Topic
The Delhi HC held that waiver of the right to object to an arbitrator’s appointment under Section 12(5) requires an express written agreement after the dispute; mere participation does not suffice. This clarifies the law for parties in arbitration.
The Delhi High Court ruled that Indian courts can entertain civil suits to recover fraud-derived funds held in Indian banks, rejecting a forum non conveniens plea under the CPC. It also clarified that the limitation period for such monetary claims is governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act, commencing from the date the fraud is discovered. This decision guides foreign governments and claimants seeking cross-border fraud restitution in India.
The Delhi High Court reinstated the arbitral award, ruling that a claim of patent illegality fails when the award correctly interprets the contract and statutory provisions. This limits parties from overturning awards on that ground, reinforcing the narrow scope of judicial interference in arbitration.
The Delhi High Court affirmed that payments made to outside agencies for dealing, dyeing and fabrication do not qualify as basic wages for provident fund purposes. Consequently, employers cannot be compelled to treat such contractor payments as PF wages, impacting firms that outsource these operations.
Delhi HC quashed a Single Judge’s order that nullified an arbitral award, reiterating that courts may intervene only under Sections 34/37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and cannot re-appraise evidence or reinterpret the contract. The ruling preserves award finality and curtails judicial overreach for parties challenging awards.
A senior advocate’s claim for unpaid fees against the State of Madhya Pradesh was granted, with the Delhi High Court ordering payment of Rs 78.65 million plus 24% per annum interest. The bench clarified that a writ under Article 226 can be entertained even when the underlying facts are contested, widening the avenue for fee recovery from governments. The decision benefits senior advocates and other professionals seeking redress for outstanding fees from public authorities.
Delhi High Court ruled that a college cannot offset alleged excess provident-fund credits against retirees’ gratuity, reinforcing statutory protection under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The decision bars any post-retirement PF recovery by adjusting gratuity, safeguarding former employees’ entitlement.
A Delhi High Court order invalidated a criminal defamation summons, ruling that without a prima facie case and a certified copy of the alleged statement, Section 500 IPC cannot be invoked. This safeguards individuals from unwarranted prosecution where evidence is insufficient. Litigants facing defamation complaints must now ensure the complainant produces certified proof of the offending remark.
An oral, temporary settlement among co-owners does not meet the legal definition of a partition, so the Delhi High Court allowed a fresh partition suit despite earlier compromise orders. The decision confirms informal compromises cannot bar new partition actions under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, affecting joint-family property litigants.
Delhi High Court confirmed that a seller may retain only the expressly stipulated earnest-money amount, rejecting forfeiture of the full ₹17.5 million paid. The ruling limits Section 74 ICA to penal clauses and excludes later part-payments, urging parties to define earnest money separately.
The Delhi High Court quashed the Registrar’s last-minute appointment of an administrator just before the scheduled co-op housing society elections, deeming it ultra vires. It also ordered that all election documents be kept safe, protecting members’ voting rights.
A Delhi High Court ruled that serving summons through a process server at the defendant’s registered office satisfies CPC requirements, overturning an ex-parte decree. The court granted the defendant a conditional order to file its defence within a stipulated period, underscoring that proper service can revive a litigant’s right to contest a suit.
The Delhi High Court ruled that for industrial disputes the appropriate jurisdiction is where the employee worked and was dismissed, rendering the employer’s Delhi head office irrelevant. This clarifies that labour courts must base jurisdiction on the actual site of employment, affecting workers and employers in multi-state operations.
The Delhi High Court ruled that TDS deductions on interest payments count as acknowledgment of debt, thereby extending the Limitation Act’s three-year period to the date of the last TDS deduction. Consequently, loan-recovery suits remain actionable beyond the usual limitation when TDS is continuously deducted.
The Delhi High Court ruled that an arbitration clause embedded in an invoice, though unsigned, is enforceable if the parties’ subsequent conduct indicates assent, allowing a Section 8 application to refer the dispute to arbitration. This clarifies that a physical signature is not essential for arbitration agreements, benefiting businesses relying on conduct-based acceptance.