An Arbitral Award can be set aside only when it is vitiated by patent illegality: SUPREME COURT

Thursday April 14, 2022. BY | Blog

The Supreme Court, in a recent judgement1, delivered on 30th March 2022, noted that apart from the grounds mentioned in Section 34(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2013 (the “Act”), an arbitral award can

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 contd. : Important changes in provisions of CPC

Friday January 22, 2016. BY J.Mandakini & Varsha G Subramanian | Commercial/Corporate

PART II – IMPORTANT CHANGES IN THE PROVISIONS OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (“CPC”) By J.Mandakini & Varsha G Subramanian The Act provides for a Schedule which amends certain provisions of CPC. These provisions are

Commercial Courts, Commercial Division & Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015

Saturday January 16, 2016. BY J.Mandakini & Varsha G Subramanian | Commercial/Corporate

PART I – ESTABLISHMENT OF COURTS AND DIVISIONS FOR COMMERCIAL DISPUTES Introduction The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division & Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (“Act”) was enacted on 1 January 2016 with effect

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction P. Ltd. v. M/s. Haryana Concast Limited & Anr. – SARFAESI Act a complete code, harmonious with Companies Act, 1956

Thursday January 7, 2016. BY | Law

By Varsha G Subramanian Introduction A secured creditor has a right to enforce its security interest under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”). In the case

Amendments to Wakf Properties Lease Rules, 2014

Thursday December 31, 2015. BY | Law

By Priyanka Shingare and Varsha G. Subramanian Introduction The Wakf Properties Lease Rules, 2014 (“Rules) have been recently amended vide notification dated 26 August 2015 (“Amendment Rules”). The Concept of Waqf The concept of Waqf

Recent developments in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Tuesday December 15, 2015. BY | Law

By Himanshi Parekh and Abdullah Qureshi M/s. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Inderpal Singh The Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Inderpal Singh[1] has held that pursuant to Sections

1 2 3