“Nabha Power Ltd. v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., (2018) 11 SCC 508 referred to various English and Australian Judgments. We do not wish to burden this Judgment with all the English and Australian Judgments reproduced. However, it will be relevant to refer to the following passage reproduced in Nabha Power Ltd.: “The question of […]Read more "The Question of Implication"
Hon’ble Justice Arun Misra, while explaining Section 108 of The Companies Act [Ram Parshottam Mittal v. Hotel Queen Road Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 3934 of 2017], quoted Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice A.N. Ray [Mannalal Khetan v. Kedar Nath Khetan, (1977) 2 SCC 424]; My Lord, Mannalal Khetan v. Kedar Nath Khetan, […]Read more "The Revival of Ray XXII"
“Court’s task is to ascertain the intention of the parties by examining the words they used and giving them their ordinary meaning in their contractual context. It must start with what it is given by the parties themselves when it is conducting this exercise. Effect is to be given to every word, so far as […]Read more "‘Well-Known’ Principles of Interpretation"
“Contracts of insurance are governed by the principle of utmost good faith. The duty of mutual fair dealing requires all parties to a contract to be fair and open with each other to create and maintain trust between them. In a contract of insurance, the insured can be expected to have information of which she/he […]Read more "Contracts of Insurance"
“Section 12(5) is a new provision which relates to the de jure inability of an Arbitrator to act as such. Under this provision, any prior agreement to the contrary is wiped out by the non-obstante clause in Section 12(5) the moment any person whose relationship with the parties or the counsel or the subject matter […]Read more "Section 12(5) of The Arbitration Act III"
“Araya Complex”, Sector 62, Golf Course Extension Road, Gurugram Respondent – Flat Purchaser entered Apartment Buyer’s Agreement with Appellant – Builder. Appellant – Builder, failed. Respondent – Flat Purchaser filed NCDRC, Consumer Complaint. “Respondent – Flat Purchaser could not be compelled to take possession at such a belated stage. The inordinate delay in handing over possession […]Read more "Four Crore Apartment"
“One neat question arises before this Court, which is, whether, when parties are governed by contract, a claim in quantum meruit under Section 70 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 would be permissible. Section 70 occurs in Chapter V of The Contract Act. An early Judgment reported as Moselle Solomon v. Martin & Co., ILR […]Read more "The Law on Compensation for Breach of Contract IV"