sadalawpublications.com

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Menu

Sada Law

Supreme Court’s Power to Grant Divorce Under Article 142: Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan Judgment

Leave a Comment / 2023, Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court’s Power to Grant Divorce Under Article 142: Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan Judgment AIMPLB Challenges WAQF Amendment Act 2025: Supreme Court Affidavit Highlights Risks of De-registration Supreme Court: Bribery Conviction Under PC Act Requires Proof of Demand Beyond Recovery of Tainted Notes Supreme Court Clarifies Modification Powers Under Arbitration Act in Landmark Ruling Supreme Court to Review Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Ruling on PMLA: Hearing Scheduled for May 7 Supreme Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Autonomy in Habeas Corpus Case: Guidelines Issued to High Courts Supreme Court Overturns Remission in Bilkis Bano Case: 2002 Gujarat Riots Convicts Ordered Back to Jail Supreme Court Grants Chhattisgarh State Option to Seek Case Transfer Amid Heated Liquor Scam Hearing Byju’s Withdraws Supreme Court Petition on Aakash Ownership: Karnataka HC Ruling Stands Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Supreme Court’s Power to Grant Divorce Under Article 142: Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan Judgment NITU KUMARI 05 May 2025 Discover how the Supreme Court of India can grant divorce by mutual consent under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, bypassing HMA procedures. Learn more about the landmark Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan case and its implications on family law in India. Introduction: Evolving Judicial Powers in Divorce Matters In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India has expanded the scope of its powers under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, enabling it to grant divorces by mutual consent—bypassing the procedural requirements of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). This significant judgment in Shilpa Sailesh vs Varun Sreenivasan highlights the Court’s commitment to delivering complete justice in family law cases, especially in instances of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Background of the Case Case Details: Case Name: Shilpa Sailesh vs Varun Sreenivasan Case Citation: 2023 INSC 468 Date of Judgment: May 1, 2023 Bench: Constitution Bench of five judges Presiding Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S. Oka, Vikram Nath, Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari Case Facts: The petitioner sought the transfer of ongoing divorce proceedings to another state. During the hearing, both parties agreed to dissolve the marriage through mutual consent. Invoking Article 142(1), which empowers the Supreme Court to deliver “complete justice,” the parties requested the Court to grant them a divorce directly. Previously, a two-judge bench had recognized the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and referred the matter to a larger bench due to the recurring nature of such cases. Key Legal Issues Addressed 1. Can the Supreme Court grant a mutual consent divorce under Article 142, bypassing Section 13B of the HMA? Yes. The Court affirmed that it can use Article 142 to grant divorce by mutual consent without enforcing the statutory waiting period under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. 2. Can a divorce be granted under Article 142 even if one party objects? Yes. The Court held that in cases of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, it may grant divorce under Article 142 even if one spouse does not consent, provided the circumstances justify such intervention. The Supreme Court’s Judgment The Constitution Bench, authoring its opinion through Justice Sanjiv Khanna, held: The Supreme Court has the constitutional power under Article 142(1) to dissolve a marriage to render complete justice. It can override procedural constraints of the Hindu Marriage Act when warranted. The Court may quash connected civil or criminal proceedings between estranged spouses as part of its relief. Parties cannot directly approach the Supreme Court seeking divorce under Article 142. The Family Court remains the first forum for matrimonial matters. Significance of the Ruling This progressive judgment balances judicial discretion with the sanctity of marriage, ensuring that justice prevails without subjecting estranged couples to prolonged and emotionally draining litigation. By setting clear boundaries on when Article 142 can be invoked, the Court prevents misuse while still offering relief in compelling cases. Conclusion: A Shift Toward Practical Justice in Family Law The Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 142 in matrimonial disputes marks a turning point in Indian family law. By acknowledging the reality of dead marriages and emphasizing practical legal solutions, the Court ensures that justice is not sacrificed at the altar of procedure. This judgment empowers the judiciary to act decisively in preventing unnecessary suffering in matrimonial disputes, aligning legal processes with human realities. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court’s Power to Grant Divorce Under Article 142: Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan Judgment Supreme Court’s Power to Grant Divorce Under Article 142: Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan Judgment Sada Law • May 5, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Autonomy in Habeas Corpus Case: Guidelines Issued to High Courts Supreme Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Autonomy in Habeas Corpus Case: Guidelines Issued to High Courts Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Overturns Remission in Bilkis Bano Case: 2002 Gujarat Riots Convicts Ordered Back to Jail Supreme Court Overturns Remission in Bilkis Bano Case: 2002 Gujarat Riots Convicts Ordered Back to Jail Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court’s Power to Grant Divorce Under Article 142: Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan Judgment Read More »

AIMPLB Challenges WAQF Amendment Act 2025: Supreme Court Affidavit Highlights Risks of De-registration

