The Supreme Court held that a subsequent affidavit ratifying acts of a power-of-attorney holder revived the agreement and reset limitation. Once ratification was admitted, refusal to execute sale entitled the buyer to specific performance.
The Supreme Court held that quashing corruption FIRs on technical objections to police-station notification was unjustified. The key takeaway is that substance and continuity of law prevail over procedural hyper-technicalities.
The issue was whether the Company Law Board could condone delay in appeals under Section 58(3). The Supreme Court held that CLB, being a quasi-judicial body, had no such power in absence of statutory authority.
The issue was whether interim protection lapses if a Section 11 petition is filed beyond 90 days. The Supreme Court held that arbitration commences on receipt of notice under Section 21, preserving interim relief under Section 9(2).
The issue was whether the High Court could interfere with an arbitral award upheld under Section 34. The Supreme Court held that Section 37 jurisdiction is limited and cannot re-examine merits or reinterpret the contract.
The Supreme Court ruled that departmental proceedings initiated after superannuation were invalid due to absence of an enabling provision in service regulations. The key takeaway is that disciplinary jurisdiction ends at retirement unless expressly preserved by law.
The issue was whether mushroom-growing shelves could be classified based on their agricultural end use. The Court held that end use is irrelevant unless the tariff heading expressly permits it. Classification must follow the condition and nature of goods at the time of import.
The Supreme Court held that failure to issue a Section 21 notice does not invalidate arbitration where parties intended to arbitrate all disputes. The ruling clarifies that Section 21 is procedural, not jurisdictional.
The Supreme Court held that criminal prosecution for bribery can continue where departmental exoneration was based on procedural gaps. The key takeaway is that only a merits-based exoneration destroying the offence can bar prosecution.
The Court held that electricity generated in an SEZ and supplied domestically is not an import under customs law. In the absence of a charging section, the levy was declared unconstitutional and refunds were ordered.
