Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
India decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Supreme Court held that Clause 19 of the mining contract was valid: no interest accrued on the security deposit during the contract, but interest was payable if it was retained beyond three months after termination.
Clause 8.3(b) is an enabling provision that permits recourse to the Secretary General of ICSID only upon a party's request after 30 days; it did not extinguish the co-arbitrators' power to appoint the presiding arbitrator. The tribunal's interpretation of the clause was a plausible view and there was no patent illegality. Further, MCGM's conduct — participating in proceedings, agreeing to abeyance for conciliation, and failing to object on multiple occasions while co-arbitrators appointed three different presiding arbitrators — evidenced acquiescence, so the award could not be set aside.
Source excerpt
The appeal did not abate on non-substitution of one heir because the estate of the deceased vendor (Kishorilal) was sufficiently represented on record by three of his four legal heirs and by the transferees lis pendens (appellants No.2 and 3); the High Court's earlier order dated 03.05.2013 holding there was no abatement was binding by res judicata; consequently the High Court orders dismissing the appeal as abated were erroneous and are set aside, and the appeals are restored.
Source excerpt
High Court's setting aside of the award was incorrect; the respondent's conduct precluded reliance on contractual procedural bars, Section 21 is procedural and not mandatory for jurisdiction, the arbitration clause was wide enough to cover all four disputes, and therefore the Arbitral Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction; the award dated 29.06.2006 is upheld in entirety.
Source excerpt
The High Court's referral was set aside because the respondent (BCL) failed even the prima facie test of being a veritable party to the arbitration agreement between HPCL and AGC; there was no privity between HPCL and BCL, the back-to-back documents were between AGC and BCL and did not prima facie show an intention to bind BCL to HPCL's contract, and clause(s) of the tender required prior written consent for assignment/sub-letting which was not shown; therefore no arbitration agreement existed between HPCL and BCL and the Section 11 petition was dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Court held that Bharat Drilling is not an authority for the proposition that an excepted or prohibitory clause in a contract applies only to the employer and not to the Arbitral Tribunal; applicability of such clauses depends primarily on the agreement between the parties and the High Court erred in relying on Bharat Drilling without examining the contractual clauses. For clarity and consistency, the ratio of Bharat Drilling is referred to a larger bench for reconsideration.
Source excerpt
The Court held that the product resulting from the contract (the steam generating plant assembled and commissioned at site) is an immovable property and therefore not 'goods' excisable under the Act; consequently the transaction value (contract price) could not be used to impose excise on the boiler by including the value of duty-paid bought out items delivered directly to site; further, the extended five-year limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) could not be invoked as revenue failed to prove wilful suppression with intent to evade duty, rendering the show cause notice invalid; acc…
Source excerpt
The notice of termination dated 10.03.2003 was a unilateral, not bona fide repudiation of a non-determinable Agreement to Sell; because the ATS contained no clause permitting unilateral termination and the reasons given were extraneous to any default by the vendees (and earnest money was not refunded), the ATS remained subsisting and enforceable; the subsequent purchasers had sufficient actual and constructive notice of the ATS and the surrounding circumstances and therefore were not bona fide purchasers under Section 19(b); the original vendees had proved continuous readiness and willingness…
Source excerpt
Clause 8.28 does not evince the requisite intention to refer disputes to arbitration and lacks finality and binding effect because it provides for negotiation and mediation by internal senior management/Chairmen and expressly permits the complaining party to seek remedies in the courts if unresolved within fifteen days; consequently it is not a valid arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the A&C Act and the High Court's dismissal of the Section 11(6) application is affirmed.
Source excerpt
The instrument, despite being titled 'Security Bond cum Mortgage Deed', in substance creates a mortgage as defined by Section 2(17) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899; Article 57 applies only where a surety distinct from the principal debtor executes the security, which is absent here since the company (principal debtor) executed the deed through its director; therefore the deeds are chargeable under Article 40 of Schedule 1-B and not Article 57.
Source excerpt
Explore more
