Prosoll Law’s Post

Delhi High Court undertakes Critical Analysis of Limitation Period under Section 16 of Arbitration Act in the case between Home and Soul Private Limited and T.V. Today Network Limited that involved a dispute over whether the arbitration should have addressed the issue of limitation, or whether the Petitioner's claim was time-barred, at the very start. Read more on the case tha outlines the key facts, legal arguments, and the Delhi High Court's final decision on this matter. https://lnkd.in/d_MNa-n6 #mbg #india #indiatoday #highcourt #delhi

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal by the Union of India against an interim order passed by an arbitral tribunal, refusing to condone a 132-day delay in filing the appeal. Read more about the decision in the article published on Mondaq in the link below.   https://lnkd.in/grGAbim4   #Arbitration #ContractLaw #Company #Contract #Business #India #SupremeCourt #HighCourt #InternationalArbitration #DisputeResolution #ArbitrationAgreement #ArbitrationAct #Arbitrability #CommercialCourts #UNCITRAL #ArbitralTribunal #Law #Learning #Lawyer #Delhi #TrinityChambers #Enforcement #NewYorkConvention #Award #ForeignAward #ArbitralAward

This is an interesting issue that we are arguing in a Section 37 Appeal before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court with kirat nagra, @pranavvyas and @kartikyadav DSK Legal and the team. #arbitration #internationalarbitration #disputeresolution #adr #litigation https://lnkd.in/dgGYn8Ab

The Delhi High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by the Union of India challenging an interim order by an arbitral tribunal, rejecting a request to condone a 132-day delay. In an article published on Mondaq, we write about the decision. Read more below.   https://lnkd.in/gGzctEA5   #Arbitration #ContractLaw #Company #Contract #Business #India #SupremeCourt #HighCourt #InternationalArbitration #DisputeResolution #ArbitrationAgreement #ArbitrationAct #Arbitrability #CommercialCourts #UNCITRAL #ArbitralTribunal #Law #Learning #Lawyer #Delhi #TrinityChambers #Enforcement #NewYorkConvention #Award #ForeignAward #ArbitralAward

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal by the Union of India against an interim order by an arbitral tribunal, refusing to condone a 132-day delay in filing the appeal. The decision reinforces the Indian judiciary's strict approach to limitation periods in arbitration matters, emphasizing  that administrative inefficiencies or counsel's negligence are insufficient grounds for excusing the delay. Read more in the article published on Mondaq in the link below.   https://lnkd.in/g8B4E5sT   #Arbitration #ContractLaw #Company #Contract #Business #India #SupremeCourt #HighCourt #InternationalArbitration #DisputeResolution #ArbitrationAgreement #ArbitrationAct #Arbitrability #CommercialCourts #UNCITRAL #ArbitralTribunal #Law #Learning #Lawyer #Delhi #TrinityChambers #Enforcement #NewYorkConvention #Award #ForeignAward #ArbitralAward

In a significant legal battle, the Supreme Court of India reached a pivotal decision in the case of Manager Singh vs. State of State of Uttar Pradesh Home Department Secretary. This ruling has far-reaching implications and sets a new precedent in the realm of criminal proceedings. The case, which involved Manager Singh as the respondent and the State of India as the petitioner, delved into critical aspects of criminal law and procedural protocols. Let’s delve deeper into the details of this groundbreaking judgment. #SupremeCourt #LegalCase #ManagerSingh #StateOfIndia https://lnkd.in/g6v7FhJn

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday said that the petition challenging the decision of the Bar Council Of India (BCI) to allow entry of foreign law firms in India will be heard on September 9. The Court also passed the order allowing the petitioners to file a reply to the BCI affidavit. Read the full story here: https://lnkd.in/d8mnW8zg #DelhiHighCourt #BarCouncilofIndia #ForeignLawFirms #Entryofforeignlawfirms #Barandbench

{An Exclusive Article}: Judicial Interference And The Indian Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 Mamta Tiwari, Advocate at the Supreme Court of India & Delhi High Court, explores the Supreme Court’s decision in the 𝐃𝐞𝐥𝐡𝐢 𝐌𝐞𝐭𝐫𝐨 𝐑𝐚𝐢𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐋𝐭𝐝. vs. 𝐃𝐞𝐥𝐡𝐢 𝐀𝐢𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐌𝐞𝐭𝐫𝐨 𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐏𝐯𝐭. 𝐋𝐭𝐝. case. The Court restored an arbitral award for DAMEPL despite DMRC's challenge, emphasizing that judicial intervention was necessary to correct a patently illegal award where crucial evidence was ignored. This decision illustrates that not all judicial interference in arbitration is detrimental; sometimes, it is essential to uphold justice and the integrity of arbitration. The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Delhi Metro case is a step in the right direction and a welcome one. Link to read full Article : https://lnkd.in/dew24Qaj #MamtaTiwari #LegalArticle #ZoomIn #LegalEra

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India reiterated the importance of speedy trial and granted bail to an accused who has been in custody for over four years. The court's ruling emphasizes that even serious crimes do not warrant indefinite detention and that the right to a swift trial is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Supreme Court Reiterates To Speedy Trial: “However serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to a speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India. Over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. If the state or any prosecuting agency, including the court concerned, has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then the state or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. The right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed, thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution” #SupremeCourtOfIndia #SupremeCourt #HighCourt #Legal #Law #India

Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that once the Magistrate has exercised his discretion for issuance of process then it is not for the High Courtor even Supreme Court of India to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate. It is held that process against the accused under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be quashed or set aside if  1.    Where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused; 2.    Where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; 3.    Where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and 4.    Where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like. Abhijit Mishra #supremecourt #highcourt #law #legal #lawyer #India #crime #criminal #police #litigation