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today AIMPLB Challenges WAQF Amendment Act 2025: Supreme Court Affidavit Highlights Risks of De-registration Supreme Court: Bribery Conviction Under PC Act Requires Proof of Demand Beyond Recovery of Tainted Notes Supreme Court Clarifies Modification Powers Under Arbitration Act in Landmark Ruling Supreme Court to Review Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Ruling on PMLA: Hearing Scheduled for May 7 Supreme Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Autonomy in Habeas Corpus Case: Guidelines Issued to High Courts Supreme Court Overturns Remission in Bilkis Bano Case: 2002 Gujarat Riots Convicts Ordered Back to Jail Supreme Court Grants Chhattisgarh State Option to Seek Case Transfer Amid Heated Liquor Scam Hearing Byju’s Withdraws Supreme Court Petition on Aakash Ownership: Karnataka HC Ruling Stands Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Removal of Unauthorized Gurudwara and Temple in Kharar AIMPLB Challenges Waqf Amendment Act 2025: Supreme Court Affidavit Highlights Risks of Deregistration MAHI SINHA 04 May 2025 Discover AIMPLB’s objections to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, and its implications for waqf properties in India. Learn about the constitutional and legal challenges raised in the Supreme Court. AIMPLB Opposes Waqf Registration Requirement The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), through its General Secretary Mohammed Fazlurrahim, has raised concerns over the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. In its affidavit, AIMPLB challenges the Union Government’s claim that the new requirement for waqf registration is harmless and asserts that it undermines the legal recognition of waqfs-by-user. Context of the Case The Supreme Court is set to hear the case on May 5, 2025, before a bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Kumar, and K. V. Viswanathan. The AIMPLB’s affidavit refutes the government’s position that historical waqf properties registered before April 8, 2025, remain unaffected by the amendment. The Union claims that registration only involves submitting basic information without requiring documentation. Key Objections by AIMPLB 1. Legal Validity of Waqfs-by-User AIMPLB contends that the revised Section 3(r) of the Act effectively derecognizes waqfs-by-user unless registered. This violates the principle of non-retrogression upheld in landmark cases like Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India. AIMPLB argues that waqfs have existed for centuries without registration being a prerequisite. 2. Historical Perspective The Board asserts that waqf registration has never been a requirement for its creation, citing the Mussalman Wakf Act of 1923. In Mohammed Ghouse v. Karnataka Board of Wakfs, the courts rejected claims that registration was necessary for waqf validity. 3. Discriminatory Implications AIMPLB argues that the amendment discriminates between registered and unregistered waqfs. This contradicts the intent of previous waqf regulations, including the Waqf Act of 1995, which emphasized recognition without making registration mandatory. Challenges to Government Claims AIMPLB highlights inconsistencies in the Union’s counter-affidavit. The government’s acknowledgment of “removing statutory protection to waqfs-by-user” is contradictory to its subsequent denial of such implications. The Board emphasizes that non-registration should not invalidate waqfs, as historically, only the mutawalli’s failure to register has attracted penalties. Constitutional Concerns The amendment’s prospective application does not address the broader implications for user-recognized waqfs. AIMPLB argues that: The removal of waqfs-by-user’s recognition violates Article 26 of the Constitution of India. Section 36(7A) enables government claims to supersede waqf registration, further jeopardizing waqf properties. Conclusion AIMPLB maintains that the Waqf (Amendment) Act undermines the historical and legal foundation of waqfs in India. It asserts that registration should not be a precondition for waqf recognition and calls for the Court to address the discriminatory and unconstitutional aspects of the amendment. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases AIMPLB Challenges WAQF Amendment Act 2025: Supreme Court Affidavit Highlights Risks of De-registration AIMPLB Challenges WAQF Amendment Act 2025: Supreme Court Affidavit Highlights Risks of De-registration Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court: Bribery Conviction Under PC Act Requires Proof of Demand Beyond Recovery of Tainted Notes Supreme Court: Bribery Conviction Under PC Act Requires Proof of Demand Beyond Recovery of Tainted Notes Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Clarifies Modification Powers Under Arbitration Act in Landmark Ruling Supreme Court Clarifies Modification Powers Under Arbitration Act in Landmark Ruling Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

AIMPLB Challenges WAQF Amendment Act 2025: Supreme Court Affidavit Highlights Risks of De-registration Read More »

Supreme Court: Bribery Conviction Under PC Act Requires Proof of Demand Beyond Recovery of Tainted Notes

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court: Bribery Conviction Under PC Act Requires Proof of Demand Beyond Recovery of Tainted Notes Supreme Court Clarifies Modification Powers Under Arbitration Act in Landmark Ruling Supreme Court to Review Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Ruling on PMLA: Hearing Scheduled for May 7 Supreme Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Autonomy in Habeas Corpus Case: Guidelines Issued to High Courts Supreme Court Overturns Remission in Bilkis Bano Case: 2002 Gujarat Riots Convicts Ordered Back to Jail Supreme Court Grants Chhattisgarh State Option to Seek Case Transfer Amid Heated Liquor Scam Hearing Byju’s Withdraws Supreme Court Petition on Aakash Ownership: Karnataka HC Ruling Stands Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Removal of Unauthorized Gurudwara and Temple in Kharar Punjab and Haryana High Court Questions POCSO Court on Victim’s Surrender as Prosecution Witness in Rape Case Supreme Court: Bribery Conviction Under PC Act Requires Proof of Demand Beyond Recovery of Tainted Notes MAHI SINHA 04 May 2025 Discover the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on the Prevention of Corruption Act: Why recovery of tainted notes alone isn’t enough for conviction. Key case insights and legal implications explained. Key Case: Aman Bhatia vs State (GNCT of Delhi) The Supreme Court of India has clarified an essential aspect of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act). It ruled that the mere recovery of tainted currency notes is insufficient to convict a public servant without concrete evidence proving a demand for bribery. This landmark judgment reinforces the importance of establishing both demand and acceptance to convict under the PC Act. What the Supreme Court Ruled In the case of Aman Bhatia vs State (GNCT of Delhi), the Court emphasized: Demand and Acceptance: Recovery of tainted money does not automatically prove guilt unless it is demonstrated that the public servant demanded unlawful gratification. Legal Definitions: Even stamp merchants are considered “public servants” under the PC Act if their actions fall within its purview. Sections 7 and 13(1)(d): Without evidence of demand, possession of tainted money does not constitute an offense under these sections of the PC Act. Case Details and Findings The bench, comprising Justices J. B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, reviewed an appeal against a ruling by the Delhi High Court. The appellant, a stamp dealer, was accused of overcharging for a stamp paper valued at Rs 10 by requesting Rs 2 extra. Key Arguments: Appellant’s Contention: The appellant argued that as a stamp dealer, he did not qualify as a “public servant” under the PC Act. Court’s Decision: The Court disagreed, affirming that stamp dealers can be prosecuted under the Act. However, it noted that no evidence was presented to prove that the appellant demanded or accepted a bribe. Analysis of the Verdict and Legal Provisions Discussed: Section 7: Addresses the acceptance of gratification as a motive or reward for performing public duty. Section 13(1)(d): Relates to a public servant obtaining undue advantage without public interest. Section 13(2): Outlines the punishment for criminal misconduct. Court’s Observations: The judgment highlighted that: Simply possessing tainted money does not violate Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) unless there is undeniable proof of demand. For acceptance to be criminal, there must be clear evidence that the public servant knew about the bribe and willingly accepted it. Both the bribe-giver and taker must have a mutual understanding (“ad idem”) about the unlawful act. Implications of the Judgment This ruling strengthens the evidentiary requirements under the PC Act, ensuring that allegations of corruption are substantiated by clear proof of bribery demand and acceptance. Related Case Outcomes The Anti-Corruption Bureau initiated proceedings based on “trap” evidence from a buyer’s complaint. However, without proof of demand or an offer from the alleged bribe-giver, the Court exonerated the appellant. This reinforces the principle that mere recovery of tainted money cannot establish criminality under the Act. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the necessity for robust evidence in corruption allegations. By insisting on proof of both demand and acceptance of bribes, the judgment protects individuals from wrongful prosecution while upholding the integrity of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This balanced approach ensures that justice prevails while maintaining the law’s credibility and fairness. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court: Bribery Conviction Under PC Act Requires Proof of Demand Beyond Recovery of Tainted Notes Supreme Court: Bribery Conviction Under PC Act Requires Proof of Demand Beyond Recovery of Tainted Notes Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Clarifies Modification Powers Under Arbitration Act in Landmark Ruling Supreme Court Clarifies Modification Powers Under Arbitration Act in Landmark Ruling Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court to Review Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Ruling on PMLA: Hearing Scheduled for May 7 Supreme Court to Review Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Ruling on PMLA: Hearing Scheduled for May 7 Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court: Bribery Conviction Under PC Act Requires Proof of Demand Beyond Recovery of Tainted Notes Read More »

