Supreme court
Commercial Suits Filed Before 20.08.2022 Without Pre-Institution Mediation Be Kept In Abeyance To Explore Mediation : Supreme Court
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court (May 15) reaffirmed that pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is mandatory, as held in Patil Automation's case (2022), but clarified that this requirement applies prospectively from 20.08.2022 to avoid disrupting pending cases. In Patil Automation Private Limited v. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited, (2022)...
Supreme Court Imposes Fine Up To Rs. 25,000 Per Tree For Illegal Felling In Taj Trapezium Zone
The Supreme Court recently imposed penalties up to Rs. 25,000 per tree for illegal tree felling within the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ), invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.Farmers who illegally fell private trees of exempted species to be fined Rs. 5,000 per tree as a compounding fee, with the timber returned to them. In cases involving restricted species or exempted...
2025 LiveLaw (SC) 571 | TATA MOHAN RAO Versus S. VENKATESWARLU AND ORS
Click the links below for the reports and the judgment. Supreme Court Demotes Deputy Collector Who Demolished Slum-Dwellers' Huts Defying HC Order, Imposes Rs.1 Lakh FineDisobedience Of Court's Orders Attacks Rule Of Law On Which Democracy Is Based : Supreme...
Supreme Court Daily Round-Up : May 15, 2025
'Playing Cards Not Act Of Moral Turpitude': Supreme Court Sets Aside Disqualification Over 'Gambling In Public''Employment Bond Valid, Doesn't Violate S.27 Contract Act' : Supreme Court Upholds Rs 2 Lakh Penalty For Premature ResignationAfter SC Intervention, UP Govt Frames Guidelines For Invocation Of Gangsters Act; Finds Provisions Not Attracted Against A Man Booked Under It Can Supreme...
Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside Solely For Lack Of Jurisdiction If No Timely Objection Raised Before Tribunal: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on May 15 reiterated that arbitral awards made under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, cannot be set aside merely because the disputes should have been adjudicated under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (“MP Act”), and no jurisdictional objections were raised at the proper stage of the proceedings. The Court held that any challenge to...