Follow us


Orders and Judgments Duration February 23- March 07, 2019



  • Spentex Industries Ltd v. Louis Dreyfus Commodities India Pvt. Ltd
    Venue of Arbitration cannot change intention of parties to vest jurisdiction in courts of specific region-22 February 2019 (DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Delhi High Court (HC) has held that the venue of Arbitration cannot change the intention of the parties to vest the courts in a specific region with exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising out of the Arbitration or its award. The judgment was passed by a Single Judge Bench while deciding a preliminary objection with respect to the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court in a Section 34 Petition.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:ReadMore
  • Shri Shashank Verma, Advocate v. Shri Atul Choudhary, Advocate
    “Venue” and “Seat” cannot be treated as synonymous -4 February 2019 (MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ORDER)
    The main contention in this dispute was a clause 1.2.54 (k) of the Agreement entered into between the parties. The said clause talked about ‘venue’ and made it clear that venue for an arbitrator shall be the place from which the letter of acceptance of tender is issued (Allahabad) or such other place as the purchaser (Railways) at his discretion may determine. Due to this, the stand of respondents was that the Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain present application. The applicant submitted that entire cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the bench except the event of issuance of ‘letter of acceptance’. All the events had taken place within the territory of this bench, even the termination notice which was issued from Jabalpur and followed by another termination notice of 48 hours issued from the same place. Thus, almost the entire cause of action had arisen within the territory of the Bench.The respondent contended that the jurisdiction of the Court is to be traced on the basis of Clause 1.2.54 (k). Since, prescribed ‘venue’ is admittedly at Allahabad, the jurisdiction of the Court is automatically ousted. Thus, the primary question before the Court was whether this clause (k) will oust the jurisdiction of the Court for the purpose of exercising power under sub section 6 of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court, referring to the judgements of Balco and Indus Mobile, observed that seat of Arbitration is analogous to an exclusive jurisdiction clause. It was observed that the arbitral hearings may take place at a location other than the seat of Arbitration. Thus, distinction between “seat” and “venue” was clearly recognized. It was submitted that in the instant case, the parties have not pointed out any clause of agreement which prescribes the “seat” of Arbitration. Hence, as per the judgment of Balco, it can be safely concluded that since the Act intends to give jurisdiction to two Courts which includes the Court which would have jurisdiction based upon cause of action, this Court will have jurisdiction because except issuance of letter of acceptance, other necessary events which gives cause for action have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.
    The Court held that it is unable to hold that ‘venue’ will determine the question of jurisdiction or despite availability of cause of action, which has arisen within the territory of this Court, this Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain this application.
    The Order can be accessed at:ReadMore
  • Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd v. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola & Ors
    Concession made by lawyer on mixed question of fact and law cannot preclude client from reagitating the point in appeal-20 February 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Supreme Court (SC) has observed that, a concession made by a lawyer or his authorised representative on a question is a mixed question of fact and law at the stage of arguments cannot preclude the party for whom such person appears from re-agitating the point in appeal.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:ReadMore
  • Delhi Development Authority v. Virender Lal Bahri & Ors
    Proviso Under Section 24 of Land Acquisition Act, 2013 is a Proviso to 24(1) (b) or to Section 24(2)? Supreme Court (SC) refers to larger bench-27 February 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Supreme Court (SC) has referred to a larger bench for reconsidering the judgment in Delhi Metro Rail Corporation v. Tarun Pal Singh, which held that the proviso to Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 governs Section 24(2) and not Section 24(1)(b). The bench opined that the said proviso is really a proviso to Section 24(1)(b) and not to Section 24(2). According to the bench, there would be no inconsistency or repugnancy between the proviso and Section 24(1)(b) of the Act, but if the proviso is read as a proviso to Section 24(2), many anomalies arise. It could not possibly have been the unintended result of a proviso taking away lapsing of the acquisition where the subject matter of the proviso is wholly unrelated to physical possession of land but only related to compensation not being paid, said the bench.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) – 1 v. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd
    Conversion of unaccounted money through the cloak of share capital/premium must be carefully scrutinised-5 March 2019
    The Supreme Court (SC) has observed that the Assessee is under a legal obligation to prove the receipt of share capital/premium to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, failure of which, would justify addition of the said amount to the income of the Assessee.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:


  • Pramod Kumar Sharma for & on behalf of Corporate Debtor Uniworld Sugars Private Limited v. IDBI Bank Limited
    National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) allows debit from ‘suspense account’ for a company under CIRP- 31 January 2019 (NCLT ORDER)
    While the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has previously held that monies from a corporate debtor’s account cannot be appropriated by a financial creditor once Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process is initiated, the Allahabad Bench of the NCLT recently passed an order allowing such appropriation. However, the withdrawal was made from the suspense account maintained by the bank.
    The Order can be accessed at:ReadMore
  • Liberty House Group Pte. Ltd v. State Bank of India & Ors
    Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) reigns supreme over other civil laws- 22 February 2019 (DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Delhi High Court (HC) on Friday upheld the supremacy of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) over other civil laws such as those of contracts and guarantees and said that only the National Company Law Tribunal or similar adjudicating authorities should deal with the cases falling under the code.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:


  • SoftBank gets Competition Commission of India (CCI) approval to pick up 22.44% Stake in Delhivery-28 February 2019 (CCI UPDATES)
    Masayoshi Son-led SoftBank has received the final approval from Competition Commission of India (CCI) to pick up a major stake in ecommerce logistics startup Delhivery. CCI said that it has approved “acquisition of 22.44% of the total share capital of Delhivery Pvt. Ltd. (on a fully diluted basis) by SVF Doorbell (Cayman) Ltd.” The CCI has also approved the acquisition of preference shares in Delhivery by CA Swift Investments. Mauritius-based CA Swift Investments is the special purpose vehicle of Carlyle Group.
    The full text of the article can be accessed at:


  • Karnataka High Court (HC) sends notice to state, Centre on plea seeking regulation of streaming content-26 February 2019 (KARNTAKA HIGH COURT ORDER)
    The Karnataka High Court (HC) has sent notices to the state and union Governments along with on-demand streaming content providers like— Netflix Entertainment Services India, (LLP), YouTube, Google India Pvt. Ltd, Hotstar, Star India Pvt Ltd, Amazon Prime, Amazon Development Centre (India) Pvt. Ltd and All Digital Media Entertainment Ltd, regarding creation of a Censor Board-like body.
    The notices were sent by a division bench based on a public interest litigation filed, seeking regulation on movies and other multimedia content streamed on the Internet.
  • Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd v. Tata Communications Ltd
    Claim under section 70 Contract Act cannot be raised when parties are Governed by contract-27 February 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Supreme Court (HC) bench has explained that claim of quantum meruit under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act cannot be raised when parties are otherwise governed by contract. This is because Section 70 occurs in Chapter V of the Contract Act which deals with “certain relations resembling those created by contract”. Said Section 70 deals with obligation of a person enjoying benefit of a non-gratuitous act to compensate the person giving the benefit.