Recent Landmark Judgement

BCCI v. Kochi Cricket Association Pvt. Ltd

To make the arbitration proceedings more amicable to the foreign investors and companies and to curb the anomalies, they Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 (“Amendment Act”)was enforced on 23rd October, 2015. But soon after its enforcement it gave rise to a number of litigation in absence of the clear interpretation of the amended section 26 of the Amendment Act. The Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of BCCI v. Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd[2]  made the stand clear regarding the applicability of section 26. In this post we will discuss the case in brief to understand the contention and approach of the Court in contributing to make Indian Arbitration universalin consonance to UNICTRAL Model..... Read More

Hindustan Construction Company Limited & Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) & Ors.

Supreme Court has rightly taken a ‘seasoned-arbitration’ approach that is the want-of-the-hour in India considering delays in enforcement of awards making arbitration a less attractive choice. The aim of the advent of arbitration regime become to make sure resolution of disputes with well-timed restoration while their being minimum intervention by means of courtroom proceedings. This is real in particular on the subject of overseas traders investing in India thru global arbitration treaties. For instance, an Australian agency resorted to invoking the jurisdiction of UNCTRAL Tribunal for enforcement of its award because of greater than 9 years put off in looking for enforcement of awards in India...... Read More

Mukesh & Others vs. The State for NCT of Delhi

The Judgment to give justice to the victim on these issues need to be brought in front of a fast track court. After the case brought in the mainstream media and how it was discussed by journalists led to the establishment of Zero First Information Report (FIR) were complaint can be filed irrespective of the jurisdiction of crime committed. Although the removal of Section 377 of Indian Penal Code 1860 needs to be appreciated this was clinging due to impotency of legislatures or parliamentarians elected by the people in General Election. Moreover, the Government of India needs to increase the rate of funding for protecting and providing adequate support to come out of the accident that happened with them. Their action .... Read More

Swiss Ribbons Private Limited. VS. Union of India: The Defaulter’s paradise is lost

The Court must defer to legislative judgment in matters relating to social and economic policies and must not interfere, unless the exercise of legislative judgment appears to be palpably arbitrary. The Supreme Court has strongly validated the Code right from its inception. By upholding the constitutionality of the statute, the judgment in Swiss Ribbons has laid the corner-stone for the successful implementation of the Code. It focuses on the intention of the legislature behind promulgation of the Code to resolve and revive a corporate debtor and thereby significantly reinforces the efforts of the creditors and other stakeholders to achieve such end.... Read More

Vikram Singh v UOI

The litigant Vikram Singh was indicted and was condemned capital punishment by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The litigant was sentenced for the offenses under Section 302 and 364A of IPC, as he grabbed and slaughtered a multi year old kid, and requested a payment of 50 lakhs from the kid's dad. The appealing party recorded a writ request in the High Court testing the protected legitimacy of Section 364A, which got excused. From that point the litigant moved toward the Supreme Court. Area 364A arrangements with Kidnapping for Ransom. It expresses that: grabbing or snatching any individual or keeping an individual kept after such hijack or kidnapping, and taking steps to make passing or hurt such individual, Read More

Alok Verma v. Union of India

The Two petitions, one filed by Alok Verma (CBI Director) and one by way of the NGO Common Cause challenged the Centre's order which had divested Director Verma of his powers. The petitioners argued that the Central Government’s movements in opposition to Verma violated the provisions of the DSPE (Delhi Special Police Establishment) Act and the Supreme Court suggestions issued in Vineet Narain, 1997. The petitions also demanded the removal of CBI Special Director Mr. Rakesh Asthana, in mild of the pending corruption costs in opposition to him. Common Cause also asked a court monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe “into fees of corruption in opposition to the officers of the CBI”..... Read More

Vodafone International Holding (VIH) v/s Association of India (UOI)(2012) 6SCC 613

The Supreme Court of India articulated the milestone judgment in Vodafone International Holding (VIH) v. Association of India (UOI). The Bench comprising of Chief Justice S.H Kapadia, K. S. Radha krishnan and Swatanter Kumar suppressed the request for High Court of interest of Rs 12000 crores as capital addition charge and vindicated VIH from risk of installment of Rs 12000 crores as capital increase charge in the exchange dated 11.2.2007 among VIH and Hutchinson Telecommunication International Limited or HTIL (non-inhabitant organization for charge purposes). The court held that in Indian income specialists don't have locale to force charge on a seaward exchange between two non-occupants organizations where in controlling enthusiasm for an (Indian) inhabitant organization is gained by the non-inhabitant organization in the exchange.... Read More

Gulzar Khan vs. State:  AIR 1962 Pat 255

The question dealt by the bench was regarding the power postulated to the Magistrate in asking the accused to provide handwriting, signature, thumb impression and foot impression along with others during an investigation to the police officer. The Magistrate made a direction to the accused on 13th November 1957, appear before the Police Station of Golmuri. The purpose was to provide the impression which will help to make the comparison to the prayer made the investigative officer but the bail was granted by the Sessions Judge on 23rd October 1957. The injustice suffered by the accused after receiving bail led to filing an application in Session Judge against the order of Magistrate. As the order infringes the constitutional validity under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. The Session judge accepted the plea submitted before him and references made to this to set aside the order delivered by the Magistrate..... Read More

Anoop Singh V, State of M.P

The victim on the date of 03.01.03 was going to school in morning when she realized that she had forgotten her practical notebook. While returning back to collect her notebook she was pulled in a car parked near Hawai Patti and was forced to smell some substance.

On regaining consciousness the victim alleged that she was taken to some unknown place and felt stringing pain in her private parts. Afterwards she was admitted in a Hospital in Satna. On 10th January the victim was discharged whereby, F.I.R was lodged and a charge sheet was filed on account of offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC, 1860..... Read More