Free Call +91 9540652090

Call Us Now For Support

Our Location

4L-902, AWHO Township, Gurjinder Vihar, Greater Noida - 201310



Rohingyas have ISIS/Pakistan terror links, indulge in human trafficking: Centre’s affidavit in the SC

“Govt cannot make blanket claims”, rejoinder filed in Rohingya matter before SC

The petitioners in the Rohingya matter pending before the Supreme Court have filed a rejoinder to the Centre’s stand on the issue. Mohammed Salimullah, the lead petitioner, who belongs to the Rohingya community, proceeded to counter the claims made by the central government in its affidavit filed earlier this week. Below are the primary issues raised by the petitioners in the rejoinder: Not all Rohingyas The petitioners have belied the Centre’s stand that the Rohingya refugees have links to ISIS and Pakistani terror outfits, and have perpetrated violence in Jammu & Kashmir. Reference is made to a statement made in […]

Delhi HC rejected the transit anticipatory bail to Honeypreet.

Priyanka Taneja alias Honeypreet who is the so-called adopted daughter of Dera Sacha Sauda Chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim approached Delhi HC for seeking transit anticipatory bail, it has been alleged that Honeypreet had preparated the havoc so created at the amidst of conviction of Dera Chief. However, Delhi HC rejected the bail and observed that “She has evaded arrest and hence was not entitled to any discretionary relief. The plea was filed in Delhi to buy time and delay proceedings in Haryana”. Further, Court asked the applicant to show how application is maintainable and to come on jurisdiction. Why has the plea been moved here as the applicants passport showed her address to be of Sirsa in Haryana, pertaining to above Court said the place where a person is roaming around cannot decide jurisdiction for filing the bail plea. While rejecting the bail court suggested the applicant that the easiest way out for you is you to surrender.

GHCAA approached SC against the transfer of Justice Jayant Patel to Allahabad HC

Bar has been sternly appalled from the voluntary resignation of senior most Justice of Karnataka High Court Jayant Patel, he was apparently unhappy since he was not made the Chief Justice in any High Court despite his seniority, it abhorrent that the judges inferior to him has been upgraded. Instead of upgrading him, the senior-most Justice has been transferred to Allahabad HC where he was to be the third-senior-most judge which eliminates his chances of becoming Chief Justice. Bar appreciated and admired Justice Jayant Patel for his upfront attitude. It has been speculated that that hinderance for his upgradation is because he had ordered CBI probe in the controversial fake encounter of Ishrat Jahan and three others and monitored the case for more than six months. Pertaining to the above noted Gujarat High Court Advocates Association (GHCAA) has passed a resolution to file a petition in Supreme Court challenging the transfer of the judge from the Karnataka High Court to the Allahabad High Court.

Criminal Defamation case filed against Rahul Gandhi for linking Gauri Lankesh’s murder with RSS

Jounalist Gauri Lankesh was killed on September 6 by unidentified assailants at her residence in Karnataka. Criminal Defamation case has been filed against Congress party’s president viz Rahul Gandhi and CPM general secretary Sitaram Yechury by RSS activist for allegedly linking the organisation to the murder of Gauri Lankesh. Lawyer representing activist alleged that the actions and words of the accused’s persons pointing a finger on the organization pertaining to the unfortunate demise of Gauri Lankesh, eventuality of the aforesaid actions, he being an RSS worker, he was humiliated and defamed before the common people. Complainant claimed that the allegations are baseless and have malicious force behind it as it have been made without any proof or official statement by the investigating authorities.

SC Has Issued Modified Directions In Regard With Fire Crackers Saying ‘Prevention Is Better Than Cur

A public interest litigation initiated by the petitioners Arjun Gopal and Ors under Article 32 of the Constitution against Union of India and Ors in the Supreme Court Of India. This is to the effect that this Court may issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to ban the use of fireworks, sparklers and minor explosives in any form, during festivals or otherwise. The public interest relief sought for is required to be considered from two perspectives: firstly, from preventing air pollution through the bursting of fireworks and secondly, by invoking the provisions of the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Explosives Rules, 2008 framed thereunder for preventing air pollution by restricting the possession and sale of fireworks in the National Capital Region. There are seven major contributors of air pollution and these are: Construction activity and carriage of construction material. Burning of Municipal Solid Waste and other waste. Burning of agriculture residue. Vehicular Pollution. Dust on the roads. Industrial and power house emission including fly-ash. Emissions from Hot-Mix Plants and Stone Crushers. The court stated that the response of the Government of NCT of Delhi is lethargic with the absence of any keenness to take proactive steps. This is disconcerting. It is high time that governmental authorities realize that the cost of ill health (particularly among children) is far greater in psycho-social terms than in financial and economic terms. The adage that ‘prevention is better than cure’ is fully applicable in the present circumstances. It was submitted by petitioners that in Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India it was held by this Court that the right to health, though of a worker, is a fundamental right. The right to health coupled with the right to breathe clean air leaves no manner of doubt that it is important that air pollution deserves to be eliminated and one of the p

consumer Protection Act

A person who invests in real estate is not a consumer.

