Legal Reference Library

The Delhi High Court, in ALUPRO BUILDING SYSTEMS PVT LTD vs OZONE OVERSEAS PVT LTD,  has clarified and settled that Section 21 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996, is mandatory to be complied with before reference of disputes to arbitration. The court laid down the object and purpose of issuing the notice under Section 21 holding that the Section is not limited only for the purpose of determining limitation and a party cannot straightaway file a claim before the arbitrator without issuing the notice under Section 21. The court held that in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, notice under Section 21 of the Act by the claimant invoking the arbitration clause, preceding the reference of disputes to arbitration, is mandatory. In other words, without such notice, the arbitration proceedings that are commenced would be unsustainable in law. The court also held that mere acceptance of supplies by a party on the basis of invoices containing an arbitration clause w...

The Supreme Court last week stated that a government department must implement the industrial policy laid down by the government and should not devise its own policy, that too contrary to the Cabinet decision. The government must speak with one voice, the court stated in its judgment Llyod Electric & Engg Ltd vs State of Himachal Pradesh. "What is given by the right hand cannot be taken by the left hand," it remarked while allowing the appeal of the company holding that it was eligible for concessional rate in central sales tax. While the Cabinet had extended tax benefits up to 2013 for industrial units to attract investments, the department maintained that the company was not eligible for them as the notification was issued later and did not cover it. The high court upheld the interpretation of the department. Setting aside the judgment of the high court, the Supreme Court stated that the department cannot issue a notification contrary to the Cabinet decision on policy m...

1) Valji Khimj i and Company Vs. Official Liquidator of Hindustan 2) Nitro Product (Gujarat) Limi ted and others - (2008) 9 SCC 299 3) United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others - (2010) 8 SCC 110 4) Narandas Karsondas Vs. S.A. Kamtam and another - (1977) 3 SCC 247 5) Ram Kishun and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others - (2012) 11 SCC 511. 6) Mardia Chemicals Ltd. and others Vs. Union of India & others. - (2004) 4 SCC 311 7) Transcore Vs. Union of India and another reported in (2008) 1 SCC 125 8) Eastern Counties etc. Railway Vs. Marriage reported in (1861) 9 HLC 32 9) Bhinka and others Vs. Charan Singh reported in AIR 1959 SC 960 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1927-1929 OF 2014 (@ SLP (C) NO(S).21433-21435 OF 2010) Mathew Varghese ….Appellant VERSUS M. Amritha Kumar & Ors. .…Respondents J U D G M E N T Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. ............. 26. When we analyze...

2014 STPL(Web) 1670 KERALA [2014(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 110] KERALA HIGH COURT (THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.) P.J. THOMAS Appellant VERSUS VIJAYKUMARI Respondent Crl. Rev. Pet. No.61 of 2012-Decided on 27-3-2014. (A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Dishonour of Cheque - Date of receipt of information of dishonour - Issue and service of notice are proved - Payee can give notice of dishonour to drawer only if payee gets that information - He could not be compelled or expected to do something which is not possible of him - Therefore, it is open to payee to present cheque through his bank and if it is to be taken that date for reckoning period of 15 days is date on which collecting bank received information, it would mean that even before information regarding dishonour has reached payee, he is required to issue a notice intimating that dishonour and demanding payment. [Para 17] (B) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138(b) - Dishonour of Cheque - Expression ’t...