Dispute Resolution

The Supreme Court, in its recent decision in Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. v. Manjit Kaur & Ors[1]., has clarified that a person claiming title by virtue of adverse possession can maintain a suit for declaration of title. The question for consideration before the Court was 'whether Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 ('the Act') only enables a person to set up a plea of adverse possession as a shield and such a plea cannot be used as a sword by a plaintiff to protect the possession of the immovable property or recover it in case of dispossession?' 

In Pam Developments Private Ltd v State of West Bengal the Supreme Court considered whether an unconditional stay can be granted under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 when the applicant is the government.

Cigarette smoking is injurious to health. Thanks to the statutory warnings on television, movie-theatres and even the cigarette cartons, we all know this.

Litigation funding, often referred to as third party funding (TPF), has become fairly commonplace in jurisdictions such as United Kingdom, the United States and Singapore.

Guided by established principles of Common Law that view damages as the presumptive remedy and specific performance as an alternate, discretionary remedy, the Specific Relief Act 19631 ('Act') has sought to protect civil and contractual rights in the event of breach of contract. However, the new Amended Act2 (introduced in October 2018), seemingly deviating from these principles in an attempt to create a more business-friendly and secure environment, makes a significant change worthy of speculation: It seeks to enforce specific performance as a rule and damages as an alternative remedy.

The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019 (2019 Amendment Act), as a bill, was passed by the lower house of Parliament (Lok Sabha) on 1 August 2019and passed by the upper house of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) on 18 July 2019.  Soon after, on 9 August 2019, the 2019 Amendment Act received the assent of the President and was published as Act No. 33 of 2019. Thereafter, certain sections of the 2019 Amendment Act were notified on 30 August 2019.

The Bombay High Court, in its judgment dated 6 September 2019 in Earnest Business Services Pvt Ltd (Petitioner/Applicant) v the Government of the State of Israel (Respondent), has inter alia held that parties to a dispute can agree on appointment of an arbitrator without filing an application under Sections 11(6) or 11(9) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( Act), as the case may be, including in a petition under Section 9 of the Act or even without intervention of court.

As we know, cheque(s) has historically (and continues to be) one of the most popular negotiable instruments in India. In its historical avatar, a cheque was called by various names during different eras.

A Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra has, vide judgment dated 26 November 2019 passed in the matter of Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Another v HSCC (India) Limited, while dealing with Section 11 (6) read with Section 11 (12)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) has held that a person who has an interest in the outcome or decision of the disputes must not have the power to appoint a sole arbitrator.

Various Indian judicial fora, including the Supreme Court, have affirmed that a creditor may proceed against a guarantor on failure of the principal debtor to repay a loan without first exhausting his remedies against the principal debtor.