Court Adjudicating Upon Arbitration Award u/s 34 Holds Power to Recalculate Compensation Granted Under NHAI Act: Allahabad High Court

Court Adjudicating Upon Arbitration Award u/s 34 Holds Power to Recalculate Compensation Granted Under NHAI Act: Allahabad High Court

Introduction The High Court of Allahabad (“the HC”) in the case of Chandra Kishori (“A1”) v. Union of India Thru. Chairman Of National Highway Authority of India and 2 Others; and  Om Prakash (“A2”) v.

Debt Recovery Tribunal Cannot Entertain A Claim Below Rs.10 Lakhs Under Sarfaesi Act – Delhi High Court

There is a remarkable legal development wherein the High Court of Delhi (HC) in its ruling brought major implications on the jurisdiction of Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRT) under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets

Bombay High Court Gives Nod to Tenants to Redevelop Demolished Building Themselves

Bombay High Court Gives Nod to Tenants to Redevelop Demolished Building Themselves

The High Court of Bombay (“HC”) in a recent judgment[i] permitted the tenants to reconstruct their demolished premises u/s 499(6) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act (“MMC Act”). It further directed to recover costs from

Abdullah Qureshi, Associate Partner, INDIALAW LLP quoted in The Hindu business line.

https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/ibbi-proposes-new-measures-to-improve-corporate-insolvency-process-efficiency/article67489635.ece

Second Petition US 482 CR.P.C. Not Maintainable On Grounds

Second Petition U/S 482 CR.P.C. Not Maintainable On Grounds Already Available During First Petition: Supreme Court

Recently, the Supreme Court has passed a notable judgment wherein it held that a second petition filed u/s. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) on grounds that were already available for challenge during

Sanctioning Profit loss Claim Without Proof Conflicts with Indian Policy

Sanctioning Claim for Loss of Profit in Absence of Substantial Proof Is in Conflict with Public Policy of India: Apex Court

Introduction In the context of interpreting an award deemed to be patently illegal and conflicting with public policy, the Supreme Court in M/s. Unibros v. All India Radio[1], clarified that a claim for loss of

1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 77