684

High Court denies relaxation the condition of pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of RERA against an ex-parte order of RERA – Vrinda Krishna Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. – Punjab & Haryana High Court

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to […]

High Court denies relaxation the condition of pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of RERA against an ex-parte order of RERA – Vrinda Krishna Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. – Punjab & Haryana High Court Read Post »

In any event, in terms of Section 29A(4) and (5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the mandate of the Arbitrator can be extended by the Court even after expiry of the time for making of the arbitral award on sufficient cause being shown by the party making the application – Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. – Delhi High Court

High Court of Delhi held that:
(i) In any event, in terms of Section 29A (4) and (5) of the Act, the mandate of the Arbitrator can be extended by the Court even after expiry of the time for making of the arbitral award on sufficient cause being shown by the party making the application.
(ii) In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that there has been any lack of expedition on the part of the learned Sole Arbitrator in completing the arbitral proceedings. Further, given that the matter is at the stage of recording of evidence, there is no impediment in granting suitable time extension for completing the arbitral proceedings and making the arbitral award.

In any event, in terms of Section 29A(4) and (5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the mandate of the Arbitrator can be extended by the Court even after expiry of the time for making of the arbitral award on sufficient cause being shown by the party making the application – Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Only party to the ‘Deed of Hypothecation’ are the chargors and the security trustee and the only purpose of the document is appearing in broadly is to create a charge and the chargor is not and cannot be treated as a Guarantor within the meaning of the Contract Act – Doha Bank Q.P.S.C Vs. Anish Nanavaty RP of Corporate Debtor – NCLAT New Delhi

The ‘Deed of Hypothecation’ is merely creation of security interest and a mere security of interest created by hypothecation or mortgage does not constitute a financial debt. From our commercial understanding ‘Deed of Hypothecation’ is not a ‘Deed of Guarantee’. The ‘Deed of Hypothecation’ discharges the liabilities of other borrowers upon their default and is limited to the realization value of those hypothecated assets and hence it cannot be construed as a contract of guarantee. ‘Deed of Hypothecation’ is a regular boilerplate clause in any standard draft of a ‘Deed of Hypothecation’. The instrument which covers hypothecation or guarantee is specifically specified in the initial part or object of the agreement or preamble and not somewhere some wordings are mentioned in the agreement. If any, there is a guarantee there will be express or unequivocal promise to discharge the liability of the Principal Borrower in case of any default and will not contain a clause somewhere in the agreement that deficiency will be recouped. The only party to the ‘Deed of Hypothecation’ are the chargors and the security trustee and the only purpose of the document is appearing in broadly is to create a charge and the chargor is not and cannot be treated as a guarantor within the meaning of the Contract Act vide Section 126.

Only party to the ‘Deed of Hypothecation’ are the chargors and the security trustee and the only purpose of the document is appearing in broadly is to create a charge and the chargor is not and cannot be treated as a Guarantor within the meaning of the Contract Act – Doha Bank Q.P.S.C Vs. Anish Nanavaty RP of Corporate Debtor – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

The term “rules” in Section 15(2) obviously referred to the provision for appointment, contained in the arbitration agreement or any Rules of any Institution under which the disputes were referred to arbitration – Yashwith Construction P. Ltd. Vs. Simplex Concrete Piles India Ltd. & Anr. – Supreme Court

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to

The term “rules” in Section 15(2) obviously referred to the provision for appointment, contained in the arbitration agreement or any Rules of any Institution under which the disputes were referred to arbitration – Yashwith Construction P. Ltd. Vs. Simplex Concrete Piles India Ltd. & Anr. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top