Chintels India Limited v. Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd. Court: Delhi High Court| Case number: FAO (OS) Comm. No. 68 of 2020 | Citation: Not available currently |Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Asha Menon JJ | Date: 04 December 2020 Is an order dismissing a set-aside petition filed under
Continue readingIs dismissal of a set-aside petition on limitation appealable? Though answering no, the Delhi High Court granted a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court.
Is change of counsel a sufficient cause to condone delay in filing a set-aside application? A case comment on Delhi High Court’s Chintels India Limited v. Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi High Court | Case Number: OMP (COMM) 444/2019 | Citation: MANU/DE/1163/2020 | Judge: Jyoti Singh J | Date: 4 June 2020 Can change in counsel be a ‘sufficient cause’ to condone delay under Section 34(3) ACA? On 4 June 2020, a single-judge bench of the Delhi High Court answered in
Continue readingThe entire period from the institution of the original proceedings to the termination of the appellate proceedings, including preparation of appeal, in the wrong forum to be excluded under Section 14 Limitation Act. Preparation for re-presentation in the right forum also excluded (Delhi HC)
NHPC Limited v. BGS-SGS-SOMA JV Court: High Court of Delhi| Case Number: OMP(COMM) 23/2020 |Citation: MANU/DE/1247/2020 | Judge: Rekha Palli J; Date:17 June 2020 A. TIME LIMIT TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR SETTING ASIDE AN AWARD AND SECTION 14 OF THE LIMITATION ACT What happens to the limitation period if
Continue readingAn award can be set aside if it shocks the conscience of the court. (Bombay High Court)
Jackie Kukubhai Shroff v. Ratnam Sudesh Iyer Court: Bombay High Court | Case Number: ARB.P. 167/2015 | Citation: Currently not available| Judge: SC Gupte J| Date: 19 May 2020 | Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-375326.pdf A. THE BACKGROUND Jackie and Ratnam were shareholders in Atlas. Atlas was a shareholder in MSM. Dispute arose concerning the sale
Continue readingCourt cannot interfere with an award in a Section 34 petition if the view taken by the arbitral tribunal is a plausible one. (Bombay High Court)
Niko Resources Limited v. Gujrat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition 484 of 2017 | Citation: Currently not available| Judge AK Menon J | Court: Bombay High Court| decided on 9/06/2020| Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/142413589/ On 9 June 2020, the Bombay High Court dismissed a petition for setting aside
Continue reading