The arbitration agreement would not be rendered invalid, un-enforceable or non-existent, even if the substantive contract is not admissible in evidence, or cannot be acted upon on account of non-payment of Stamp Duty.
Nodal Officer Delhi State GST Department Vs Aagman Services Private Limited & Ors. (Supreme Court) 1. There is delay of 238 days in filing the Special Leave Petition which has not been satisfactorily explained. Even otherwise, we have gone through the Special Leave Petition and do not find any merit in the same. 2. The […]
Supreme Court of India in Devendra Dwivedi vs Union of India & ors. [Writ Petition(s) (Criminal) No(s). 272/2020, dated January 7, 2021] dismissed writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, challenging constitutional validity of certain provisions of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Writ petition under Article 226/227 against an order under Sec 16(2) of an Arbitrator can be entertained only in exceptional cases, therefore, the High Court should not have used its inherent power to interject the arbitral process at this stage.
Kirti & Anr. Etc. Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd (Supreme Court of India) A very important issue recently came up before the Apex Court wherein the Court settled the controversy as to whether concession made by any counsel would bind the litigating party. The Apex Court in the case of Kirti vs. Oriental Insurance Company […]
Exercise of power by the Central Government under Section 11A(2) of the DDA Act, 1957 is just and proper and thus the modifications regarding change in land use of plot Nos. 2 to 8 in the Master Plan of Delhi, 2021/Zonal Development Plan for Zone-D and Zone-C vide impugned notification dated 20.3.2020 stands confirmed.
When the acceptor puts in a new condition while accepting the contract already signed by proposer, the contract was not complete until the proposer accepted that condition. Thus, earnest deposit of assessee was liable to be refunded on concluded contract and there could be no question of any breach on the part of assessee or of damages or any risk purchase at the cost of assessee.
On the ground that charge sheet was not filed within the prescribed period, an application for bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. was filed by the appellant. The High Court ruled in his favour by holding that the appellant is entitled to bail under Section 167 as a complete charge sheet was not filed within the prescribed period. While granting bail, the High Court held that the appellant can be re-arrested after the charge sheet is filed.
Union of India Vs U.A.E. Exchange Centre (Supreme Court) Respondent was not carrying on any business activity in India as such, but only dispensing with the remittances by downloading information from the main server of respondent in UAE and printing cheques/drafts drawn on the banks in India as per the instructions given by the NRI […]
Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia Vs Dhiraj Prasad Sahu & Dhiraj Sahu Anr. (Supreme Court) In the present case, it would be significant to add that it is not necessary to make a declaration incompatible in the use of the word ‘date’ with the general rule of law since the word ‘date’ is quite capable of meaning […]
