Latest court orders, judgments, and legal developments from Indian courts — AI-curated and summarized.
NCLT Mumbai ruled that the existence of an arbitration clause does not prevent the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the IBC when there is proven default.
Analysts examine conflicting approaches of the Calcutta and Delhi High Courts on whether non-use cancellation proceedings under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act can trigger an automatic stay under Section 124. The divergence highlights uncertainty in procedural interplay between infringement and rectification actions.
The Delhi High Court delivered a split verdict regarding the validity of an arbitral award worth ₹1,889 crore in the Jindal-NTPC dispute, sending the case to the Chief Justice.
The Allahabad High Court has permitted arbitration for a GST reimbursement dispute between a railway contractor and the government over a no-claim certificate.
Former Supreme Court Justice L. Nageswara Rao stated that the limited visibility of the India International Arbitration Centre indicates a broader trust deficit in institutional arbitration in India, as discussed during a recent panel event.
The Supreme Court has referred the matter concerning pre-deposit conditions in arbitration agreements to the Chief Justice of India. The bench highlighted the potentially suppressive nature of high pre-deposit requirements on claims.
The Calcutta High Court ruled that pending public land eviction and DRT proceedings do not prohibit arbitration for disputes regarding sub-lease revocation. This decision clarifies the arbitrability of disputes in the presence of other proceedings.
The Calcutta High Court ruled that pending eviction proceedings do not hinder arbitration of sub-lease disputes. The court emphasized the arbitrability of disputes under statutory proceedings.
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking a joint trial in two CBI cases related to the 2013 NSEL payment crisis, affirming the need for separate trials.
Arbitrators often face challenges in quantifying losses in breach cases. Section 73 of the Contract Act, 1872 emphasizes the need for proof of actual loss, yet commercial realities can complicate such calculations.
The Allahabad High Court has partially allowed an arbitration appeal, ruling that arbitrators cannot award claims that exceed the scope of the contractual reference.
The Supreme Court has restored an arbitral award holding a husband jointly liable for his wife's trading debts amounting to ₹1.18 crore, finding the relevant by-law applicable and free from patent illegality.