Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The High Court of Madras recognised the foreign arbitration award pronounced by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (‘SIAC’) and found that the respondents have failed to establish any ground for refusing the recognition of foreign award.
Kerala High Court observed that when the suit is dismissed on finding that it is barred by law, the court fees cannot be refunded.
Delhi High Court: In a case where Club Factory was involved in the sale of various unauthorized/ counterfeited products, bearing
Delhi High Court: In a suit for permanent injunction and damages for infringement of marks, passing off and unfair competition
Supreme Court: In a suit for specific performance the Division Bench of Indira Banerjee* and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., explained the
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Manjari Nehru Kaul, J., while dealing with a revision petition for setting aside the order passed by
Supreme Court: The bench of KM Joseph* and PS Narsimha, JJ was called upon to decide whether the Award passed by a
by Akaant Kumar Mittal†
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 9
Gujarat High Court: The Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and Niral R. Mehta, JJ., while dealing with a matter regarding restitution of
Allahabad High Court: Dr Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J., held that, Section 36 of the 1996 Act makes the arbitral award capable of
Delhi High Court: Asha Menon, J., decided a matter concerning dishonour of cheque. Petitioner had filed a suit for recovery of Rs
Delhi High Court: Mukta Gupta, J., decides a matter revolving around the Will of a deceased person. Factual Background Instant suit was
Madras High Court: Dr G. Jayachandran, J., refused to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff who relied on general admission
Bombay HC’s Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu while discussing, quotes EBC’s C.K. Thakker’ s Code of Civil Procedure
Supreme Court: The bench of Ashok Bhushan* and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ has held that consent decree recognising pre-existing rights created by
Kerala High Court: B. Sudheendra Kumar, J., allowing the present petition observed, “Since the appeal was already filed, the court below had
Kerala High Court: R. Narayana Pisharadi, J., while allowing the instant petition, set aside the order of trial Court, thereby allowing the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): Justice V.K. Jain (Presiding Member), observed that Executing Court cannot go behind the decree and therefore, the
Bombay High Court: A.S. Kilor, J., held that contravention of the provision of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 does not
Jharkhand High Court: A Division Bench of H.C. Mishra and Rajesh Kumar JJ., rejected the prayer and dismissed the appeal being devoid