Other Laws- CPC

The power of the courts to award interest on interest or compound interest in a given case subject to the power conferred under the statutes or under the terms and conditions of the contract but where no such power is conferred ordinarily, the courts do not award interest on interest – D. Khosla and Company Vs. The Union of India – Supreme Court

Hon’ble Supreme Court referring judgments in ONGC vs. M.C. Clelland Engineers S.A. (2017) ibclaw.in 252 SC, State of Haryana and Ors. vs. S.L. Arora and Company (2017) ibclaw.in 249 SC and Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. vs. Governor, State of Orissa (2017) ibclaw.in 610 SC and provisions of Arbitration Act, 1940, Interest Act, 1978 and Section 34 of the CPC, has held that ordinarily courts are not supposed to grant interest on interest except where it has been specifically provided under the statute or where there is specific stipulation to that effect under the terms and conditions of the contract. There is no dispute as to the power of the courts to award interest on interest or compound interest in a given case subject to the power conferred under the statutes or under the terms and conditions of the contract but where no such power is conferred ordinarily, the courts do not award interest on interest.

The power of the courts to award interest on interest or compound interest in a given case subject to the power conferred under the statutes or under the terms and conditions of the contract but where no such power is conferred ordinarily, the courts do not award interest on interest – D. Khosla and Company Vs. The Union of India – Supreme Court Read Post »

Only when a pending suit relating to a commercial dispute is transferred to the Commercial Division, the provisions of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 will apply and till such time, the mandatory time period of 120 days for filing written statement would not apply – Dish TV India Ltd. Vs. Gulf DTH FZ LLC and Ors. – Delhi High Court

Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that:

(i) Only when a pending suit relating to a ‘commercial dispute’ is transferred to the Commercial Division, the provisions of Commercial Courts Act will apply and till such time, the mandatory time period of 120 days for filing written statement would not apply.
(ii) Till the time the present suit was converted into a commercial suit, it continued to be an ordinary civil suit.
(iii) Once, the suit pertaining to a ‘commercial dispute’ has not been filed as a commercial suit before the commercial division, the said suit cannot automatically be treated as a commercial suit unless a competent court declares the same to be a commercial suit and directs conversion of the suit into a commercial suit.
(iv) The provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, including the time period for filing of the written statement, would apply from the date on which the suit was converted to a commercial suit.
(v) The present suit would qualify as a pending suit and in terms of Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, was required to be transferred to the Commercial Division of this Court.

Only when a pending suit relating to a commercial dispute is transferred to the Commercial Division, the provisions of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 will apply and till such time, the mandatory time period of 120 days for filing written statement would not apply – Dish TV India Ltd. Vs. Gulf DTH FZ LLC and Ors. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

While dealing with an appeal under Section 37 of Arbitration Act, Appellate Court can exercise the Power of Remand only when exceptional circumstances make an order of remand unavoidable | The scope of interference in a petition under Section 34 is very narrow and the jurisdiction under Section 37 is narrower – Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Pvt. Ltd . Vs. Samir Narain Bhojwani – Supreme Court

In this important judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified following issues:

A. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Court dealing with an appeal under Section 37 of Arbitration Act.
B. Power of the Appellate Court under Section 37(1)(c) of Arbitration Act to pass an order of remand.
C. The job of the Appellate Court was to scrutinize.
D. Only legally permissible grounds in petitions under Section 34 and the appeals under Section 37.

While dealing with an appeal under Section 37 of Arbitration Act, Appellate Court can exercise the Power of Remand only when exceptional circumstances make an order of remand unavoidable | The scope of interference in a petition under Section 34 is very narrow and the jurisdiction under Section 37 is narrower – Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Pvt. Ltd . Vs. Samir Narain Bhojwani – Supreme Court Read Post »

An Arbitral Award is not in reality a Court Decree as defined under Section 2(2) of the CPC, 1908, Objections under Section 47 of CPC, 1908 cannot be allowed in proceedings under Section 36 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 – State of U.P. and Ors. Vs. Shri Raj Veer Singh – Allahabad High Court

Issues in this case:

(i) Whether an Arbitral Award is a Court Decree?
(ii) Interpretation of Section 36 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 47 of the CPC, 1908
(iii) Key distinction between Court Decrees and Arbitral Awards
(iv) Objections in Execution Proceedings under Section 36 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996
(v) Writ Jurisdiction cannot be invoked to challenge an Arbitral Award
(vi) Imposition of Costs in cases of frivolous litigation

An Arbitral Award is not in reality a Court Decree as defined under Section 2(2) of the CPC, 1908, Objections under Section 47 of CPC, 1908 cannot be allowed in proceedings under Section 36 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 – State of U.P. and Ors. Vs. Shri Raj Veer Singh – Allahabad High Court Read Post »

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 does not exclude application of Sec. 24 of CPC to Commercial Disputes having a specified value | A Commercial Court below the level of a District Judge is not a Court subordinate to District Judge | Power u/s 24 of CPC to transfer Suit is not available to District and Session Judge – Namita Gupta Vs. Suraj Holdings Ltd. – Delhi High Court

In this important judgment on Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and CPC, Hon’ble High Court has held that:
(i) Commercial Courts are distinct from the Ordinary Civil Courts.
(ii) Commercial Courts would be a Court Subordinate to the High Courts.
(iii) If a Suit raises a Commercial Dispute of a Specified Value, the Ordinary Civil Court shall have no jurisdiction to entertain the same, and it must, therefore, return the plaint in exercise of its power under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC. on return of the plaint, the plaintiff may, after making necessary corrections in the pleadings, present the plaint before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
(iv) Section 24 of the CPC is not a provision which has been amended by the said Schedule. It, therefore, continues to apply in full force to a Suit in respect of a Commercial Dispute of a Specified Value.
(v) A Commercial Court, constituted under Section 3 of the Act, would be a Court subordinate to the High Court.
(vi) Commercial Court below the level of a District Judge do not still become subordinate to the District Court for purposes of Section 24 of the CPC.
(v) The power under Section 24 of the CPC to transfer the Suit, is not available to learned the District and Session Judge.
(vi) The Additional District Judge had no power to place the file of the Suit before the Principal District and Sessions Judge for it to be transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction.

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 does not exclude application of Sec. 24 of CPC to Commercial Disputes having a specified value | A Commercial Court below the level of a District Judge is not a Court subordinate to District Judge | Power u/s 24 of CPC to transfer Suit is not available to District and Session Judge – Namita Gupta Vs. Suraj Holdings Ltd. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Erroneous decision of a Court cannot be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction, but can only be corrected by a Superior Court – C&C Construction Ltd. Vs. Himachal Pradesh Road and Other Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. and Others. – Himachal Pradesh High Court

Hon’ble High Court held that:
(i) It is well settled that erroneous decision of a Court cannot be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction, but can only be corrected by a superior Court. It is also equally well settled that any error that has to be deduced by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of record.
(ii) The plea that this Court had granted the relief beyond the prayer made in the application cannot be said to be an error apparent. Similarly, the order passed by this Court, which allegedly has created anomalous situation cannot be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction. The order sought be reviewed is backed by reasoning and cannot be altered without entering into a thought process.

Erroneous decision of a Court cannot be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction, but can only be corrected by a Superior Court – C&C Construction Ltd. Vs. Himachal Pradesh Road and Other Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. and Others. – Himachal Pradesh High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top