Category: Supreme Court

We’re pleased to bring you a guest post by our former blogger Aparajita Lath. Aparajita is a lawyer based in Bangalore. She works in a law firm that advises technology companies. The views expressed in this post are personal. Her previous posts on the blog can be viewed here and here. Supreme Court’s S. 63

Monday May 23, 2022. BY | Commercial/Corporate The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Vineet Saran and JK Maheshwari held in a recent judgment that the Duomatic Principle is applicable even in the Indian context which states that ‘Strict adherence to a statutory requirement may be dispensed with if it is demonstrated otherwise on facts if

Wednesday May 4, 2022. BY | Arbitration and Conciliation The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna held, in a recent judgment Arbitral Tribunal (“Tribunal”) cannot pass an interim order under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the “Act”) for depositing an amount in the dispute, if the liability

Thursday April 28, 2022. BY | Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose in the recent Judgement held that: – the wages or salaries of only such workmen/employees, who worked during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”), shall be included in the CIRP costs; and –

Thursday April 14, 2022. BY | Blog The Supreme Court, in a recent judgement, 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 be set aside only when it is vitiated by patent illegality, and not

We’re pleased to bring you a guest post by Sangita Sharma, looking at the Supreme Court’s order in the trademark infringement case Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. Vijaya Sai and Others. Sangita is a 3rd Year student at Gujarat National Law University and has written for us earlier here. Clarifying or Confusing the Quandary of

In a very significant observation, the Apex Court has as recently as on October 29, 2021 in a learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled The State of Jammu and Kashmir vs Dr Saleem Ur Rehman in Criminal Appeal No. 1170 of 2021 in exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction observed without mincing any words

Zolgensma and the Inadequacies of the Compulsory Licensing Regime Poster for Zolgensma In a guest post, Akhil wrote about Zolgensma, Novartis’ gene therapy medication prescribed for treatment of Spinal Muscular Atrophy (‘SMA’). Akhil discusses the compulsory licensing provisions in the TRIPS Agreement, as well as the objectives and principles relating to safeguarding public interest in

It is good to learn that the Apex Court has most recently in a learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Dumya Alias Lakhan Alias Inamdar, Etc vs State of Maharashtra in Criminal Appeal Nos. 818-820 of 2021 in S.L.P. (CRL.) Nos.6044-6046 of 2021 (Arising out of Diary No(s).43190 of 2019) delivered just recently on August

Monday August 9, 2021. BY IndiaLaw Research | Civil The Supreme Court in South Eastern Coalfields Ltd & Others vs. M/s S Kumar’s Associations AKM (JV)[1] ruled that a Letter of Intent (“LoI”) is not a binding contract unless such an intention is evident from its terms. The Supreme Court observed, “The judicial views before