Legal Update as on 15.12.2022

legal-updates
  1. MP HC – CAN’T OBJECT TO JURISDICTION AFTER PARTICIPATING IN ARBITRAL PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT PROTEST – According to the Madhya Pradesh High Court, a party that has participated in the arbitration procedures without objecting to or contesting the tribunal’s jurisdiction cannot do so for the first time under Section 37 of the A&C Act.
    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH V. NATHURAM YADAV, ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2017
  1. ALLAHABAD HC – MAKE SURE THE ACCUSED’S CRIMINAL HISTORY IS AVAILABLE AT A STROKE – The Allahabad High Court has ordered the State’s Principal Secretary home and the DGP to take the necessary actions to make it possible to instantly access the criminal history of an accused person. The court also ordered the authorities to designate a specific person as being responsible for disclosing the entire criminal history of an accused in court.
    BAL KUMAR PATEL ALIAS RAJ KUMAR V. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
  1. DELHI HC: EMPLOYER CANNOT RETENTION PERFORMANCE BANK GUARANTEE AFTER ACKNOWLEDGING DUE PERFORMANCE – According to the Delhi High Court, the employer cannot withhold the performance bank guarantee after the contractor has acknowledged that the contract has been properly performed just to cover the cost of its counterclaims.
    UNION OF INDIA V. RCCIVL-LITL (JV), ARB.A. (COMM.) 12 OF 2022
  1. BOM HC – BIOLOGICAL PARENTS ARE GRANTED GUARDIANSHIP OF ILLEGAL MUSLIM MINOR – A Muslim minor was considered to be an illegitimate kid because she was born outside of marriage, so the Bombay High Court gave guardianship of her to her biological parents.
    SUDEEP SUHAS KULKARNI AND ANR. V. ABBAS BAHADUR DHANANI
  1. DELHI HC TO TRAI – FAST-TRACK CONSULTATIONS WITH PARTICIPANTS ON OTT APPS FRAMEWORK – In order to make recommendations to the Union government on the proposed regulatory framework for Over-The-Top (OTT) applications like WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger, the Delhi High Court has ordered Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to expedite talks with stakeholders.
    WORLD PHONE INTERNET SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
  1. SC – HC IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO ORDER AN INVESTIGATION TO BE CONDUCTED IN A SPECIFIC MANNER – According to the Supreme Court, the High Court lacks the authority to order that an inquiry be carried out a certain way under Articles 226 of the Indian Constitution or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
    STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS SANDIP BISWAS

Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this blog post is for general information and educational purposes only. Nothing contained in this blog post should be construed as legal advice from The Aran Law Firm or the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter.

Tags :

Share This:

Legal Updates