Delhi High Court
Mere Delay By Employer Would Not Entitle The Contractor To Damages Unless The Loss Is Pleaded And Proved: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held that merely because the delay in the execution of the work is attributable to the employer, the same would not entitle the contractor to claim damages unless it pleads and proves that such delay resulted in loss to it. The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tara Vitasta Ganju held that a procedural order passed by the earlier arbitrator, not being a...
Membership Of An Arbitral Institution Cannot Be Insisted Upon As A Pre-Requisite For Invoking Arbitration: Delhi High Court
The High Court of Delhi has held the membership of an arbitral institution cannot be insisted upon as a pre-requisite for invoking arbitration. The bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that when parties agree to resolve their dispute through an arbitral institution, such an agreement cannot be construed to mean that they have agreed to take its membership. The Court held...
Panel Consisting Of 23 Names Cannot Be Considered Broad-Based If It Lacks Arbitrators From Different Backgrounds: Delhi High Court
The High Cout of Delhi has held that a panel consisting of 23 names cannot be considered broad-based if lacks arbitrators from different backgrounds. The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma held that a panel must not only be broad in terms of numbers but should also reflect diversity by having arbitrators from diverse backgrounds. Facts The parties entered into an agreement...
Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 18 To March 24, 2024
Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 317 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 359NOMINAL INDEXPRITHVI RAJ KASANA & ORS. v. STATE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 317X v. Y 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 318MONEYWISE FINANCIAL SERVICES V. DILIP JAIN 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 319SHAKUNTLA DEVI & ANR v. STATE THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF DELHI POLICE & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 320LATE AKSHEM CHAND THROUGH LR ATLO DEVI v. SURESH BALA & ORS....
Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator By Party: Delhi High Cout Set Aside Arbitral Award As It Contravened Section 12(5) A&C And & 7th Schedule
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held aside an arbitral award noting that the arbitrator was unilaterally appointed by the Respondent. The bench held that that the unilateral appointment of the Sole Arbitrator by Respondent was non-est in law, as it contravened Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. “The...
Arbitration Act | To Claim Liquidated Damages, Party Should Establish It Had Suffered Legal Injury As Result Of Breach Committed By Other Party: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal held Liquidated damages, in law, are no different from unliquidated damages that an aggrieved party may claim. In both instances, the aggrieved party is required to demonstrate legal injury. “Liquidated damages, as agreed to between the disputants, represents the maximum amount that can be paid...
Examination System Doesn't Permit For Students To Be Penalized For Poor Handwriting: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has observed that the examination system does not permit students to be penalised for having poor handwriting.The court however emphasized that students must write properly readable answers and examiners cannot be asked to evaluate completely unintelligible handwritings.Justice C Hari Shankar observed that though a student who undertakes an examination is entitled to have...
Wife Openly Humiliating Husband, Calling Him Impotent Amounts To Mental Cruelty: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has said that being openly humiliated and called impotent by the wife in front of family members is an act of humiliation causing mental cruelty to the husband.A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the observation while granting divorce to a husband on the grounds of cruelty by the wife under Section 13 (1) (ia) of...
No Privity Of Contract Between Parties, not party to MOU: Delhi High Court Dismisses Section 11(4) A&C Petition
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma dismissed a petition under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 noting that the Petitioners were not party to Memorandum of Understanding containing the arbitration clause, thus there was no privity of contract between the Petitioners and the Respondent. Brief Facts: The Petitioner approached...
Parties Assuring Document Execution And Providing Security For Transaction Are Part Of Loan Agreement: Delhi High Court Refers Parties To Arbitration
The Delhi High Court single bench Justice Jasmeet Singh that the parties which assured document execution and provided security for the transaction are integral part of the loan agreement. “Prima facie, I am of the view that the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are a veritable party to the Loan Agreement as they are connected with the loan documents and form part of the loan transaction as in...
Without Copy of Challenged Arbitral Award, Impossible To Consider Grounds To Set Aside Award: Delhi High Court Dismisses Section 34 Petition
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that failure to file a copy of arbitral award renders the filing under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 incomplete. The bench held that without the copy of the challenged award, it is impossible to consider the grounds to set aside the arbitral award. Brief Facts: The Petitioner approached...
Delhi Judicial Service Mains Examination 2023 Shall Be Conducted On April 13, 14: High Court
The Delhi High Court has ordered that the Delhi Judicial Service Mains Examination (Written) 2023 shall be held on April 13-14. A division bench comprising of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Amit Bansal directed its Registrar General to shift the date of examination by about 12 days. The examination was earlier to be held on March 30-31.“It is ordered accordingly. Since we are told...