“Compensation cannot be a pittance!” the Constitution bench said.

Compensation cannot be a pittance!” the Constitution bench said. Supreme Court Building Supreme Court Building On Tuesday, the Apex Court ruled in a verdict intended to provide “just” compensation to the victims of road accidents, that compensation’ll be based on the future prospects of a deceased person, rather than only loss of present income. A 5-judge bench comprising CJI Dipak Misra & Justice A K Sikri, Justice A M Khanwilkar, Justice D Y Chandrachud & Justice Ashok Bhushan framed guidelines for making an estimate of future prospects mandatory; irrespective of whether the victim had a permanent job or was self-employed. The amt. under the head of future prospects has been capped at 50% of income in case of a permanent job & 40% in case of self-employed or a fixed salary job (where there’s no provision for revision). The ruling settles the controversy in the light of contradictory verdicts by different Supreme Court benches. It also fixed compensation under the conventional heads of loss of estate, loss of consortium (i.e. deprivation of benefits of a family relationship) & funeral at ?15,000, ?40,000 & ?15,000, respectively . This’s to be enhanced at the rate of 10% every 3 years. “To follow the doctrine of actual income at the time of death & not to add any amt. with regard to future prospects to the income for the purpose of determination of multiplicand would be unjust. The determination of income while computing compensation has to include future prospects so that the method’ll come within the ambit & sweep of just compensation as postulated under the Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act” the bench said. “In case of a deceased who had held a permanent job with inbuilt grant of annual increment, there’s an acceptable certainty; but to state that the legal representatives of a deceased who was on a fixed salary wouldn’t be entitled to the benefit of future prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation would be in-apposite,” the benc

PIL Seeking SIT

Senior Advocate Subramanium Swami who is also an active member of BJP filed an PIL seeking SIT in Sunanda Pushkar’s case wherein he had made “sweeping allegations” against Tharoor and Delhi Police. Today, Delhi HC dismissed the aforesaid PIL and thereby terming it “political interest litigation”, interestingly Shashi Tharoor was not arraigned as respondents though the PIL contains allegations against him. When Court asked for the source behind the allegations, Swami offered to file an affidavit disclosing the reason based on which he had made the accusation. Court further observed that affidavit offered by Swami affirmed that he concealed material facts from the Court. Court said that the so-called PIL was unable to be persuaded that the probe, being carried out by the SIT, is botched up or under the influence of any party.

national anthem

Amidst the Circular issued by Uttar Pradesh’s Chief Minister which required s all madrasas in the state to record video of events organized on the occasion of Independence Day. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid circular on the ground that it envisages “forced patriotism” and cannot be enforced upon persons who do not want to sing or recite the National Anthem in light of their “belief and custom”. Dismissing the Petitioner’s Plea, bench headed by Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale observed that ‘The message and ethos of our National Anthem and Flag therefore needs to be spread and inculcated in all educational institutions irrespective of their affiliation or denomination’. Citing Article 51A of Constitution, bench also observed that “The recitation of the National Anthem is in essence the act of every citizen honouring the history and tradition of this great nation and ultimately subserves the promotion of a spirit of brotherhood amongst all without exception to the religious, lingual or regional affiliation of a particular individual.” Court vehemently deplored the plea raised by Petitioner, court said he has been ignorant for his duty which constitution mandates irrespective of his religious and political beliefs.

judicial Proceedings are under public domain

Judicial proceedings and records are public records, can be accessed through RTI


Section 11(2) & (6), 12, 13, 16(1) - appointment of arbitrator without setting aside appointment by parties 2000(3) RAJ 415 (MP) Mukesh Kumar Agrawal Vs Raj Kumar Agarwal There was a dispute about the dissolution of a firm and the partners fixed a procedure for appointment of arbitrators. Some of the partners appointed the arbitrator and the remaining partners approached the Chief Justice u/s11, who appointed the arbitrator. This appointment by the Chief Justice was held not valid and it was further held that once the parties have appointed an arbitrator, whether right or wrong, there is a procedure under the Act to challenge his authority. The applicant cannot by-pass that procedure and directly file an application u/s 11. Once the arbitrator has already been appointed, there is no occasion for the Chief Justice to exercise his powers u/s 11. The arbitrator is already seized of the matter and it is for him to decide whether he was validly or invalidly appointed.


