Dispute Resolution

The World Health Organisation has declared COVID-19 to be a pandemic. All spheres of life have been affected alike and the judicial system is no exception to this. There are various challenges that are being faced by Courts, lawyers and litigants alike which are unprecedented in nature. It would be useful to look at some of the issues that the system is grappling with and what is being done to deal with them in a manner that balances the litigants’ interests while taking precautions against the pandemic.

Earlier today, i.e., 23 March 2020, the Supreme Court of India (SC), in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2020, took suo motu cognisance of the difficulties faced by litigants due to the rapidly escalating corona virus outbreak (COVID-19).

Earlier today, i.e., 23 March 2020, the Supreme Court of India (SC), in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2020, took suo motu cognisance of the difficulties faced by litigants due to the rapidly escalating corona virus outbreak (COVID-19).

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Bank of Baroda v Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Civil Appeal No. 2175 of 2020 (judgment rendered on 17 March 2020), has clarified that the period of limitation for executing a decree, under Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), passed by a superior court of a reciprocating territory (Cause Country) will be the limitation prescribed under the laws of the Cause Country.

The macabre of the novel coronavirus (also commonly known as “COVID-19”) has engulfed within its fold as many as 112 countries and territories around the world and international conveyance (the Diamond Princess cruise ship harbored in Yokohama, Japan). This virus has found a foothold on every continent except for Antarctica.

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited (Civil Appeal No 10941-10942 of 2013) has conclusively settled conflicting decisions under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (Act) pertaining to the limitation period for filing a reply to a complaint under the Act. The Supreme Court has held that the time prescribed for filing a reply to the complaint under Section 13(2)(a) of the Act is mandatory and not merely directory.

A recent un-reported judgment of the Bombay High Court (Fedbank Financial Service Ltd through its AO Zahid Sultan v Narendra H Shelar through his LRs & Ors, Arbitration Application No. 34 of 2020, Order dated 24 February 2020) holds that the express termination of the mandate and denial of an extension, of a previously constituted arbitral tribunal, afford grounds to deny the appointment of a new arbitrator.

Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Deep Industries Limited v Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and Anr (Civil Appeal 9106 of 2019 decided on 28 November 2019) has clarified the issue of maintainability of writ petitions against orders passed by the relevant jurisdictional court under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (Act).

In Tyagi v Union of India (CM APPLN 28273/2019 in WP (C) 6727/2019) , the Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation/writ petition that sought a stay on the release of Bollywood film Bharat.

In Crocs Inc v Bata India (RFA(OS)(COMM) 22/2019 & CM App No 22655/2019, along with other connected matters against various defendants), a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, in an interim decision on appeals filled by Crocs Inc, has held that a passing-off action relating to a "registered design used as trademark" is maintainable.