Supreme Court Clarifies Modification Powers Under Arbitration Act in Landmark Ruling

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Clarifies Modification Powers Under Arbitration Act in Landmark Ruling Supreme Court to Review Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Ruling on PMLA: Hearing Scheduled for May 7 Supreme Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Autonomy in Habeas Corpus Case: Guidelines Issued to High Courts Supreme Court Overturns Remission in Bilkis Bano Case: 2002 Gujarat Riots Convicts Ordered Back to Jail Supreme Court Grants Chhattisgarh State Option to Seek Case Transfer Amid Heated Liquor Scam Hearing Byju’s Withdraws Supreme Court Petition on Aakash Ownership: Karnataka HC Ruling Stands Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Removal of Unauthorized Gurudwara and Temple in Kharar Punjab and Haryana High Court Questions POCSO Court on Victim’s Surrender as Prosecution Witness in Rape Case Supreme Court Demands Action from CAQM Over Bandhwari Landfill Fires in Gurugram Supreme Court Clarifies Modification Powers Under Arbitration Act in Landmark Ruling MAHI SINHA 04 May 2025 Discover how the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling empowers courts to modify arbitration awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, ensuring efficient conflict resolution and minimizing delays. Gayatri Balasamy vs. M/s ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited: Key Insights The Supreme Court of India recently ruled that courts should have the authority to modify arbitration awards to uphold the objectives of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996. This decision aims to ensure efficient conflict resolution and mitigate delays often associated with arbitration proceedings. Context of the Case The Constitutional Bench, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Sanjay Kumar, A.G. Masih, and K.V. Viswanathan, deliberated on whether Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act empowers courts to modify awards. Notably, Justice K.V. Viswanathan dissented from the majority opinion. Key Ruling Highlights: Importance of Modification Powers The majority observed that limiting courts to merely setting aside awards under Sections 34 and 37 could undermine the arbitration process. They noted that lengthy litigation cycles, including appeals and actions under Section 34, often render arbitration less effective than traditional litigation. “If courts are denied the ability to alter awards, it would lead to severe difficulties, increased costs, and unnecessary delays,” the Court stated. Avoiding Additional Arbitration Rounds The Court highlighted that disallowing modification powers might compel parties to undergo additional arbitration rounds, adding unnecessary layers to an already complex process. This could negate arbitration’s fundamental purpose of efficient dispute resolution. Statutory Silence on Modification Powers While the Arbitration Act does not explicitly grant modification powers, the Court clarified that such powers are implied. It emphasized that: “Annulment of an award has more severe consequences than modification. Courts possess the authority to alter certain parts of an award using the severability theory, ensuring the remainder remains intact.” Severability and Limited Powers of Courts The Court explained the principle of severability under Section 34. This allows courts to modify only those parts of an award that are legally or practically separable. It drew on legal doctrine to assert: “Omne majus continet in se minus – the greater power includes the lesser.” This principle ensures courts can correct errors without overturning the entire award. Clarification on Proviso to Section 34(2)(a)(iv) Section 34(2)(a)(iv) allows courts to set aside awards addressing matters beyond the arbitration agreement’s scope. The proviso enables partial annulment, preserving decisions on valid matters. The Court asserted that the power to partially set aside an award inherently includes limited modification authority. Commentary by Legal Experts The bench cited observations by Sir Michael J. Mustill and Stewart C. Boyd from Commercial Arbitration, emphasizing that modifying awards, rather than appealing them, saves time and resources. They argued: “A change is appropriate only when derived directly from the tribunal’s ruling on a legal matter.” Inherent Powers of Courts Referring to Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, the Court reaffirmed that courts possess inherent powers essential for justice. These include correcting procedural errors without delving into the merits of a case. “Inadvertent errors such as typographical or clerical mistakes can be modified under Section 34 without a merits-based assessment.” Setting Limits to Judicial Intervention Justice K.V. Viswanathan’s dissent cautioned against judicial overreach. He argued that setting guidelines for modification powers under Section 34 could amount to judicial legislation, emphasizing that such reforms should come from the legislature. Comparison with the Vishakha Judgment The Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, contended that this situation differs from the Vishakha vs. State of Rajasthan case, where the Court created guidelines due to legislative gaps. Unlike Vishakha, the Arbitration Act already provides a comprehensive framework. “Granting modification powers akin to judicial legislation exceeds the judiciary’s mandate,” he argued. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s decision marks a pivotal moment in arbitration jurisprudence. By affirming courts’ limited modification powers, it balances judicial oversight with arbitration’s efficiency. However, the dissent highlights the ongoing debate over judicial boundaries.   Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Clarifies Modification Powers Under Arbitration Act in Landmark Ruling Supreme Court Clarifies Modification Powers Under Arbitration Act in Landmark Ruling Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court to Review Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Ruling on PMLA: Hearing Scheduled for May 7 Supreme Court to Review Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Ruling on PMLA: Hearing Scheduled for May 7 Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Grants Chhattisgarh State Option to Seek Case Transfer Amid Heated Liquor Scam Hearing Supreme Court Grants Chhattisgarh State Option to Seek Case Transfer Amid Heated Liquor Scam Hearing Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Clarifies Modification Powers Under Arbitration Act in Landmark Ruling Read More »

