Articles and Updates

• Vasanth Rajasekaran and Saurabh Babulkar - 23-03-2021

In its recent judgment in the case of Kridhan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Venkestesan Sankaranarayan & Ors.1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reflected upon the importance of timelines in the insolvency resolution process. The Apex Court held that is essential to resolve corporate insolvencies and the corporate debtor's liquidation should be the last resort in the broader public interest. However, the resolution of corporate insolvency could not suffer from an indefinite delay in complete abeyance of the fixed timelines. The present article briefly examines the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

• Vasanth Rajasekaran and Saurabh Babulkar - 23-03-2021

It is common for automobile manufacturers to enter into dealership agreements with dealers or showroom operators on a principal-to-principal basis. A principal-to-principal arrangement proves advantageous since it makes the dealer solely liable for his transactions with the buyers. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision in Tata Motors Ltd. v. Antonio Paulo Vaz and Ors.1, held that the liability of the deficiency of service of a dealer could not be fastened onto a car manufacturer when the contract was on a principal-to-principal basis, and no knowledge of the dealer's wrongful acts was attributable to the car manufacturer. The present article briefly summarises the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

• Gautam Bhatikar , Madhavi Doshi and Shruti Salian - 17-03-2021

The Supreme Court (“SC”) judgment in Government of India v. Vedanta Limited and Others1, in this part we discuss the SC's views on enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) and the New York Convention along with issues relating to public policy in foreign seated arbitrations.

• Akshay Sachthey and Maryam Naaz Quadri - 15-03-2021

The Supreme Court's decision upholding the enforceability of unstamped arbitration agreements is a welcome step towards eliminating technical obstacles for arbitration at the pre-reference stage. However, the issue has been referred to a constitutional bench and given the limited scope of the reference, it is possible that the issue may continue to linger for some time to come.

• Gautam Bhatikar , Sanjeev Sambasivan and Madhavi Doshi - 09-03-2021

The Apex Court while upholding the decision of the Madras High Court for the refund of court fees took a purposive interpretation of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, held that parties who settle disputes out of court shall fall under the ambit and scope of Section 89 and will be eligible for a refund of court fees paid at the time of filing of the proceedings, under Section 69-A of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955.