Section 11 - maintainability of criminal complaint after reference of dispute to arbitrator 2002(4) RAJ 625 (Bom) Atlaz Degi-Tel Pvt Ltd Vs Atlaz Technology Pvt Ltd There was an agreement whereby the petitioner was to purchase respondent's business unit, pursuant to which the petitioner issued post dated cheques. A dispute arose between the parties and the petitioner applied u/s 11 for appointment of arbitrator. In the meanwhile, the respondent filed a suit u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Petitioner contended that the dispute was essentially of civil nature and initiation of criminal proceedings by way of short cuts of other remedies was unacceptable. It was held that merely because an act has a civil profile is not sufficient to denude it of its criminal outfit. The provisions incorporated in the agreement for referring the dispute to arbitration is not an effective substitute for a criminal prosecution when the disputed act is an offence. Arbitration is a remedy for affording reliefs to the party affected by the breach of agreement but the arbitrator cannot conduct a trial of any act which amounts to an offence, albeit the same act may be connected with the discharge of any function under the agreement. Although the transaction is question is a commercial transaction arising out of an agreement, offence u/s 138 NI Act appears to have been committed in the course of such transaction and as such the process issued u/s 138 should not be quashed.


Introduction An injunction is a prohibitive writ issued by a court of equity, at the suit of a party complainant, directed to a party defendant in the action, or to a party made a defendant for that purpose, forbidding the latter to do some act, or to permit his servants or agents to do some act, which he is threatening or attempting to commit, or restraining him in the continuance thereof, such act being unjust and inequitable, injurious to the plaintiff, and not such as can be adequately redressed by an action fit law.[1] For example, if it so happens that a person is demolishing a building you have possible claims on, you may ask the competent court to order such person to not demolish the building until the trial for the claim of the building is complete and judgement goes in his favour. The law of injunction has been provided for by the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter, the Act), and is also regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in India


Section 11 - Application unmaintainable after availing relief from another forum 2003(3) RAJ 410 (MP) Basant Kumar Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd On a dispute having arisen, the petitioner availed of the remedy under the Consumer Act and obtained an order in his favour granting compensation, inspite of a remedy being available under the Arbitration Act. Thereafter, the petitioner being dissatisfied with the amount granted by the Consumer Court, filed a suit for appointment of an arbitrator. It was held that once the claim has been adjudicated on merit, it is not open to challenge that order by having recourse before the arbitrator. An arbitrator cannot be allowed to sit over the order of the District Forum or State Commission, particularly when the matter has been adjudicated on merits. The petitioner cannot now avail benefit of arbitration though initially it was open for him to choose the remedy. The order passed under the Consumer Act is final.


2001(4) RAJ 595 (Gau) Ranjul Baruah Vs Numaligarh Refinery Ltd The question of arbitrability of the dispute was determined in this matter and the plea of the opposite party, that there is no referable dispute, hence the appointment of sole arbitrator could not be sustained, was rejected by the court. It was held that when a dispute is raised by a party to an arbitration agreement and denied by the other party, it has to be treated as a dispute within the meaning ht the arbitration clause to be adjudicated by the tribunal. One of the main objects of the Act is to minimize the supervisory role of courts in the arbitral process. The objection raised by the opposite party, therefore, is exclusively within the jurisdiction of and may be placed before the arbitral tribunal. The court, as defined in Section 2(1) (e) cannot be moved for a decision in this matter.


KEY AMENDMENTS: The Amendment Act has introduced some major changes in the principal Act. We have prepared a brief summary of the following key amendments for your quick reference: Amendment to definition of the term ‘Court’ in Section 2(e): Definition of the term ‘Court’ is amended to provide that certain provisions of Part I of the Act such as interim relief (section 9), court assistance in taking evidence (section 27) and appeal to interim relief order under section 9 (section 37) shall also apply to International Commercial Arbitration, even if the place of arbitration is outside India, subject to an agreement to the contrary between the parties to the dispute. In case of International Commercial Arbitration, the High Court shall be the ‘court’ for reliefs under the Act. Amendment to Section 7: An Arbitration agreement contained in the form of communication through electronic means shall also be treated as an arbitration agreement in writing Amendment to Section 8: Unless the judicial authority finds that prima facie no valid arbitration agreement exists, said judicial authority shall refer to the parties to the Arbitration on the action brought by party to arbitration agreement or person claiming through or under him. If the party applying for reference to arbitration has not having original or certified copy of arbitration agreement between them but the said copy is retained by other party then such party can make application to the Court to call upon other party to produce original or certified true of the arbitration agreement before that court. Amendment to Section 9: Where the Court passes an order for any interim measure under sub-section (1) of Section 9 before the commencement of arbitral proceedings, the arbitral proceedings shall be commenced within a period of ninety days from the date of such order. It further provides that once the arbitral tribunal is constituted, the Court shall not entertain an application for interim measure unless it