Supreme Court to Review Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Ruling on PMLA: Hearing Scheduled for May 7

Leave a Comment / 2022, Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court to Review Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Ruling on PMLA: Hearing Scheduled for May 7 Supreme Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Autonomy in Habeas Corpus Case: Guidelines Issued to High Courts Supreme Court Overturns Remission in Bilkis Bano Case: 2002 Gujarat Riots Convicts Ordered Back to Jail Supreme Court Grants Chhattisgarh State Option to Seek Case Transfer Amid Heated Liquor Scam Hearing Byju’s Withdraws Supreme Court Petition on Aakash Ownership: Karnataka HC Ruling Stands Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Removal of Unauthorized Gurudwara and Temple in Kharar Punjab and Haryana High Court Questions POCSO Court on Victim’s Surrender as Prosecution Witness in Rape Case Supreme Court Demands Action from CAQM Over Bandhwari Landfill Fires in Gurugram Supreme Court Upholds TDS on Salaries of Christian Nuns and Priests, Dismisses Review Petitions Supreme Court to Review Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Ruling on PMLA: Hearing Scheduled for May 7 MAHI SINHA 04 May 2025 Discover the key details of the Supreme Court’s upcoming review of the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary ruling on the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Scheduled for May 7, the hearing will address critical aspects like the Enforcement Directorate’s powers and the presumption of innocence. Introduction On May 7, the Supreme Court of India will reconvene to hear appeals against the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary ruling, which upheld significant provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The petitions aim to challenge the earlier verdict, and the reconstituted bench is set to deliberate on pivotal issues. Bench Reconstitution Initially, the case was handled by a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, C.T. Ravikumar (now retired), and Ujjal Bhuyan. Following Justice Ravikumar’s retirement, the bench has been reassembled with Justice N. Kotiswar Singh joining the team. The hearing is scheduled for 2:00 PM on May 7. Background: The Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Ruling  On July 27, 2022, a bench led by Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, and C.T. Ravikumar delivered the landmark ruling. This decision upheld key provisions of the PMLA, including: Authority of the Enforcement Directorate: Sections 5, 8(4), 15, 17, and 19 grant powers for arrests, attachment, search, and seizure. Reverse Burden of Evidence: Section 24 places the burden of proof on the accused, aligning with the Act’s objectives. “Twin Conditions” for Bail: Section 45’s stringent bail requirements were reinstated by Parliament in 2018, overriding the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Nikesh Tarachand Shah. Grounds for Review Eight petitions were filed seeking an immediate review of the ruling. Notable issues include: The Court’s finding that accused individuals need not receive a copy of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), akin to a First Information Report (FIR). The reversal of the presumption of innocence, which sparked widespread debate. Timeline of the Review Process August 25, 2022: A bench led by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana observed that certain conclusions warranted reexamination. August 7, 2022: The Court granted an open hearing on the petitions. October 16, 2022: The case was deferred due to Justice Surya Kant’s absence, after initially being scheduled for September 18. What to Expect on May 7: The reassembled bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and N. Kotiswar Singh, will address the critical review petitions. This hearing could have significant implications for the enforcement of anti-money laundering laws in India. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s review of the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary ruling marks a crucial moment for the interpretation of the PMLA. The decision will not only impact ongoing cases but also set a precedent for how financial crimes are prosecuted in India. Stay tuned for updates on this landmark case. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court to Review Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Ruling on PMLA: Hearing Scheduled for May 7 Supreme Court to Review Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Ruling on PMLA: Hearing Scheduled for May 7 Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Grants Chhattisgarh State Option to Seek Case Transfer Amid Heated Liquor Scam Hearing Supreme Court Grants Chhattisgarh State Option to Seek Case Transfer Amid Heated Liquor Scam Hearing Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Byju’s Withdraws Supreme Court Petition on Aakash Ownership: Karnataka HC Ruling Stands Byju’s Withdraws Supreme Court Petition on Aakash Ownership: Karnataka HC Ruling Stands Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court to Review Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Ruling on PMLA: Hearing Scheduled for May 7 Read More »

