Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Supreme Court said that if the alternative plea introduced by plaintiff through an amendment is one which the defendant set up in his written statement, although inconsistent with the original plea, the Court is not precluded from allowing the amendment if it does not prejudice the defendant.
Referring to the amended portion of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 with Supreme Court’s interpretation, Kerala High Court found the Commercial Court’s refusal for acceptance after delay in filing written statement beyond 120 days justified.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 11 — Res judicata — Applicability: Findings on issue(s) which actually fell for consideration in the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 20 and 42 r/w S. 2(1)(e) — Jurisdictional seat of arbitration once fixed under S.
Kerala High Court observed that when the suit is dismissed on finding that it is barred by law, the court fees cannot be refunded.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 12 R. 6 — Grant of relief on the basis of admission — When
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 22 Rr. 3 and 4 — Abatement of appeal: Appeal as a whole cannot
Mere expression “place of arbitration” cannot be the basis to determine the intention of the parties that they have intended that place as the “Seat of Arbitration”
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — S. 12-A — Rejection of plaint for non-compliance with S. 12-A i.e. in cases where
by Ayushi Raghuwanshi†
Supreme Court: In an appeal against the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘NCDRC’), wherein the commission having
by Ayushi Raghuwanshi*
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 31(7) and Ss. 17, 21, 23(3), 24(1), 25, 26, 29 and 85(2)(a) —
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 23 R. 3 — Consent order: All the parties to the consent terms are
Supreme Court: Principal question before the Division Bench of Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar*, JJ., for contemplation was whether the
Delhi High Court: In a case filed by the petitioner challenging dismissal order in relation to an application filed seeking
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Indira Banerjee* and A.S. Bopanna, JJ., contemplated the scope of Section 9 of Arbitration
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 7 R. 11(d) and Or. 14 R. 2: Limitation as a ground for rejecting
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 96, Or. 41 Rr. 31 and 33: Principles summarised regarding powers and duty of