SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE DOESN’T END WITH PASSING OF DECREE; COURT RETAINS POWER TO ANNUL DECREE OR EXTEND TIME

The case between Balbir Singh & Anr Etc vs Baldev SIngh (D) Through His Lrs & Ors. Etc, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed a significant legal principle in the field of civil law. The decree for specific performance does not bring the judicial process to a close Even after passing a decree

Continue ReadingSUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE DOESN’T END WITH PASSING OF DECREE; COURT RETAINS POWER TO ANNUL DECREE OR EXTEND TIME

RESIGNED DIRECTOR NOT LIABLE FOR CHEQUE ISSUED BY COMPANY AFTER HIS RESIGNATION: SUPREME COURT

In a groundbreaking decision, Adhiraj Singh v. Yograj Singh and Others Supreme Court bench redefined the boundaries of director liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court unequivocally ruled that a director cannot be held responsible under Section 138 of the,

Continue ReadingRESIGNED DIRECTOR NOT LIABLE FOR CHEQUE ISSUED BY COMPANY AFTER HIS RESIGNATION: SUPREME COURT

SECTION 13 OF COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT DOESN’T PROVIDE ANY INDEPENDENT RIGHT TO APPEAL IN ARBITRATION MATTERS

The case between Synergies Casting Ltd vs National Research Development Corporation & Anr. In a repeated emphasis, the Delhi High Court stated that Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act does not create an independent right to appeal arising from the Arbitration and Conciliation Act

Continue ReadingSECTION 13 OF COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT DOESN’T PROVIDE ANY INDEPENDENT RIGHT TO APPEAL IN ARBITRATION MATTERS

ORDER II RULE 2 CPC BAR WON’T APPLY WHEN RELIEFS IN SECOND SUIT ARE BASED ON A CAUSE OF ACTION DIFFERENT FROM FIRST SUIT

In the case between Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd vs M/s Chemplast Cuddalor Vinyls Limited and Anr, the Supreme Court decided that Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) would not apply to a later suit brought on a different cause of action…

Continue ReadingORDER II RULE 2 CPC BAR WON’T APPLY WHEN RELIEFS IN SECOND SUIT ARE BASED ON A CAUSE OF ACTION DIFFERENT FROM FIRST SUIT

PUNISHMENT IS NOT DISPROPORTIONATE WHEN OFFICER DISPLAYS NEGLIGENT AND IRRESPONSIBLE CONDUCT

In the case between Babrey Singh vs Union of India and Ors, the case arose when a police officer, employed by the Delhi Police, was found guilty of dereliction of duty and negligent behavior. When the officer’s wrongdoing was investigated internally, it was discovered

Continue ReadingPUNISHMENT IS NOT DISPROPORTIONATE WHEN OFFICER DISPLAYS NEGLIGENT AND IRRESPONSIBLE CONDUCT

REASONABLE DOUBT’ IN A CRIMINAL CASE NECESSITATES THAT DOUBT MUST BE FREE FROM SPECULATION

In the case between Goverdhan & Anr. versus State of Chhattisgarh, the case pertains to an appeal against the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Bilaspur, made on November 30, 2009, in Criminal Appeal No. 290/2002. The appellants were charged with murder under

Continue ReadingREASONABLE DOUBT’ IN A CRIMINAL CASE NECESSITATES THAT DOUBT MUST BE FREE FROM SPECULATION

THE SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS AWARDS AGAINST THE UTTAR PRADESH GOVERNMENT IN SHAM ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS TOTALING MORE THAN RS 46 LAKHS

In the case between State of Uttar Pradesh and another VS R.K Pandey and another, the Supreme Court of India recently reversed arbitration verdicts against the Uttar Pradesh (“UP”) government totaling more than Rs. 46 lakhs in a historic ruling. The court’s ruling highlights

Continue ReadingTHE SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS AWARDS AGAINST THE UTTAR PRADESH GOVERNMENT IN SHAM ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS TOTALING MORE THAN RS 46 LAKHS

DISTINGUISHING CIVIL DISPUTES FROM CRIMINAL OFFENSES: THE SUPREME COURT’S RULING ON PROPERTY DISPUTES AND SECTION 420 IPC

The Supreme Court of India in the landmark case Jit Vinayak Arolkar versus State of Goa & ors, the heart of the dispute is a property known as “capnivoril guera,” and registered in the Land Registration Office of Bardez. The legal conflict arose between the appellant and the respondent…

Continue ReadingDISTINGUISHING CIVIL DISPUTES FROM CRIMINAL OFFENSES: THE SUPREME COURT’S RULING ON PROPERTY DISPUTES AND SECTION 420 IPC