Supreme Court Strikes Down Expulsion of Bihar MLC as Disproportionate, Orders Immediate Reinstatement Private Banks Not Subject to Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Allegation of Forgery is Not Enough: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute When a Case is Made Out for Bail, Courts Should Not Hesitate: Kerala High Court Allows Bail Despite Commercial Quantity of Drugs Seized Retailers Cannot Be Prosecuted for Manufacturer’s Fault" – Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Pesticide Dealers Mere Issuance of a Cheque Does Not Prove Legally Enforceable Debt": Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Cheque Dishonor Case Courts Cannot Ignore Urgent Repairs When Public Safety is at Stake: Calcutta High Court Upholds Trial Court's Order Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Bombay High Court Rejects Premature Dismissal of Partition Suit No Substantial Question of Law – High Court Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence Under Section 100 CPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Proof of Possession: Allahabad High Court Quashes Relief in Land Dispute Section 197 CrPC | Sanction for Prosecution is a Shield, Not a Sword: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against BIS Officer Landlord is the Best Judge of His Needs: Supreme Court Orders Eviction in Favor of Landowner Vijaya Bank TT Scam | Supreme Court Acquits Jeweller in ₹6.7 Crore Vijaya Bank Fraud Case, Orders Return of 205 Gold Bars Procurement Preference for Small Enterprises is a Legal Mandate, Not a Mere Policy: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of MSMEs Revisional Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked Against Interlocutory Orders of Commercial Courts: Orissa High Court Declares Section 8 Bar Absolute Victim’s Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality to Be Sole Basis of Conviction: Kerala High Court Reduces Sentence of Pastor Convicted for Repeated Rape of Minor Providing Set-Top Boxes to Subscribers Constitutes Sale”: Karnataka High Court Upholds VAT on Tata Play Limited Mere Registration of FIR Cannot Justify Denial of Passport Renewal: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

"ARBITRATION LAW" Digest

Civil Law - Arbitration – Scope of judicial interference under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 – The appellant challenged the High Court’s order setting aside an arbitral award—Held: The High Court correctly intervened as the awarded claim of ₹68.15 lakhs was beyond the contractual scope and not based on actual damages, but speculative calculations—Courts ca...

Arbitration – Challenge to Award – Scope of Interference under Sections 34 and 37 of Arbitration Act – The appellant challenged an arbitral award granting compensation to the respondent for project delays and related claims – Held: The Court’s jurisdiction under Section 37 is limited and does not permit reappreciation of evidence – The Arbitral Tribunal’s ...

Arbitration Law – Jurisdiction under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Scope of Interference – Division Bench of High Court erroneously interfered with concurrent findings of DRB, Arbitral Tribunal, and Single Judge – Limited scope under Sections 34 and 37 reiterated – Division Bench's interpretation of Clauses 51 and 52 as "u...

Arbitration – Interim Relief – Security for Disputed Amount – Section 9, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Petitioner sought interim relief to secure Rs. 156.75 crores against Make-Up Gas owed under GSPA, alleging respondents’ inability to supply due to reduced gas production – Respondents claimed non-performance due to Force Majeure (FM) and expiration o...

Arbitration Law – Commencement of Limitation – Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 – Limitation Began Upon Awareness – The appellant's application under Section 17 of the Act was dismissed as premature by lower courts, interpreting the limitation to start only from formal notice of filing the award – Held: The limitation began on 21.09.2022 when the respond...

Arbitration Award – Evidence and Perverse Findings – The appellant challenged an arbitral award of Rs. 60,00,000/- granted to the respondent for damage to cement bags due to waterlogging. The tribunal relied solely on the respondent’s letter (Exhibit ‘T’) dated January 7, 2005, while discarding two survey reports – one by the insurer’s surveyor and another...