Aman Mishra

Want to start your career as a Lawyer? Read: Highest Paying Law Jobs: How to Choose Your Career Path #lawyers #lawjobs #lawyersalary #paylawjobs #lawessayhelp #lawessayhelponline https://lnkd.in/dUbg8ZqU

Delhi High Court Dismisses Review Petition Challenging ₹50,000 Costs in Commercial Litigation: Holds That Costs Are Nominal and Cannot Be Waived Through Review Court’s Decision The Delhi High Court declined to vary or waive the costs of ₹50,000/- imposed earlier, emphasizing that the costs were reasonable, particularly in the context of commercial litigation. The court also noted that the Supreme Court had dismissed the petitioner’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the same costs, finding no reason to interfere with the High Court’s original order. The court, however, extended the time for payment of costs by eight weeks from the date of this order. Facts Background of the Transfer Petitions: The petitioner filed two transfer petitions (TR.P.(C.) 75/2024 and TR.P.(C.) 76/2024) seeking the transfer of cases. These petitions were dismissed by the Delhi High Court, with costs of ₹50,000/- imposed on the petitioner. Supreme Court Involvement: Dissatisfied with the dismissal, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court via an SLP. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, explicitly stating that there was no cause to interfere with the High Court’s order, including the imposition of costs. Filing of Review Petitions: The petitioner subsequently filed review petitions before the Delhi High Court seeking a waiver of the costs. Issues Whether the costs of ₹50,000/- imposed by the High Court in the original order could be waived through a review petition. Whether additional time for payment of costs could be granted to the petitioner. Court’s Reasoning Reasonableness of Costs: The court stated that the costs of ₹50,000/- were nominal, particularly given the commercial nature of the disputes. It noted that commercial litigation often involves significant financial stakes, making the imposition of such costs a minimal burden. Lack of Grounds for Review: The court highlighted that the petitioner failed to provide any substantive reason for waiving the costs. The Supreme Court’s explicit refusal to interfere with the High Court’s order reinforced the legitimacy of the costs imposed. Extension of Time: Acknowledging the practicalities of compliance, the court granted the petitioner an additional eight weeks to pay the costs. Conclusion The High Court dismissed the review petitions, holding that there was no basis to waive or reduce the costs imposed. However, it allowed the petitioner an extension of eight weeks to pay the costs. #DelhiHighCourt #JudicialDecisions #CommercialLitigation #LegalCosts #ReviewPetitions #LegalUpdates #IndianJudiciary #CourtOrders #ReasonableCosts #LitigationInsights

Gauhati High Court Dismisses Appeal for Specific Performance Due to Appellants’ Failure to Establish Continuous Readiness and Willingness Within Stipulated Period Court’s Decision: The Gauhati High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the first appellate court’s decision to reverse the trial court’s decree for specific performance. The court found no substantial question of law in favor of the appellants (plaintiffs in the original suit), affirming that they failed to demonstrate their readiness and willingness to fulfill the contractual terms within the stipulated time. Facts: The respondent (seller) entered an agreement with the appellants (buyers) to sell a plot of land with a house for a fixed price. After paying an advance, the appellants were to pay the remaining balance within four months, after which the respondent would execute a sale deed. Although the appellants claimed readiness to pay, they alleged that the respondent delayed executing the deed. Consequently, they filed a suit for specific performance, which the trial court decreed in their favor. The respondent appealed, and the first appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision, leading to this second appeal. Issues: Whether the appellants were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. Whether time was of the essence in the contract for the sale. Court’s Reasoning: The court found discrepancies in the appellants’ claims of readiness, observing that they had not approached the respondent within the stipulated time and failed to prove they made consistent efforts to complete the purchase. The court noted that the appellants waited over a year after the alleged refusal before initiating legal proceedings, which weakened their claim of continuous readiness. Conclusion: The court concluded that the appellants did not adequately demonstrate their readiness and willingness to fulfill their contractual obligations within the specified period. Consequently, it affirmed the first appellate court’s ruling, denying specific performance. #GauhatiHighCourt #SpecificPerformance #ContractLaw #RealEstateLaw #JudicialDecision #LegalReadiness #CourtRulings #IndianJudiciary #PropertyDispute #LegalObligations

High Court ruled that petitioner can appeal order passed u/s 143(3) r/w sec 144B. Petitioner must file appeal within 15 days for consideration.: The High Court considered the validity of an assessment order u/s 143(3) r/w sec 144B, focusing on the alleged violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner filed a writ petition after 30 days from the order date. The court noted that prior notices were issued u/s 143(2) and 142(1), and the petitioner had responded. Despite knowing the deadline, the petitioner sought an adjournment, extending the response deadline. The petitioner attempted to submit a response after office hours, failing to demonstrate prejudice from the assessing officer's actions. The court found the order appealable and, despite no proven prejudice, granted the petitioner liberty to appeal within 15 days with a condonation request. The appellate authority must hear and decide the appeal within 6 weeks, considering the petitioner's response and grounds. http://dlvr.it/T8Frnw #HighCourt #Legal #NaturalJustice #WritPetition #TaxLaw

EC to SC on 17 May: No difficulty in disclosing #Form17C details, except that it will take time EC to SC on 22 May: We have seven objections, please see affidavit #ElectionCommission #SupremeCourtofIndia

Exploring the Limits of Judicial Remand SC's Verdict on Section 37 Appeals : : Ruprah Legal Chambers Advocates & Consultants Follow Us : https://lnkd.in/d4MrrPkT https://lnkd.in/dc9U_WTh... : : #section37 #JudicialRemand #LegalUpdate #ArbitrationAct #LawFirmNews #ruprahlegalchambers

