Mr. Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju

Chacha Nehru Bal Chikitsalaya, Delhi Vs. Induction Corporate Solutions Pvt. Ltd. – Delhi High Court

Hon’ble High Court held that the venue where the hearings are held cannot be conflated with the place of arbitration. In the present case, the parties had agreed that the arbitral proceedings would be held in Delhi as is apparent from the plain language of the arbitration clause in the Agreement. In the absence of any contra indication, it would follow that the parties had agreed that the seat of arbitration is Delhi. There was no plausible reason to assume that the seat of arbitration is Connaught Place, New Delhi. Merely because the hearings were held in an office in Connaught Place, New Delhi does not mean that the seat of arbitration was Connaught Place, New Delhi.

Chacha Nehru Bal Chikitsalaya, Delhi Vs. Induction Corporate Solutions Pvt. Ltd. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

In GoAir Insolvency, Delhi High Court allows Aircrafts’ Lessors to access Airports, carry out inspection and maintenance of 30 Aircrafts – Accipiter Investments Aircraft 2 Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Anr. – Delhi High Court

In this case, the grievance of the lessors and owners of Aircrafts that have been leased to Go Air (India) Ltd. are that the DGCA has failed to deregister their Aircraft(s) in contravention of Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 30 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937.
Hon’ble High Court held that there can also be no denial of the fact that the Aircrafts of the Petitioners are extremely valuable and highly sophisticated equipment and require regular maintenance for their preservation. Therefore, with a view to obviate any further losses, the following directions are being passed:
• (i) The Petitioners, their employees, agents, officers and/or representatives shall be permitted by the DGCA and the appropriate Airport Authorities to access the Airport(s) where the 30 Aircrafts are parked inter alia to inspect their respective Aircrafts, within the next 3 days;
• (ii) The Petitioners, their employees, agents, officers and/or representatives shall be permitted to carry out inspection and all maintenance tasks of the Aircraft, its engines and other parts and components, of all 30 Aircrafts, at least twice every month, until the final disposal of the Writ Petitions;
• (iii) Respondent/GoAir, its directors, employees, agents, officers and or representatives or the IRP/RP(s) or any person acting on their behalf, are hereby restrained from removing, replacing, taking out any accessories, parts, components or spares, etc. or any relevant operational or other Manuals /records, documentation from any of the 30 Aircraft, except with prior written approval of the Lessor of such Aircraft;
• (iv) The following additional directions shall be applicable to Aircraft MSN 6072: Respondent/DGCA shall permit the Respondent/RP to carry out the mandatory maintenance/engine runs of this Aircraft until its de-registration.

In GoAir Insolvency, Delhi High Court allows Aircrafts’ Lessors to access Airports, carry out inspection and maintenance of 30 Aircrafts – Accipiter Investments Aircraft 2 Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Anr. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Merely because another view is possible, the Court will not interdict the Arbitration Award, the Courts should only interfere if such Award “portrays perversity unpardonable” under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act – Pragya Electronics Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Cosmo Ferrites Ltd. – Delhi High Court

Hon’ble High Court held that in exercise of powers under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, the scope of interference of the Courts is narrow. The law is no longer res integra. Where the Arbitrator has assessed the evidence and material placed before him while considering the objections to the Award, the Court does not sit as a Court of Appeal or re-appreciate and re-assess the evidence. Unless there is a patent illegality or perversity, interference by the Court is not warranted. Merely because another view is possible, the Court will not interdict the Award. The Courts should only interfere if such Award “portrays perversity unpardonable” under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

Merely because another view is possible, the Court will not interdict the Arbitration Award, the Courts should only interfere if such Award “portrays perversity unpardonable” under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act – Pragya Electronics Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Cosmo Ferrites Ltd. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

No claim after approval of Resolution Plan even a show-cause notice issued prior to initiation of CIRP – Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. Vs. Union of India – Delhi High Court

This writ petition is directed against the Order-in-Original dated 27.07.2020, passed by the respondent no. 3 i.e., Additional Director General (Adjudication) Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The petitioner, Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. is aggrieved that even though a resolution plan has received the approval of the NCLT, Delhi Bench, by virtue of the impugned order, a demand has been foisted on the petitioner. The transactions in issue, qua which demand has been raised by the respondents/revenue concerns the Financial Year (FY) 2013-2014. Respondent no.3 had issued a show-cause notice on 01.06.2016.

No claim after approval of Resolution Plan even a show-cause notice issued prior to initiation of CIRP – Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. Vs. Union of India – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top