#Section 125

The Gujarat High Court ruled that voluntary PF/ESPP deductions cannot be deducted from gross salary for Section 125 maintenance, as they are the husband's assets, not mandatory charges. Applying the Supreme Court's Harpreet Sawhney precedent, it quashed a net-salary-based order and remanded for fresh computation on gross income, safeguarding the wife's maintenance entitlement.

The Bombay High Court denied a stay under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act because the defendants neither pleaded invalidity of the plaintiff's registered marks in their written statement nor filed rectification proceedings before the High Court, opting instead for the Registrar. The ruling clarifies that both procedural prerequisites are mandatory for a stay application.

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.

Under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a unilateral arbitrator appointment after a dispute is invalid without a post-dispute written waiver, the Delhi High Court held, adding that pre-dispute clauses cannot substitute the waiver.

The Tripura High Court ruled Section 12(5) applies retrospectively to pre-2015 agreements, invalidating clauses appointing a party's employee as arbitrator absent an express waiver. The court appointed an independent arbitrator, reinforcing neutrality in legacy government contracts.

Appointments of arbitrators made unilaterally before the 23 Oct 2015 amendment are not void, provided the arbitration agreement either names the arbitrator or permits one party to appoint. Only appointments lacking any contractual basis are set aside. This clarifies the enforceability of older arbitral clauses for parties and courts handling award execution.

Allahabad HC directs strict compliance with Section 12(5) of the Domestic Violence Act, mandating disposal of cases within 60 days of certified copy delivery. The court barred unnecessary adjournments, emphasizing expeditious justice for victims of domestic violence and interim maintenance claims.

Karnataka High Court rules that unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator by an interested party violates Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, rendering the arbitral award void. The judgment confirms the retrospective application of the 2015 amendments to agreements executed post-23.10.2015, reinforcing impartiality in commercial arbitration.

The Bombay High Court has set aside multiple arbitral awards where the arbitrator was unilaterally appointed, affirming that such appointments are void from the outset under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. This ruling reinforces the Supreme Court’s position in Bhadra International, ensuring parties cannot circumvent neutrality requirements even after award issuance - impacting corporate contracts, construction disputes, and commercial arbitration strategies nationwide.

The Bombay High Court has declared all arbitral awards void where arbitrators were unilaterally appointed, affirming the Supreme Court’s position in Bhadra International. Crucially, it permits parties to initiate fresh arbitration by excluding the entire period of the invalid proceeding from the limitation period, offering a rare procedural lifeline to claimants caught in defective appointments.

The Bombay High Court has held that a unilateral appointment of an arbitrator renders the entire arbitration void ab initio, and this defect cannot be cured even at the execution stage. This ruling extends the Supreme Court’s Bhadra International precedent to execution proceedings, making it clear that parties cannot bypass impartiality safeguards by waiting until enforcement - a critical warning to corporate litigants and arbitrators alike.

MP High Court rules that a Commissioner of Urban Administration cannot serve as an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act due to direct conflict of interest under the Seventh Schedule. The judgment reinforces that even party-appointed arbitrators in a three-member tribunal must be impartial and independent, invalidating unilateral appointments by state entities with vested interests.

Bombay High Court reinforces Supreme Court precedent by invalidating arbitral awards where arbitrators were unilaterally appointed, holding such appointments void ab initio under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Parties might now face fresh arbitration proceedings, with limitation periods adjusted to exclude the voided process duration.

CESTAT Chennai rules that misdeclaration of a new vehicle as used does not constitute prohibited goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, mandating redemption under Section 125. The ruling clarifies that absolute confiscation is unwarranted unless goods are inherently banned, impacting importers facing policy violations.