Prior Notice' Requirement Under Section 34(5) Of The Amended Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 Is Directory And Not Mandatory Whether Section 34(5) and Section 34(6) of the Arbitration Act i.e. issuance of notice to parties prior to filing of the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is mandatory or directory in nature and what is the consequence, if any, for non-compliance of such prior notice? Findings and Conclusions The High Court held that once arbitral proceedings have commenced, it cannot be stated that the right to be governed by the erstwhile provisions of the Arbitration Act was an inchoate right. The parties would be governed by the right and remedy available to the parties on the date of invocation of the arbitration agreement. If a notice invoking arbitration is received by the other party prior to 23 October 2015, the arbitration proceedings would commence prior to 23 October 2015. In such an instance, the provisions of the Arbitration Act in force prior to 23 October 2015 would be applicable to such matters for all purposes unless otherwise agreed between the parties. Thus, only in an event there is an explicit agreement between the parties to be governed by statutory modifications in the arbitration law, the Amendment Act would be applicable. Further, the High Court observed that there is neither a form nor a manner prescribed under Section 34(5) for issuing of notice to the other party nor any consequence provided thereof. In lieu of the same, it was held that the provisions under Section 34(5) and 34(6) are directory and not mandatory in nature. The court has ample power to direct the petitioner to issue notice along with papers and proceedings upon the respondent after the petitioner files an arbitration petition under Section 34(1) before such petition is heard by the Court at the stage of admission


Section 11, 9, 12 & 13 - Determination of validity of the appointment 2001(4) RAJ 595 (Gau) Ranjul Baruah Vs Numaligarh Refinery Ltd The applicant raised a reference of dispute to arbitration under a contract for construction work. On the failure on the part of the appointing authority, the contractor (applicant) appointed the arbitrator as per terms of clause of agreement. After initiation of proceedings, the opposite party applied for stay of proceedings, which was allowed. Hence this application for vacation of stay was filed by the applicant. It was held that a reading of the provisions of the arbitral clause indicated that the contractor was authorized by agreement to appoint one of the persons from the panel forwarded by him on failure on the part of the appointing authority to act upon the panel. The Chief Justice comes in only when the parties fail to act on an agreed procedure. But in a given case, where the agreement provides alternatively powers of appointment with either of the parties and the arbitrator is appointed by one of them, such appointment cannot be treated as illegal merely because the other party does not agree. In the instant case, the appointing authority failed to forward the panel of 3 names for selection by the contractor and also failed to select any person from the panel forwarded by the contractor. It was only then the contractor invoked his powers of appointment as per terms of the agreement. The appointment of the arbitrator has been in compliance with the agreement in letter and spirit and therefore the stay order was vacated.


“Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Extent of judicial intervention — Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in matters governed by this Part, no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in this Part.”


The arbitration act emphasizes that an arbitration clause which forms part of a contract shall be treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract. It further provides that the decision by the arbitral tribunal that the contract is null and void does not entail ipso jure that the arbitration clause is invalid. Hence Radhakrishnan’s judgment does not lay down correct law and hence cannot be relied upon.


Section 11(2) & (6), 12, 13, 16(1) - appointment of arbitrator without setting aside appointment by parties 2000(3) RAJ 415 (MP) Mukesh Kumar Agrawal Vs Raj Kumar Agarwal There was a dispute about the dissolution of a firm and the partners fixed a procedure for appointment of arbitrators. Some of the partners appointed the arbitrator and the remaining partners approached the Chief Justice u/s11, who appointed the arbitrator. This appointment by the Chief Justice was held not valid and it was further held that once the parties have appointed an arbitrator, whether right or wrong, there is a procedure under the Act to challenge his authority. The applicant cannot by-pass that procedure and directly file an application u/s 11. Once the arbitrator has already been appointed, there is no occasion for the Chief Justice to exercise his powers u/s 11. The arbitrator is already seized of the matter and it is for him to decide whether he was validly or invalidly appointed.

We are waiting for your call