Lawpedia

Whether a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement can be permitted to remain present in arbitral proceedings between signatories. Kamal Gupta v. M/s. L.R. Builders Private Limited A. Background and Facts The dispute originated from a family settlement between Pawan Gupta and Kamal Gupta in 2015, which was later formalized in a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)/Family Settlement Deed (FSD) in 2019. Notably, the MoU excluded Rahul Gupta (Kamal Gupta's son), who was not a signatory to the agreement . When disputes arose and the arbitration clause under the MoU was invoked, Rahul Gupta and other non-signatory entities sought permission to attend the proceedings and access case records . The Delhi High Court initially dismissed this request on March 22, 2024 . However, in August and November 2024, the High Court, in already disposed of Section 11(6) proceedings, allowed the non-signatories to attend the arbitration, citing its inherent power  . The signatories chal...

 1. Brief Facts The case concerns Mr. Gaurav Rajgaria (Plaintiff) who was employed in a managerial capacity with Maruti Suzuki India Limited (Defendant No. 1). The Plaintiff instituted a civil suit alleging that his termination from service, effected through a termination letter dated 13.02.2023, was unlawful . The Plaintiff sought a declaration to that effect, along with prayers for reinstatement to service and compensation amounting to Rs. 2,00,00,000/- for loss of income, harassment, and undue hardship allegedly resulting from the termination  . It remained undisputed that the Plaintiff's employment was governed by the terms of an appointment letter dated 06.02.2006, which unequivocally permitted either party to terminate the contract upon giving three months' prior notice or by payment in lieu thereof . The Plaintiff did not dispute having received his contractual dues pursuant to the termination . In view of this admitted contractual framework, Defenda...

1. Brief Facts National Project Construction Corporation Limited (NPCC/Appellant) is a government company that was awarded a contract by Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited (SSNNL/principal employer) for the construction of four aqueducts at rivers Deo, Karad, Mesari, and Kun. The present dispute pertains specifically to the construction of aqueducts over river Kun . The Appellant issued a work order (No. 32/0007) to M/s S.S. Sharma and Company (Respondent) for sinking of circular wells and other connected works for an amount of Rs. 23,34,000/- with a completion period of 18 months . The Respondent could not complete the entire awarded work within the stipulated time and only completed work worth Rs. 1,69,937/- in about six and a half months. Consequently, the Principal Employer terminated the contract on 14.05.1992 . Prior to the termination, the Respondent had stopped work effective 28.02.1992, allegedly due to its failure to pay its workmen despite having its bills cl...

In a recent decision of  Belvedere Resources DMCC  v. OCL Iron & Steel Ltd. & Ors.  the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasmeet Singh has ruled that WhatsApp messages between the parties would constitute as a valid arbitration agreement.  Before delving into the facts of this case, it is pertinent to reiterate the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in this regard.  The Supreme Court of India's decision in Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Ltd. v. KS Infraspace LLP Limited (2020) is perhaps the most significant judgment addressing the evidentiary and contractual value of WhatsApp messages   . In this case, the Court specifically addressed the status of WhatsApp messages in the context of contract formation, stating: "The WhatsApp messages which are virtual verbal communications are matters of evidence with regard to their meaning and its contents to be proved during trial by evidence-in-chief and cross examination. The e-mai...

In a significant judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kalyani Transco v. M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. & Ors. on May 2, 2025, the SC had dealt with the below-mentioned issues:  Maintainability of appeals filed by different stakeholders.  Jurisdiction of NCLT/NCLAT to review decisions of statutory authorities under PMLA.  Extent of compliance with mandatory provisions of the IBC (Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016) and its Regulations.  Significant delays encountered in the implementation of the Resolution Plan Roles and responsibilities of the Resolution Professional (RP) and Committee of Creditors (CoC) Background Facts of the Case:  Bhushan Power and Steel Limited (" BPSL" ) was one of the "dirty dozen" - 12 large accounts identified by the Reserve Bank of India in June 2017 for immediate reference under the IBC . The corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) was initiated against BPSL on July 26, 2017, with...

What happens to your personal data stored in case your mobile phone is seized by the ED?  This is an issue of seminal important, that whether the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has the power to access or copy the personal data from the mobile phones seized during the search conducted by the enforcement agency? In 2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the Enforcement Directorate not to access and copy the contents of Mobile phone of the  Santiago Martin, the owner of  Future Gaming and Hotel Services Private Limited. The Supreme Court had also stayed the summons issued by the ED requiring the physical presence of individuals for extraction of data stored in the respective physical devices. This signals towards a more stricter regime to be adhered with by  enforced.  Read the entire order at   https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/57510/57510_2024_5_86_58074_Order_13-Dec-2024.pdf In the landmark judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in...

In a recent decision of ONGC Ltd. v. JSIW Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (FAO (OS) (COMM) 59/2024), the Delhi High Court upheld the decision of the Section 34 Court to set aside the Award as the arbitrator's interpretation of the contract was not a plausible one.  Facts of the case: a section 37 appeal was filed against the decision of the Section 34 Court, wherein the Award was set aside. The Award was set aside for being patently illegal and being in disregard of the terms of the contract. Disputes had arisen in the case basis a  Pipeline Replacement Project on lump sum basis (the " Project " ) entered into between the parties. The work involved installation and commissioning of line pipes. After the Notice of Award, there arose a difficulty on part of the Respondent in procuring line pipes domestically, thereby, necessitating the Respondent to pay Countervailing Duty (' CVD ') on import of the line pipes. Respondent had sought amendment to the contract seeking reim...