The Supreme Court while deciding the manner in which the vacancies are to be filled held that “The question arises as to at which stage would Section 27 of the Act operates, and where in the list, the application of the “first” principle would apply.…

The Supreme Court held that “Indeed, an analysis of Section 2(1)(f) would show that whatever be the transaction between the parties, if it happens to be entered into between persons, at least one of whom is either a foreign national, or habitually resident in, any…

The Supreme Court stated that “thus, as per Section 210 Cr.P.C., when in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report, i.e., in a complaint case, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by the Magistrate, it appears to the Magistrate that…

The Supreme Court held that “Since the corporate debtor would be covered by the moratorium provision contained in Section 14 of the IBC, by which continuation of Section 138/141 proceedings against the corporate debtor and initiation of Section 138/141 proceedings against the said debtor during…

The Supreme Court held while hearing an appeal against the order of quashing the FIR by the High Court that “We are unable to appreciate the reasoning that the provision incorporated in the agreement for referring the disputes to arbitration is an effective substitute for…

The Supreme Court reiterated that “In our view, having due regard to the nature and ambit of Section 311 of the CrPC, it was appropriate and proper that the applications filed by the prosecution ought to have been allowed. Section 311 provides that any Court…

The Supreme Court, while deciding the issue that whether the period of limitation for filing the Petition under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act would commence from the date on which the draft award was circulated to the parties, or the date on which…

The Supreme Court in Asha John Divinathan Vs. Vikram Malhotra & ors., on 26.02.21 held that “From the analysis of Section 31 of the 1973 Act and upon conjoint reading with Sections 47, 50 and 63 of the same Act, we must hold that the requirement of taking…

The Supreme Court in Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (BESCOM Vs. E.S. Solar Power Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., dated 03.05.21 held that “The duty of the Court is not to delve deep into the intricies of human mind to explore the undisclosed intention, but only to take…

The Supreme Court in Rahul Sharma Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., dated 07.05.21 reiterated that “This Court in a Five Judge Bench decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, clearly held that in case the deceased is self-employed and below the…