The Supreme Court takes the law of torts a few steps forward

M J Antony: Reservoir of untapped rights

Business Standard

Partnership Act does not bar arbitration

Though arbitral proceedings have certain shades of civil suits, they are different in substance. Therefore, the bar on suits imposed in the Partnership Act in certain circumstances will not come in the way of taking disputes to arbitration, the Supreme Court has held in its judgment, Umesh Goel vs Himachal Coop Housing Society. The partnership firm undertook to build a project that ended in disputes. The matter was taken to an arbitrator who ruled in favour of the firm. The society moved the Delhi High Court, raising the objection that under Section 69(3) of the Act, suits are barred and so arbitration was also banned. The high court agreed with it, but the Supreme Court quashed that judgment and ruled that arbitration proceedings would not come under the expression "other proceedings" in the Act and the bar has no application to arbitration or the award.Govt arms at each other's throatsThe Supreme Court has again lamented that government corporations are fighting fratricidal litigatio

The law says that a contract to do an act, which turns out to be impossible of performance after the agreement, becomes void and the person who suffers must be compensated.  If environment restrictions not contemplated in the contract frustrate a project and it becomes impossible or impracticable to implement it, the contractor deserves compensation, according to the Supreme Court. The contractor who could not undertake a housing project because of environment curbs not contemplated by the government at the time of signing the agreement was compensated in the judgment, Delhi Development Authority vs Kenneth Builders. The development authority (DDA) gave to a contractor a housing project in the ridge area of the capital, which is an ecologically sensitive area.   At the time of the contract, this fact was not taken into consideration by either party. Later it was found that the project could not be undertaken because of various regulations to protect the area. Any development activity a

Contract hits impossible hurdle

Dissident Congress leader Kalikho Pul sworn in as Chief Minister of crisis-ridden Arunachal Pradesh by Governor J P Rajkhowa in Itanagar on Friday. Photo: PTI

Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court calls Governor's decisions unconstitutional

SC restores Cong govt in Arunachal, BJP terms the order 'very strange'

Tarini, a hydro-power producer signed a PPA with the state distribution licencee at a particular rate

Regulator can review power tariff in PPA

SICA prevails over Companies Act

Tripods of television crew stand in front of the Supreme Court building in New Delhi

The states utilities that moved the court include those of UP, MP, Haryana and Punjab

Supreme Court declines stay on payment to Sasan UMPP

Image via Shutterstock

APTEL had directed a group of state electricity distribution companies to pay around Rs 1,050 crore to SPL

SC declines stay on payment to Sasan UMPP; admits petition of discoms

If one of the companies in an arbitration case is incorporated outside India, the chief justice of a high court has no power to appoint an arbitrator even if the parties agree to arbitration and name arbitrators. This power belongs only to the Chief Justice of India or his designate as it is an "international commercial arbitration" under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The high court can initiate arbitration only in disputes between domestic parties. Moreover, before naming an arbitrator, the high court chief justice or his designate is bound to verify whether he has jurisdiction in the matter. This clarification to the Arbitration Act came last week in the case, Roptonal Ltd vs Aneez Bazmee. The Bombay High Court, after pointing out the error in law made by it earlier, recalled its 2014 judgment and allowed the petition of the company which is incorporated in Cyprus. None of the parties brought this principle to the notice of the chief justice's designate, nor did they object t

Bombay HC recalls arbitration order

Abuse of state power in land acquisition

The Supreme Court lifted the corporate veil and upheld the cancellation of plot for an information technology campus because a Singapore company, the allottee, transferred the plot to a Dubai company without approval. In this case, Estate Officer, UT Chandigarh vs Esys Information Technologies Ltd, the plot was allotted for running an institution. However, the Singapore firm transferred its shares to a Dubai firm, Esys Global Holdings. There was another disputed transfer of shares to a Chennai firm. The estate officer asked the allottee company about the share transactions and nature of the business. He did not get a satisfactory answer. Therefore, he threatened to take back the land. The company moved the high court. It stayed the take-over. On appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the high court order. It stated that the company had concealed facts about the share transfers and not come to the court with "clean hands". There was a sale, not mere transfer of shares. The judgement emphas

SC lifts corporate veil on share deals

In an instance of glaring abuse of the powers under the old Land Acquisition Act, the Supreme Court has castigated the Haryana government for acquiring land from farmers in the name of public purpose and giving it to a builder to advance his business interests. "The present case is a gross abuse of law on account of the unholy nexus of the concerned authorities and the builder, enable the builder to profiteer. The land could either be taken by the state for a compelling public purpose or returned to the land owners and not to the builder," the court stressed in the judgment, Uddar Gagan Properties vs Sant Singh. The government acquired the land for a housing colony and while compensation was being determined, the builder "suddenly surfaced" with a licence to build a colony of his own with power of attorney from some land owners and other documents. Other land owners moved the high court, which quashed the acquisition. The government files "deceptively projected" that the land was relea

Public purpose invoked for profiteering

It is in the nature of governments to make promises to attract industries to their region, like offering cheap land, electricity and tax exemptions

Govt must fulfil promises, says SC

Some employees of Bajaj Auto Ltd in Pune have been reporting for duty since 2003 but the management has not been giving work to them.

Wages for no work at Bajaj Auto unit

Oliver Hoffmann / Shutterstock.com

To decide whether capital gains on surrender of call options are taxable

Supreme Court admits tax appeal against Vodafone

SC orders Centre to release MNREGS funds to states

The apex court has also directed the government to ensure that compensation for the delayed payment is given to workers whose wages have been delayed beyond 15 days

Taxi

Centre forms three-member committee on transport operators

Supreme Court relaxes order on diesel taxis

The Supreme Court might pass an order on Tuesday, modifying its earlier stand on banning diesel taxis plying in Delhi, unless they change over to CNG fuel. "We are open to modify the order, but not unconditionally," the Bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur observed during the hearing. The court will hear the issue of taxis exclusively on Tuesday.About diesel, the court remarked that "we shall assume that it is more polluting than other fuels. The diesel vehicle purchaser must know that it is a more polluting."The court heard the diesel vehicle manufacturers who argued with their documents  that their fuel was cleaner than CNG and petrol, and contributed only 1.5 per cent of the total air pollution. Senior counsel A M Singhvi, representing the manufacturers submitted that industrial pollution,constructions, burning crops and other factors were the main culprits.Kapil Sibal, representing Toyota which makes Innova model, argued that it was not a high-end vehicle as some people believe

SC might change order on Delhi taxis

The CJs' conclave didn't touch core issues and remedies within their reach

M J Antony: Turning a mirror to judiciary

A borrower can file an appeal against the DRT before the appellate tribunal only if he deposits 50% of the due amount or 50% ordered by the DRT, whichever is less

Return of pre-deposit in Sarfaesi suits

This regulation, which came into force in April, saw tobacco companies halt production in protest, challenging the ruling in court

M J Antony

M J Antony

Page 7 - M J Antony