Mr. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh

Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 imposes twin conditions for granting bail to accused persons in cases involving serious frauds investigated by the SFIO – Sushant Muttreja Vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office – Delhi High Court

These conditions are, that an offence covered under Section 447 of the Companies Act shall be cognizable and no person accused thereof shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release and where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he not likely to commit an offence while on bail.

Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 imposes twin conditions for granting bail to accused persons in cases involving serious frauds investigated by the SFIO – Sushant Muttreja Vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office – Delhi High Court Read Post »

The jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is not barred from adjudicating a contractual dispute and the same is only restricted to adjudication of the recovery measures taken by the lenders under the special legislations – Asian Hotels North Ltd. Vs. Yes Bank Ltd. and Ors. – Delhi High Court

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

The jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is not barred from adjudicating a contractual dispute and the same is only restricted to adjudication of the recovery measures taken by the lenders under the special legislations – Asian Hotels North Ltd. Vs. Yes Bank Ltd. and Ors. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

In an International Commercial Arbitration, the Courts only have a limited supervisory role under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where intervention should be at minimal level and limited to the circumstances deemed to be unfair and unreasonable which shocks the conscience of the Court – National Highway Authority of India Vs. Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. – Delhi High Court

Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that:

(i) The consideration of mandatory national laws is important to ensure that an award is not opposed to the public policy of the country and therefore can be made enforceable. The mandatory national laws include the basic notion of morality and justice, therefore, the Courts need to determine whether an award is adherent to the said principles as included within the public policy.
(ii) The doctrine of public policy per se has been subject to various interpretations by the Constitutional Courts of the country. Over a period of time, the Courts in the country adopted a broader view with respect to the interpretation of the said term thereby shifting the trends.
(iii) It is clear that insofar an international commercial arbitration is concerned, the term public policy would not mean a mere violation, rather there is a threshold which mandates the interference in such awards where only in cases of unfairness and unreasonableness which goes to the root of the matter that can be termed a violation of the basic principles adopted by the country by way of various laws.

In an International Commercial Arbitration, the Courts only have a limited supervisory role under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where intervention should be at minimal level and limited to the circumstances deemed to be unfair and unreasonable which shocks the conscience of the Court – National Highway Authority of India Vs. Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Section 31A(1) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 allows only for reasonable costs to be recovered and not actual costs as claimed by the party, the test of reasonableness must be done by Arbitral Tribunal – National Highways Authority of India Vs. Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. – Delhi High Court

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that:
(i) Section 31A(1) of the Arbitration Act allows only for reasonable costs to be recovered and not actual costs as claimed by the party. Therefore, the test of reasonableness must be done by the Tribunal and the Tribunal must consider the reasonableness of the costs claimed by the claimant. The factors which may be taken into consideration to determine reasonableness vary and such an assessment is not straightforward formula. The issues in determining reasonable costs are further compounded by the significant costs imposed on parties by their solicitors and counsel, which, along with the manner of billing, vary.
(ii) The Courts shall not sit in an appeal while adjudicating a challenge to an Award which is passed by an Arbitrator, the master of evidence, after due consideration of facts, circumstances, evidence, and material before him.
(iii) Under Section 31(7)(b) of the Act, 1996, the Arbitrator has the discretion to determine the rate of reasonable interest, the sum on which the interest is to be paid, that is whether on the whole or any part of the principal amount, and the period for which payment of interest is to be made.

Section 31A(1) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 allows only for reasonable costs to be recovered and not actual costs as claimed by the party, the test of reasonableness must be done by Arbitral Tribunal – National Highways Authority of India Vs. Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top