Latest court orders, judgments, and legal developments from Indian courts — AI-curated and summarized.
FeaturedThe Supreme Court has upheld the jurisdiction of district courts under the Arbitration Act, reversing the Orissa High Court's dismissal of a Section 34 petition. This decision emphasizes the importance of maintaining the principle of adjudication on merits.
Courts differ on whether Section 124 allows stay of infringement suits when a Section 47 cancellation petition is pending; Delhi and Calcutta High Courts take conflicting views.
Delhi High Court rules banks cannot unilaterally reduce interest on fixed deposits maintained under court orders without just cause, in NatWest vs Hero Exports.
Calcutta and Delhi High Courts differ on whether Section 47 cancellation triggers Section 124 stay. Courts remain split on whether non-use proceedings constitute 'rectification'.
Circuits differ on whether non-use cancellation under Section 47 constitutes 'rectification' under Section 124(1) of the Trade Marks Act. The Calcutta and Delhi High Courts have diverged on stay of infringement suits pending such proceedings.
A split has emerged between the Calcutta and Delhi High Courts on whether Section 124 rectification proceedings include non-use cancellation under Section 47. The divergence affects stays in infringement suits.
Calcutta HC refuses writ jurisdiction over a contractual payment dispute where an arbitration clause exists and facts are disputed.
NCLAT rules arbitral award imposing joint liability doesn’t alter personal guarantee; guarantor remains distinct from borrower.
Justice Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court has called for statutory recognition of emergency arbitration and a dedicated arbitration bench at GIFT City to enhance dispute resolution mechanisms in India. He emphasized the existing procedural bottlenecks under various sections of the Arbitration Act.
The Delhi High Court has provided clear guidelines for handling insufficiently stamped domestic arbitral awards. The court ruled that unilateral payments to address stamp duty shortfalls do not rectify defects post-signing.
The Supreme Court has reiterated that arbitration orders made under Section 16 cannot be re-examined in writ jurisdiction. The court has held that the issue of stamping related to the arbitration will remain open for consideration at the Section 34 stage.
Senior Advocate Darius Khambata criticized the Finance Ministry’s 2024 arbitration memo, labeling it as a reaction from a 'disgruntled litigant' during a recent symposium. This highlights ongoing tensions regarding arbitration practices in Indian governance.