Held that an arbitral award awarded without any basis and also without adjudication of the claims is unsustainable in law.
Held that just because the parties have chosen a foreign-seated institutional arbitration under the UNCITRAL Law, it cannot be presumed that an agreement is excluded from the applicability of Section 9
Held that an independent director, not in charge or not responsible for day to day conduct of the business, is not liable for offence by invoking section 141 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
Held that reopening of assessment on the basis of the approval given in mechanical manner without application of mind is bad in law and liable to be quashed.
Held that it can be make out that the assessee has made an afterthought to file the appeal accordingly condonation of 1070 days cannot be granted on the basis of vague reasons
Held that moratorium under section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is applicable to legal proceedings initiated in terms of the EPF & MP Act
Held that the restriction contained under Section 9(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 doesn’t apply once an application under Section 9(1) for interim measures has been entertained by the Court.
Held that once such a dispute falls within the excepted matters, any decision by the General Manager on the issue of Notified Claims cannot be the subject matter of arbitration proceeding.
Held that as per Rule 2(b)(vii) of Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 read with General Circular No. 15/2015, the share application money given by the Petitioner for allotment of shares cannot be treated as deposits. Hence, penal interest not available to the petitioner.
Held that BGs can be invoked within/ before 90 days from the date of expiry of defect liability period. However, the defect liability period would arise only after the completion of the work.