Supreme Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Autonomy in Habeas Corpus Case: Guidelines Issued to High Courts

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Autonomy in Habeas Corpus Case: Guidelines Issued to High Courts Supreme Court Overturns Remission in Bilkis Bano Case: 2002 Gujarat Riots Convicts Ordered Back to Jail Supreme Court Grants Chhattisgarh State Option to Seek Case Transfer Amid Heated Liquor Scam Hearing Byju’s Withdraws Supreme Court Petition on Aakash Ownership: Karnataka HC Ruling Stands Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Removal of Unauthorized Gurudwara and Temple in Kharar Punjab and Haryana High Court Questions POCSO Court on Victim’s Surrender as Prosecution Witness in Rape Case Supreme Court Demands Action from CAQM Over Bandhwari Landfill Fires in Gurugram Supreme Court Upholds TDS on Salaries of Christian Nuns and Priests, Dismisses Review Petitions Actor-Activist Sushant Singh Moves Supreme Court to Transfer Petition Challenging IT Rules Petition Amid Social Media Blocking Dispute. Supreme Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Autonomy in Habeas Corpus Case: Guidelines Issued to High Courts NITU KUMARI 04 May 2025 The Supreme Court of India, in the 2024 Devu G. Nair v. State of Kerala case, reinforced LGBTQ+ rights, personal liberty, and the legitimacy of chosen families. Learn about the key guidelines issued to High Courts in habeas corpus and protection petitions. Supreme Court Reinforces LGBTQ+ Autonomy and Personal Liberty in Habeas Corpus Case On March 11, 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a historic judgment in the case of Devu G. Nair vs. The State of Kerala, affirming the autonomy and dignity of LGBTQ+ individuals. The Court issued a set of critical guidelines to High Courts regarding the handling of habeas corpus petitions and protection petitions, especially those involving sexual orientation and identity. Case Background – Devu G. Nair v. State of Kerala In this case, the petitioner alleged that her close companion, referred to as “X”, was being unlawfully confined by her natal family due to their intimate relationship. The Kerala High Court initially directed “X” to undergo counseling, raising concerns about interference with personal liberty. The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, examined whether the High Court’s order violated the individual’s right to choose their relationships and living arrangements freely. Key Legal Issues Addressed  Violation of Autonomy through Forced CounselingThe Court analyzed whether court-ordered counseling infringed on the autonomy and dignity of “X”, particularly when it could be used to suppress her sexual orientation. Protection of LGBTQ+ Individuals in Legal ProceedingsThe Court also considered what safeguards courts should implement when hearing habeas corpus petitions involving LGBTQ+ persons. Arguments Presented Petitioner’s ViewpointThe petitioner emphasized that members of the LGBTQ+ community often face violence, emotional abuse, and rejection by their biological families. The concept of a “chosen family”—comprised of friends and intimate partners—holds vital importance in their lives. Any directive for therapy or family counseling may reinforce harmful societal biases. Respondent’s Standpoint“X” claimed she was staying with her parents of her own free will and referred to the petitioner as an “intimate friend.” She also stated she did not wish to live with or marry anyone at that time. However, concerns were raised about the potential misuse of counseling to manipulate her sexual identity and choices. Supreme Court Verdict and Key Takeaways Ratio Decidendi (Binding Legal Principle) Right to Choose RelationshipsAdults have the constitutional right to determine their own relationships and living situations without undue interference. Judicial Limits in LGBTQ+ CasesCounseling must not be weaponized to alter someone’s sexual identity or relationship preferences. Recognition of Chosen FamiliesThe Court recognized chosen families as equal in importance to biological families, especially for marginalized communities. Obiter Dicta (Judicial Commentary) The judiciary must remain impartial and avoid reinforcing societal prejudices. Courts should ensure that they do not become tools of coercion, particularly in matters involving identity and individual liberty. Guidelines Issued to High Courts The Supreme Court laid down the following judicial guidelines for handling similar cases: Prioritize Personal Liberty: Habeas corpus petitions must be resolved swiftly, focusing on the freedom of the individual. Ensure Private Interaction: Judges should ensure that individuals can meet and speak freely with legal representatives or partners in a safe, non-coercive environment. Avoid Forced Counseling or Parental Custody: Courts must not suggest therapy or parental care that could stigmatize or pressure LGBTQ+ individuals. Show Empathy and Protect Privacy: The judiciary should treat such matters with compassion and preserve the individual’s dignity. Provide Immediate Protection: Where necessary, courts should arrange police protection to safeguard individuals from threats posed by natal families. Conclusion – A Milestone for LGBTQ+ Rights in India This landmark judgment marks a significant step forward in the protection of LGBTQ+ rights, privacy, and individual liberty under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. By acknowledging the reality of chosen families and setting firm boundaries against judicial overreach, the Supreme Court has provided a strong foundation for protecting personal freedoms in future cases. The case of Devu G. Nair vs. State of Kerala serves as a reminder that constitutional values must prevail over societal pressure, especially when it comes to the lives and identities of underrepresented groups.   Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Autonomy in Habeas Corpus Case: Guidelines Issued to High Courts Supreme Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Autonomy in Habeas Corpus Case: Guidelines Issued to High Courts Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Overturns Remission in Bilkis Bano Case: 2002 Gujarat Riots Convicts Ordered Back to Jail Supreme Court Overturns Remission in Bilkis Bano Case: 2002 Gujarat Riots Convicts Ordered Back to Jail Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5

Supreme Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Autonomy in Habeas Corpus Case: Guidelines Issued to High Courts Read More »

Supreme Court Overturns Remission in Bilkis Bano Case: 2002 Gujarat Riots Convicts Ordered Back to Jail

