The Supreme Court (SC) has referred to larger bench the correctness of its judgment in Himangni Enterprises v. Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia, in which it was held that where the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 applied between landlord and tenant, disputes between the said parties would not be arbitrable. The bench was considering the appeal against Calcutta High Court (HC) order appointing an Arbitrator
The Delhi High Court (HC) has held that the venue of Arbitration cannot change the intention of the parties to vest the courts in a specific region with exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising out of the Arbitration or its award. The judgment was passed by a Single Judge Bench while deciding a preliminary objection with respect to the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court
The Supreme Court (SC) has reiterated that, while exercising the contempt jurisdiction, the court has to confine itself to the four corners of the order alleged to have been disobeyed.
The Judgement can be accessed
The Petitioner, in the present case, has prayed for reference to Arbitration of disputes arising out of 12 purchase orders. The said purchase orders were issued prior to the filing of the suit and have remained unpaid. After amendment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 made with effect from 24th October, 2015, sub-section 6(A) has been incorporated into
The Supreme Court has reiterated that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of certiorari against judicial orders passed by civil courts is not maintainable.
Writ petition under Article 227 challenging the orders passed by Civil Courts refusing to grant interim injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, will be maintainable
Two persons, filed their claim petitions before the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (“the Act”) against the Appellant. In these claim petitions, the Respondents claimed that, they had worked with the Appellant on her land for the relevant period but she did not pay them their legitimate wages despite rendering their services for her. The two applicants (workers/employees), therefore, claimed that their legitimate wages for the period in question be determined in the light of the provisions of the Act and the claimants
Present appeals by special leave arise out of the common impugned judgment passed by the High Court, whereby the High Court has reversed the judgment of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge under Sections 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149, 148 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932. The High Court on analysis of evidence found that, not only there exists various
Present appeal arose out of the judgment passed by the High Court by which the High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant herein thereby confirming his conviction under Section 148 of IPC, Section 435 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him by the trial Court. Question raised in present
The CCI, based on the analysis of the facts and materials presented by the Informant and the OP, was of the opinion that there was a prima facie case of contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘Act’) by the OP in the matter. The Commission holds that the OP being in a dominant position in the market for “Processors for Servers in India” has, by refusing to provide access in a non-discriminatory manner to the complete