Posts

Interpretation of the term 'can' appearing in arbitration clause of an agreement.

By Jasmin Sokhi
Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in  Nagreeeka Indcon Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Cargocare Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd.   (2026 INSC 384)  interpreted the term 'can' appearing in an Arbitration Clause of an agreement.  The issue that arose before the Court was to decide, when the arbitration clause in the contract uses the word ‘can’, does it necessitate the reference of all disputes to arbitration or is recourse to other dispute resolution mechanisms, including that of the Civil Court, open for the parties.  Facts: Appellant before the Supreme Court was manufacturer of  aluminium foil containers and  kitchen rolls. It had received  a contract for  purchase of corrugated boxes of aluminium foil from M/s.  American Alupack Industries, the delivery was to take place in USA. For the said purpose, the Appellant had entered into a contract with the Respondent. Disputes later arose between the parties with respect to the delivery of the said pro...
Post a Comment
Read more

Pre-Existing Dispute under IBC: Supreme Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 9 of IBC

By Jasmin Sokhi
Image
Pre-Existing Dispute under IBC: Supreme Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 9 GLS Films Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Chemical Suppliers India Pvt. Ltd.  (2026 INSC 344) 1.  Introduction The Supreme Court, in this significant decision, has once again clarified the scope and limitations of proceedings under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“ IBC ”). The ruling reiterates a crucial principle: the IBC is not a forum for adjudication of disputed claims or recovery of contested dues. The judgment reinforces that even the existence of a  plausible pre-existing dispute  is sufficient to reject an application filed by an operational creditor, thereby safeguarding corporate debtors from coercive insolvency proceedings. 2.   Factual Matrix In the case initiation of CIRP was denied by the adjudicating authority but the appellate authority reversed the decision. Aggrieved by the said decision, the Corporate Debtor filed an Appeal before the Hon'...
Post a Comment
Read more

Whether mobile service providers who pay excise duties on various items for setting up their business infrastructure can claim the benefit of CENVAT Credit?

By Jasmin Sokhi
Image
M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune (2024 INSC 880) Core Legal Issue that arose before the Supreme Court  The fundamental question arose before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether mobile service providers (MSPs), who pay excise duties on various items for setting up their business infrastructure — particularly for erection of mobile towers and peripherals like prefabricated buildings — can claim the benefit of CENVAT Credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (" CENVAT Rules "), for the purpose of payment of service tax on the output services rendered by them. Background and Conflicting High Court Decisions This case arose due to conflicting views taken by two High Courts: Bombay High Court Position The Bombay High Court in   Bharti Airtel Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise , Pune  (decided on August 26, 2014) held against the MSPs, ruling that mobile towers and other components do not fall within the definition of "capital goods...
Post a Comment
Read more