A and C Act, 1996 – Ss 9(1) and 9(3) – Arbitration agreement – Of course it hardly need be mentioned that even if an application under Section 9 had been entertained before the constitution of the Tribunal, the Court always has the discretion to direct the parties to approach the Arbitral Tribunal, if necessary by passing a limited order of interim protection, particularly when there has been a long time gap between hearings and the application has for all practical purposes, to be heard afresh, or the hearing has just commenced and is likely to consume a lot of time – High Court has rightly directed the Commercial Court to proceed to complete the adjudication.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARCELOR MITTAL NIPPON STEEL INDIA LIMITED — Appellant Vs. ESSAR BULK TERMINAL LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ.…
As per Section 61(2) of the IB Code, the appeal was required to be preferred within a period of thirty days – Therefore, the limitation period prescribed to prefer an appeal was 30 days. However, as per the proviso to Section 61(2) of the Code, the Appellate Tribunal may allow an appeal to be filed after the expiry of the said period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal, but such period shall not exceed 15 days. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction at all to condone the delay exceeding 15 days from the period of 30 days, as contemplated under Section 61(2) of the IB Code.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL SPOT EXCHANGE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. MR. ANIL KOHLI, RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL FOR DUNAR FOODS LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and…
Divorce – Husband and wife have been living separately for more than 16 years – Marriage between the parties is emotionally dead and there is no point in persuading them to live together any more – Therefore, this is a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India – Marriage between the parties is dissolved.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUBHRANSU SARKAR — Appellant Vs. INDRANI SARKAR (NEE DAS) — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder of wife on suspicion of her infidelity – Sentence of imprisonment for life – Question of propriety of specifying rigorous imprisonment while imposing life sentence – Matter settled in Naib Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., (1983) 2 SCC 454 held that the sentence of imprisonment for life has to be equated to rigorous imprisonment for life
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MD. ALFAZ ALI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) SLP…
Compassionate Appointment – Therefore, even if it is assumed that the ‘divorced daughter’ may fall in the same class of ‘unmarried daughter’ and ‘widowed daughter’ in that case also the date on which the deceased employee died she – respondent herein was not the ‘divorced daughter’ as she obtained the divorce by mutual consent subsequent to the death of the deceased employee – Therefore, also the respondent shall not be eligible for the appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her mother and deceased employee.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES IN KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. V. SOMYASHREE — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.…
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Sections 31(1) and 60(5) – Submitted Resolution Plan – Modification or withdrawal of – Existing insolvency framework in India provides no scope for effecting further modifications or withdrawals of CoC-approved Resolution Plans, at the behest of the successful Resolution Applicant, once the plan has been submitted to the Adjudicating Authority.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH EBIX SINGAPORE PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS OF EDUCOMP SOLUTIONS LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y.…
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(i-a) – Divorce on ground of cruelty – Repeated filing of cases against husband – Repeated filing of cases itself has been held in judicial pronouncements to amount to mental cruelty – Decree of divorce passed – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SIVASANKARAN — Appellant Vs. SANTHIMEENAL — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos. 4984-4985 of 2021…
Refund of unutilised input tax credit – Refund is a statutory right and the extension of the benefit of refund only to the unutilised credit that accumulates on account of the rate of tax on input goods being higher than the rate of tax on output supplies by excluding unutilised input tax credit that accumulated on account of input services is a valid classification and a valid exercise of legislative power.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. VKC FOOTSTEPS INDIA PRIVATE LIMTED — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and MR…
e their past and live amicably, this Court has come to their rescue by interfering in the quantum of sentence which obviously is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. but has interfered since there is no minimum sentence prescribed – It is a fit case to take a sympathetic view and reconsider the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SY. AZHAR SY. KALANDAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ.…
Land Acquisition – Compensation – Determination of value of acquired land -Held, Deduction at the rate of 15% towards the development charges, it also does not call for any interference of this Court considering the fact that the land in question at the relevant time was an agricultural land. However, taking into consideration the fact that the sale instance relied upon was a quite big chunk of land and the location of the acquired land and the land was acquired for spinning mill, the High Court has rightly adopted 15% cut, which in the facts and circumstances of the case is not required to be interfered with.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMESH KUMAR — Appellant Vs. BHATINDA INTEGRATED COOPERATIVE COTTON SPINNING MILL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.…