Second Petition Can't Be Filed If First Petition Challenging ITC Reversal Is Unconditionally Withdrawn: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the petitioner, having unconditionally withdrawn the earlier petition and liberty being specifically declined to the petitioner, is precluded from filing the fresh petition seeking the same relief that was earlier withdrawn by the petitioner.The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in...

Delhi High Court Directs Arbitrator To Refund 6 Lakh Of 14.5 Lakh Fee Paid By Parties

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh directed the arbitrator to refund Rs.6,00,000- of the fees of Rs.14,50,000/- paid by the parties to the arbitrator noting the arbitrator had conducted a total of twelve hearings, of which only three resulted in substantive orders. Moreover, the bench noted that the issues in the arbitral proceedings had not yet been framed,...

Section 37 A&C | Explanation For Delay Of 191 Days Is Sketchy And Doesn't Corelate Any Event To Specific Dates: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju rejected an application for condonation of delay of 191 days for petition filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It held that explanation provided for the delay was sketchy and did not corelate any event to specific dates or time period. Section 37 of the...

Telecom Services - Franchisee Agreement, Not Subject To TDSAT Jurisdiction, Delhi High Court Refers Dispute To Arbitration

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that a mere franchisee responsible for promotion of services provided by the petitioner, ergo, it does not fall under the definitions of licensee, licensor, service provider, or group of consumers as per the TRAI Act. It held that bar under Section 14 only applies in relation to telecommunication services and not to...

No Writ Against Order Of Tribunal Rejecting Application U/S 16 Of The A&C Act Unless It Shocks The Conscience Of The Court: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that an order of the arbitral tribunal rejecting an application challenging its jurisdiction under Section 16 of the A&C Act cannot be challenged in a writ petition unless the order is so perverse that it shocks the conscience of the Court. The bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad reiterated that to protect the sanctity of the arbitral process,...

MSMED Act | Service Supplier Registered During Ongoing Contract Can Avail Benefits For Services Provided After Registration: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that a service supplier, upon registering during an ongoing contract, is eligible to avail benefits under the MSMED Act for services provided after registration. It held that it is always open to the arbitrator to decide this issue even as a preliminary issue. Brief Facts: A Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was...

Sec. 11, A&C Act Petition Must Be Filed In High Court Where Cause Of Action Arose, Not Necessarily At Principle Place Of Business: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh dismissed the application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and held that such a petition should be filed at the place of the subordinate office of the corporation. “In the present case as well, the subordinate office of the respondent is situated at Satna, Madhya Pradesh and for the...

Another PIL Filed In Delhi High Court Seeking Removal Of Arvind Kejriwal From Post Of Chief Minister

A fresh public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Delhi High Court seeking removal of Arvind Kejriwal, who has been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the liquor policy case, from the post of Chief Minister of Delhi.The plea has been moved by Vishnu Gupta, who is a social worker and National President of Hindu Sena. Yesterday, a division bench headed by Acting...

Application Under Section 29A A&C Can Be Allowed Even After Expiry Of Arbitral Tribunal's Mandate: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be allowed even after the expiry of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal. Section 29A deals with the time limit for arbitral award. It specifies that the award shall be made within a period of twelve months from the date the...

Condonation Of Delay Re- Filing S. 34, A&C Act Application Must Be Allowed If Delay Is Procedural And Curable: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that not every defect leads to the dismissal of a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and took a liberal approach for condonation of delay. It held that defects were not fundamental in nature and could be termed as curable or procedural. Brief Facts: The Petitioner...

Article 21A Does Not Confer Constitutional Right On Any Child To Be Educated In Particular School Of Choice: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that Article 21A of the Constitution of India is only for free and compulsory education till the age of fourteen and does not confer on any child a constitutional right to be educated in a particular school of his or her choice. Justice C Hari Shankar said that such a right would arise only if the child applies to the Directorate of Education (DoE) as an...

Addition Solely Based On Photocopy Of Sale Agreement Is Completely Unjustifiable: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that an addition solely based on a photocopy of the sale agreement is completely unwarranted and unjustifiable.The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has observed that the entire foundation of the addition was laid down on the basis of the photocopy of the alleged agreement to sell. The original copy of the document has not seen...