Singh(D) Thr. Lrs & Ors. [Judgment Date]: May 6, 2020 Introduction

Supreme Court clarifies if a stranger can challenge a compromise decree: Triloki Nath Singh vs. Anirudh Singh (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the need for reasoned awards in arbitration: Dyna Technologies vs. Crompton Greaves (2019)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 31(3), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 23, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 73, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, N.V. Ramana

Supreme Court clarifies the need for reasoned awards in arbitration: Dyna Technologies vs. Crompton Greaves (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: The necessity of reasoned awards in arbitration proceedings. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: M/S. DYNA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS M/S. CROMPTON GREAVES LTD. Judgment Date: 18 December 2019 Date of the Judgment: 18 December 2019 Citation:

Supreme Court clarifies the need for reasoned awards in arbitration: Dyna Technologies vs. Crompton Greaves (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies assignment of contract rights in property sale: Kapilaben vs. Ashok Kumar (2019)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Contingent Contract, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 40, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 53, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 15(b), Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 40

Supreme Court clarifies assignment of contract rights in property sale: Kapilaben vs. Ashok Kumar (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a contract for sale of property can be assigned to a third party without the consent of the original seller? CASE TYPE: Civil Law – Specific Performance Case Name: Kapilaben & Ors. vs. Ashok Kumar Jayantilal Sheth

Supreme Court clarifies assignment of contract rights in property sale: Kapilaben vs. Ashok Kumar (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 Taxability of Members’ Clubs Post 46th Amendment: State of West Bengal vs. Calcutta Club Limited (2019)

/ Companies Act, 1956, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 25, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 366, Constitutional Law with Article 366(29-A), Finance Act, 1994, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 2(d), Judges, R.F. Nariman, Surya Kant, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Clarifies Taxability of Members’ Clubs Post 46th Amendment: State of West Bengal vs. Calcutta Club Limited (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of the doctrine of mutuality to incorporated clubs regarding sales tax and service tax after the 46th Amendment to the Constitution of India. CASE TYPE: Tax Law (Sales Tax and Service Tax) Case

Supreme Court Clarifies Taxability of Members’ Clubs Post 46th Amendment: State of West Bengal vs. Calcutta Club Limited (2019) Read Post »

Scroll to Top