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Overturns Remission in Bilkis Bano Case: 2002 Gujarat Riots Convicts Ordered Back to Jail Supreme Court Grants Chhattisgarh State Option to Seek Case Transfer Amid Heated Liquor Scam Hearing Byju’s Withdraws Supreme Court Petition on Aakash Ownership: Karnataka HC Ruling Stands Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Removal of Unauthorized Gurudwara and Temple in Kharar Punjab and Haryana High Court Questions POCSO Court on Victim’s Surrender as Prosecution Witness in Rape Case Supreme Court Demands Action from CAQM Over Bandhwari Landfill Fires in Gurugram Supreme Court Upholds TDS on Salaries of Christian Nuns and Priests, Dismisses Review Petitions Actor-Activist Sushant Singh Moves Supreme Court to Transfer Petition Challenging IT Rules Petition Amid Social Media Blocking Dispute. Supreme Court Reviews J&K’s Plea Against HC Order Halting Detention of Alleged Overground Worker Amid Pahalgam Terror Attack Supreme Court Overturns Remission in Bilkis Bano Case: 2002 Gujarat Riots Convicts Ordered Back to Jail NITU KUMARI 04 May 2025 In a historic verdict, the Supreme Court of India invalidated the premature release of 11 convicts in the 2002 Bilkis Bano case, reinforcing the importance of justice and proper legal procedures. Learn the full background, legal journey, and final judgment. Background of the Bilkis Bano Case The Bilkis Bano case is one of the most harrowing incidents of the 2002 Gujarat riots, a communal conflict that followed the Godhra train burning. Bilkis Bano, 21 years old and five months pregnant at the time, was gang-raped during the violence in Gujarat’s Dahod district. In the same attack, seven members of her family, including her three-year-old daughter, were brutally murdered by rioters. Due to the sensitivity of the case and concerns over a fair trial, the matter was transferred from Gujarat to Maharashtra. In 2008, a Sessions Court in Mumbai convicted 11 accused under Sections 302 and 376 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The Bombay High Court upheld this judgment in 2017. Controversial Remission of Convicts in 2022 In a shocking turn, the Gujarat government granted remission to all 11 convicts in August 2022, allowing their early release under a remission policy. The move sparked public outrage and widespread criticism, especially from Bilkis Bano, who petitioned the Supreme Court seeking to revoke their release. The remission was initially pursued by Radheshyam Shah, one of the convicts, who approached the Gujarat High Court. The court dismissed his plea, citing lack of jurisdiction. However, upon further legal battle, the Supreme Court of India directed the Gujarat government to consider the remission applications. Grim Facts of the Case Bilkis Bano and several female family members were brutally raped. A two-day-old infant, eight children, and multiple adults were murdered. 12 individuals were charged with gang rape, murder, and rioting with deadly weapons. Six police officers and two doctors were also charged with tampering evidence and misconduct. While one officer was convicted for filing a false First Information Report (FIR), five others and the two doctors were initially acquitted by the Trial Court but were later convicted by the Bombay High Court on appeal. Legal Issues Addressed   1. Was the remission of the 11 convicts justifiable? The core issue was whether the early release complied with legal standards and jurisdictional rules. 2. Was Bilkis Bano’s writ petition under Article 32 maintainable? The Court examined her constitutional right to petition against executive actions violating her rights. 3. Were Public Interest Litigations (PILs) by third parties maintainable? The Court assessed whether unrelated individuals could challenge remission orders. 4. Was the Gujarat government the appropriate authority for granting remission? Since the trial occurred in Maharashtra, the legal jurisdiction of Gujarat in granting remission was heavily scrutinized. Supreme Court Observations and Verdict The Supreme Court emphasized the purpose of punishment—not as retaliation but as reformation and deterrence. Drawing philosophical inspiration from Plato, the Court stated that a criminal, like a patient, should be rehabilitated when possible. However, such remission should follow legal procedures and must be justified. Final Ruling: The Court ruled that the State of Gujarat was not the competent authority to grant remission since the trial was held in Maharashtra. The remission was declared invalid, and the 11 released convicts were ordered to surrender within two weeks. Conclusion: Upholding Justice in the Bilkis Bano Case The Bilkis Bano case remains a landmark in the Indian judicial system, highlighting the importance of victim rights, judicial independence, and strict adherence to legal procedure. The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces that remission policies cannot override justice, especially in cases involving heinous crimes like gang rape and mass murder. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Overturns Remission in Bilkis Bano Case: 2002 Gujarat Riots Convicts Ordered Back to Jail Supreme Court Overturns Remission in Bilkis Bano Case: 2002 Gujarat Riots Convicts Ordered Back to Jail Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Sadalaw Publications • May 2, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Overturns Remission in Bilkis Bano Case: 2002 Gujarat Riots Convicts Ordered Back to Jail Read More »

Supreme Court Grants Chhattisgarh State Option to Seek Case Transfer Amid Heated Liquor Scam Hearing