Arbitration Act, 1940 doesn't empower Arbitrator or Court to award interest upon interest or compound interest: Supreme Court #SupremeCourt #ArbitrationAward #Arbitrator #compoundinterest #contract #interestoninterest #JusticePankajMithal #SimpleInterest #legalnews #legalknowledge #legalblog #legalupdates #lawstudent #legalresearch #legalstudies

S. 21 CPC | Objections To Place Of Suing Can't Be Allowed Unless Taken In Court Of First Instance At Earliest Opportunity: Supreme Court The Supreme Court held that objections to jurisdiction under Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), must be filed at the earliest opportunity. The Court emphasized that objections regarding the place of suing should be raised in the court of first instance and cannot be entertained at a later stage unless injustice is caused. ⚖️ Credits: LiveLaw Read More - https://lnkd.in/dMbE25Rc #SupremeCourt #CPC #Jurisdiction #Law #LegalNews #CourtRuling #India #Judiciary #LegalUpdates #mdlegal #mumbailawfirm #legalnews #advmahavirdeshlahra #mdlegal #mdlegalllp #mumbailawfirm #lawupdates #supremecourt #highcourt

Law Connect introducing a Comprehensive Test Series for CS Professional Students (Old & New Syllabus) for Dec 2024 Attempt. You can purchase test series for individual subjects according to your needs—there’s no requirement to buy the entire module. *What to Expect?* • Unscheduled Test Series • 5 Unit Test & 2 Full Syllabus Test • Weekly Doubt Sessions • ABC Analysis (70% of topics align with Dec 2023 & June 2024 Exams to ensure relevance.) • Detailed Performance Analysis & Feedback • One to One Call Sessions *Money Back Guarantee* 50% Amount of Test Series returned. If you attempt all the test papers. We want student has to give all the test paper before the exams rather than purchased the test series and not given any test papers. *For Inquiry and Enrolment:* What’sapp at 9084610707 or mail us on info@lawconnect.co.in #cs #cstestseries #csaspirant #csprofessionaltestseries #icsi #lawconnectcs

📢 Case Update: SATISH CHAND JAIN vs. ACIT & ANR. 📅 High Court of Delhi 🗓️ Date of Decision: 11th September 2024 The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, declaring the second notice under section 148 invalid after the first reassessment proceedings had been finalized. The court followed the precedent set in Anindita Sengupta vs. Asstt. CIT & Ors. (2024 SCC Online Del 2296), reinforcing the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards in reassessment. For a detailed case summary, visit currenttaxonline.com #TaxLaw #Reassessment #IncomeTax #Section148 #LegalUpdate #CurrentTaxOnline

Mere arbitration clause in invoices invalid without express or implicit acceptance: Delhi HC [Read Order] . . Follow Lawstreet Journal for more legal updates #DelhiHighCourt #ArbitrationClause #LegalRuling #ContractLaw #ArbitrationMandate #UnilateralAppointment #InvoiceDispute #LegalUpdate #CommercialLaw #JudicialDecision . . Click to read full article 👇 https://lnkd.in/dfm9SnU7

High Court of Sikkim Reaffirms Separability Doctrine: “Even if the Primary Agreement is Rendered Void or Terminated, the Arbitration Clause Remains Valid” Under Arbitration Act, 1996 Court’s Decision: The High Court of Sikkim overturned the decision of the District Judge, who had invalidated the arbitral award based on the invalidation of the underlying contract. The court clarified that under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an arbitration clause is separable from the main contract. Even if the primary contract is rendered void or terminated, the arbitration clause can still stand independently and facilitate dispute resolution. Facts of the Case: Agreement for Lottery Operations: On August 24, 2001, the State of Sikkim entered into an agreement with a private entity appointing it as the sole marketing agent for an online computerized lottery system. The agreement was for seven years, with a minimum assured revenue clause. The agreement included an arbitration clause for resolving disputes. Legal Challenge to the Agreement: The legality of the tender process and the agreement itself were challenged in writ petitions before the High Court of Sikkim. In 2003, the High Court quashed the tender process and the agreement. However, it allowed the private entity to continue operations temporarily under specific conditions while the State sought fresh tenders. Dispute Arises: Post-agreement nullification, disputes surfaced over payments and performance. The private entity sought arbitration under the original agreement. The arbitrator awarded ₹96.48 crores to the State of Sikkim, but this award was challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act before the District Judge. Issues: Can an arbitration clause survive when the main agreement has been declared invalid or quashed? Did the District Judge err in invalidating the arbitration award on the grounds that the arbitration clause perished with the agreement? Court’s Reasoning: The District Judge’s ruling was flawed as it failed to consider the evolution of arbitration law under the 1996 Act. The court underscored that the arbitration clause does not automatically perish with the main contract. Instead, it survives to facilitate dispute resolution. The separability doctrine ensures the independence of the arbitration agreement, allowing disputes to be resolved despite the invalidity or termination of the main agreement. Conclusion: The High Court of Sikkim quashed the District Judge’s ruling and reinstated the validity of the arbitration clause and the resulting arbitral award. It affirmed that arbitration clauses under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, are separable and enforceable, regardless of the status of the main contract. #HighCourtOfSikkim #ArbitrationLaw #SeparabilityDoctrine #ArbitrationAndConciliationAct #LegalUpdates #ContractLaw