Legal News & Views

In M/S VED PRAKASH MITHAL AND SONS vs UNION OF INDIA, an Arbitral Award was delivered on 30.10.2015 and received by the respondent on 07.11.2015. An application to correct the said aforesaid Award was made by the respondent on 16.11.2015. A similar application to correct the Award was also made on behalf of the respondent on 20.11.2015. Both these applications were decided by the learned Arbitrator together and dismissed on 14.12.2015.  On 11.03.2016, objections and application objecting to the Award was filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 by the respondent. The only question that arises is whether the aforesaid Section 34 application could be said to be within the time mentioned in Section 34(3) of the Act. The learned Additional District Judge, by order dated 30.05.2017, found that the application was time-barred, reasoning that the application should have been made on and from the first date as, in fact, there was no correction made to the Awar...

In M/S EMKAY GLOBAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. vs GIRDHAR SONDHI,  the questions before the Supreme Court was the issue of 'Exclusive Jurisdiction' & 'Furnishing of proof in a appeal against an arbitration award' The Respondent, a client of the appellant who is a registered broker with the National Stock Exchange, had initiated an arbitration proceeding against the Appellant, claiming an amount of Rs.7,36,620/-, which was rejected by the Sole Arbitrator vide an Arbitration Award dated 08.12.2009.  The Respondent then filed a Section 34 application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on 17.03.2010 before the District Court, Karkardooma, Delhi. By a judgment dated 22.09.2016, the learned Additional District Judge referred to the exclusive jurisdiction clause contained in the agreement, and stated that he would have no jurisdiction to proceed further in the matter and, therefore, rejected the Section 34 application filed in Delhi. In an appeal filed befo...

In PR Commissioner of Income Tax-6, New Delhi v. Monnet Ispat & Energy Limited, the Supreme Court while referring to judgment in Dena Bank vs Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh and Co. & Ors., made it clear that income-tax dues, being in the nature of Crown debts, do not take precedence even over secured creditors, who are private persons and therefore Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, it is obvious that the Code will override anything inconsistent contained in any other enactment, including the Income-Tax Act.

In K Kishan vs. Vijay Nirman Company Pvt Ltd., the appeals before the Supreme Court raised an important question as to whether the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('The Code') can be invoked in respect of an operational debt where an Arbitral Award has been passed against the operational debtor, which has not yet been finally adjudicated upon. The background of the matter was that a contract was entered into between the parties for a project during the course of which disputes and differences arose between the parties and the same were referred to an Arbitral Tribunal, which delivered its Award on 21.01.2017. At this stage, a notice  under Section 8 of the Code dated 06.02.2017 was sent by the Respondent to KCPL to pay an amount of Rs. 1,79,00,166/-. Within 10 days, by a letter dated 16.02.2017, KCPL disputed the invoice that was referred to in the said notice, stating that the said amount was, in fact, the subject-matter of an arbitration proceeding, and as...

While by an ordinance in June, the Government has brought in the home buyers into the fold of the Insolvency Code by giving them the status of a financial creditor, a very interesting observation has beeb made by the NCLT Allahabad Bench which may lead to arguments to and fro in future. In Ajay Walia vs M/s. Sunworld Residency Private Limited (Corporate Debtor), the Petitioner/Financial Creditor booked an Apartment from the Corporate Debtor and also entered into a supplementary agreement with the Corporate Debtor to invest in the Apartment under the housing loan scheme with an option to cancel the purchase of the Apartment on completion of 24 months from the date of disbursement of the bank loan amount to Corporate Debtor. Also as per the agreement, financial creditor was not liable to pay pre-EMI interest on the bank loan amount to the concerned bank, for a period of 24 months, from the date of disbursement of the bank loan amount, and the corporate debtor had ...

In Smt. Birwati Chaudhary & Ors. vs The State of Haryana & Ors., appeal was filed against the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court rejecting the application for stay filed by the appellants herein. By impugned order, the High Court declined to grant the ad­interim stay observing: “As the required land is lying vacant, we do not find any reason to grant any stay.” The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the High Court to decide the application again and held that the reason to remand the case has occasioned due to the fact that firstly, no adequate reason is given in the impugned order for not granting stay; and secondly, the reason given does not in itself justify the rejection having regard to the nature of controversy involved in the writ petition. In short, justifiable reason(s) to support either the grant or rejection need(s) to be stated keeping in view the facts and the law applicable to the controversy involved. It is no...

In Anant v. Pratap, while rejecting the judgment of the High Court in a claim against permanent disability, the Supreme Court while referring to various judgments held that in cases of motor accidents leading to injuries and disablements, it is a well settled principle that a person must not only be compensated for his physical injury, but also for the non­pecuniary losses which he has suffered due to the injury. The Claimant is entitled to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, and enjoy those things and amenities which he would have enjoyed, but for the injuries. The purpose of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is to fully and adequately restore the aggrieved to the position prior to the accident. The court referred to Yadav Kumar v. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd and also to Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors. to calculate the multiplier and also to Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, where the Court held that...