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Grants Chhattisgarh State Option to Seek Case Transfer Amid Heated Liquor Scam Hearing Byju’s Withdraws Supreme Court Petition on Aakash Ownership: Karnataka HC Ruling Stands Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Removal of Unauthorized Gurudwara and Temple in Kharar Punjab and Haryana High Court Questions POCSO Court on Victim’s Surrender as Prosecution Witness in Rape Case Supreme Court Demands Action from CAQM Over Bandhwari Landfill Fires in Gurugram Supreme Court Upholds TDS on Salaries of Christian Nuns and Priests, Dismisses Review Petitions Actor-Activist Sushant Singh Moves Supreme Court to Transfer Petition Challenging IT Rules Petition Amid Social Media Blocking Dispute. Supreme Court Reviews J&K’s Plea Against HC Order Halting Detention of Alleged Overground Worker Amid Pahalgam Terror Attack India’s Supercar Boom: Lamborghini’s Growth Plans Amid Fastest-Growing Economy Supreme Court Grants Chhattisgarh State Option to Seek Case Transfer Amid Heated Liquor Scam Hearing MAHI SINHA 04 May 2025 Learn about the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the transfer of the Chhattisgarh liquor scam case following heated exchanges in court. Get insights into the roles of Justices Abhay Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan, and Senior Advocates Mahesh Jethmalani and Gopal Sankaranarayana Key Developments in the Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam Case The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, recently allowed the State of Chhattisgarh to request a case transfer to another bench. This decision comes amidst a high-profile legal battle in the ongoing Chhattisgarh liquor scam case. Background of the Case In the matter of Anil Tuteja v. Union of India and connected cases, Anil Tuteja, along with former IAS officers Vidhu Gupta and Nitesh Purohit, sought to quash corruption charges against them. These charges stemmed from allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Supreme Court, however, declined to entertain their arguments during Friday’s hearing. Heated Exchange in Court A contentious exchange unfolded during the proceedings. Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, representing the State of Chhattisgarh, objected to adjournments requested by the petitioners’ counsel. He also sought the vacation of a temporary injunction that protected the accused from arrest. Justice Oka noted Jethmalani’s arguments and suggested he petition the Chief Justice to transfer the case to an appropriate bench. “If there are complaints about unresolved matters, you can request the Chief Justice to assign the case elsewhere,” Justice Oka remarked. Petitioners’ Defense Senior Advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Meenakshi Arora represented the petitioners. They countered Jethmalani’s claims, arguing that delays were primarily caused by the State’s requests for adjournments. Arora described the State’s objections as “unfair,” particularly when adjournments had been sought due to the State’s own scheduling challenges. Court’s Observations During the hearing, Justice Oka questioned the urgency of Jethmalani’s request to revoke the interim protection, emphasizing that the petitioners had cooperated with the investigation. “Why is custodial interrogation necessary when the quashing petitions are still pending?” he asked. Jethmalani argued that custodial interrogation was vital for the investigation, asserting that the Court did not have the jurisdiction to decide on such matters. In response, Justice Oka proposed that the interlocutory applications (IAs) be heard on a non-miscellaneous day prior to the summer break. Transfer Request Granted Despite heated arguments, Justice Oka maintained that the judiciary could not be burdened with repeated complaints over adjournments. “If we start entertaining such objections in every case, it will hinder the Court’s ability to function effectively,” he said. The bench ultimately decided to allow Jethmalani to petition the Chief Justice to transfer the matter to a different bench, ensuring a more streamlined process. Conclusion This latest development underscores the complexity of the Chhattisgarh liquor scam case, with both sides vigorously defending their positions. As the case moves forward, the judiciary’s emphasis on maintaining procedural efficiency will likely play a pivotal role in its resolution. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Sadalaw Publications • May 2, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Sadalaw Publications • April 28, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Grants Chhattisgarh State Option to Seek Case Transfer Amid Heated Liquor Scam Hearing Read More »

Byju’s Withdraws Supreme Court Petition on Aakash Ownership: Karnataka HC Ruling Stands

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Byju’s Withdraws Supreme Court Petition on Aakash Ownership: Karnataka HC Ruling Stands Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Removal of Unauthorized Gurudwara and Temple in Kharar Punjab and Haryana High Court Questions POCSO Court on Victim’s Surrender as Prosecution Witness in Rape Case Supreme Court Demands Action from CAQM Over Bandhwari Landfill Fires in Gurugram Supreme Court Upholds TDS on Salaries of Christian Nuns and Priests, Dismisses Review Petitions Actor-Activist Sushant Singh Moves Supreme Court to Transfer Petition Challenging IT Rules Petition Amid Social Media Blocking Dispute. Supreme Court Reviews J&K’s Plea Against HC Order Halting Detention of Alleged Overground Worker Amid Pahalgam Terror Attack India’s Supercar Boom: Lamborghini’s Growth Plans Amid Fastest-Growing Economy Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Byju’s Withdraws Supreme Court Petition on Aakash Ownership: Karnataka HC Ruling Stands MAHI SINHA 04 May 2025 Byju’s withdraws its Supreme Court appeal challenging the Karnataka High Court’s ruling on Aakash’s ownership. Read the latest updates on the Think and Learn vs. Aakash case. Overview of the Byju’s vs. Aakash Ownership Dispute In a significant development, Think and Learn Pvt Ltd (operating the ed-tech giant Byju’s) has withdrawn its appeal in the Supreme Court of India. The appeal challenged the Karnataka High Court‘s ruling on the ownership of Aakash Educational Services, a subsidiary of Byju’s. This legal battle emerged after the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) issued an order to maintain the status quo on Aakash’s shareholding. Aakash contested this decision, resulting in the High Court overturning the NCLT’s directive. Supreme Court Proceedings The Supreme Court reviewed Byju’s appeal on May 2, 2025. Despite expressing concerns over the High Court’s jurisdiction in the matter, the apex court refrained from overturning the High Court’s decision. Key Observations by the Bench A two-judge bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice P.S. Narasimha highlighted: “There was no justification for the High Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when the NCLT’s ruling could have been appealed before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).” However, the bench allowed Byju’s to withdraw its appeal, noting the sequence of events that followed. Senior Counsel P.S. Patwalia, representing Think and Learn Pvt Ltd, formally requested the withdrawal, which the court permitted. Timeline of Events March 27, 2025: The NCLT Bengaluru ordered Aakash Educational Services to maintain its current shareholding structure. April 8, 2025: The Karnataka High Court overturned the NCLT’s directive, ruling in favor of Aakash and remanding the case for reconsideration. April 30, 2025: The High Court’s interim ruling required Aakash to uphold its current shareholding until this date, pending further action by the NCLT. Implications for Byju’s and Aakash The withdrawal of Byju’s Supreme Court petition marks a pivotal moment in the ownership dispute with Aakash Educational Services. While Aakash has successfully defended its position, the matter now returns to the NCLT for further deliberation. This case underscores the complexities of corporate governance and the judicial process, particularly in disputes involving high-value mergers and acquisitions. Conclusion The resolution of the Byju’s vs. Aakash ownership case highlights the importance of due process in corporate disputes. Byju’s decision to withdraw its Supreme Court appeal reflects a strategic move to focus on NCLT proceedings rather than prolonged litigation. As the case progresses, it will serve as a crucial example of how businesses navigate India’s evolving legal and regulatory framework. Stay updated as this landmark case unfolds further, shaping the future of corporate governance in India. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Sadalaw Publications • May 2, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Sadalaw Publications • April 28, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Byju’s Withdraws Supreme Court Petition on Aakash Ownership: Karnataka HC Ruling Stands Read More »

Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Byju’s Withdraws Supreme Court Petition on Aakash Ownership: Karnataka HC Ruling Stands Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Removal of Unauthorized Gurudwara and Temple in Kharar Punjab and Haryana High Court Questions POCSO Court on Victim’s Surrender as Prosecution Witness in Rape Case Supreme Court Demands Action from CAQM Over Bandhwari Landfill Fires in Gurugram Supreme Court Upholds TDS on Salaries of Christian Nuns and Priests, Dismisses Review Petitions Actor-Activist Sushant Singh Moves Supreme Court to Transfer Petition Challenging IT Rules Petition Amid Social Media Blocking Dispute. Supreme Court Reviews J&K’s Plea Against HC Order Halting Detention of Alleged Overground Worker Amid Pahalgam Terror Attack India’s Supercar Boom: Lamborghini’s Growth Plans Amid Fastest-Growing Economy Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements NITU KUMARI 04 May 2025 In a landmark ruling in Cox and Kings vs SAP India (2023), the Supreme Court of India upheld the Group of Companies Doctrine, allowing non-signatories to be bound by arbitration agreements. Learn the implications for Indian arbitration law. Case Overview – Cox and Kings vs SAP India Pvt. Ltd. Date of Judgment: December 6, 2023Case Citation: 2023 INSC 1051Court: Supreme Court of IndiaPresiding Judges: Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud (Chief Justice) Hrishikesh Roy Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha Jamshed B. Pardiwala Manoj Misra (judge) This pivotal arbitration case involved Cox and Kings Ltd. (Petitioner) and SAP India (Respondent), along with its German parent company SAP SE. It examined whether a company that did not sign an arbitration agreement could still be bound by it under Indian law. Factual Background The Agreements and Dispute In 2015, Cox and Kings engaged SAP India to provide software solutions for its e-commerce platform. Several agreements were signed, including one with an arbitration clause. Although SAP SE, the German parent company, was not a signatory, it was deeply involved in project execution. Due to implementation failures, the project was abandoned in 2016. Cox and Kings sought ₹45 crore in compensation, while SAP India demanded ₹17 crore, alleging wrongful termination. Arbitration Demand and Legal Issue Cox and Kings issued arbitration notices to both SAP India and SAP SE. However, SAP SE had not signed any arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court was approached under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of an arbitrator. This brought up a crucial legal question:Can non-signatories be compelled to arbitrate based on the Group of Companies Doctrine in Indian arbitration law? Key Legal Issues Can non-signatories be made parties to arbitration agreements? Is the Group of Companies Doctrine valid under Indian arbitration law? Under what conditions can a non-signatory be bound by an arbitration clause? Supreme Court Observations The Constitution Bench delivered several critical findings: The definition of “parties” under Section 2(1)(h) includes both signatories and non-signatories in certain cases. Actions by a non-signatory may imply tacit consent to be bound by an arbitration agreement. The requirement of a written arbitration agreement (Section 7) does not exclude non-signatories where intent is clear. The Group of Companies Doctrine is a valid and independent legal principle in Indian arbitration jurisprudence. The doctrine cannot rely solely on concepts like alter ego or piercing the corporate veil. Courts and tribunals must evaluate multiple factors (e.g., participation, mutual intent, business structure) before binding a non-signatory. Rejection of Previous Interpretation The Court criticized the ruling in Chloro Controls Pvt. Ltd. v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. (2012) for improperly linking “claiming through or under” to the Group of Companies Doctrine. Judgment and Ratio Decidendi The Court upheld the Group of Companies Doctrine in India, confirming: Non-signatories can be bound by arbitration agreements under specific conditions. Arbitral tribunals must assess the intent and involvement of the non-signatory at the referral stage. The doctrine enhances clarity in complex multi-party, multi-contract commercial disputes. Implications for Indian Arbitration Law This decision marks a significant shift in how arbitration agreements are interpreted, especially in cases involving corporate groups. It sets a precedent for binding non-signatory entities that actively participate in contract execution or show intent to be bound. Key Takeaways: The Group of Companies Doctrine is now a settled part of Indian arbitration law. Courts must take a case-by-case approach, considering conduct and corporate relationships. Arbitral tribunals can decide on non-signatory involvement at the referral stage. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s ruling in Cox and Kings vs SAP India Pvt. Ltd. reinforces the principle that corporate entities within the same group may be bound by an arbitration agreement, even without being formal signatories. The Group of Companies Doctrine provides flexibility in addressing disputes in multi-party commercial contracts, aligning Indian arbitration law with global standards Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw Publications. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Sadalaw Publications • May 2, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Sadalaw Publications • April 28, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Read More »

Get A Quote
Get A Quote