The interplay between civil procedure and arbitration law often raises nuanced questions related to jurisdiction and maintainability. A recurring concern is the attempt to seek rejection of a plaint on the ground that the dispute is governed by a legally valid and subsisting arbitration agreement.Continue Reading Does mere existence of an Arbitration Agreement Sink a Plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC?
Summary: This blog aims to highlight the need for litigants seeking timely remedies to avoid protracted and stale litigation. It also focusses on adopting Alternative Dispute Resolution as an effective mechanism, wherever appropriate, for achieving faster and more effective remedies.Continue Reading When Delay Defeats Justice
It is settled law under the mandate of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, that maximum 120 days will be provided for filing of a written statement in a commercial suit. On expiry of 120 days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement, and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record[1]. For regular or non-commercial civil suits, the period for filing the written statement is 90 days from the date of service of summons[2], however, it can be extended at the discretion of the Court. Continue Reading Does time spent in mediation fall outside the timeline for filing Written Statement?
More than a decade after the Companies Act, 2013 (“Companies Act” or “the Act”) introduced class action lawsuit provisions, two major applications for initiating such suits have ingressed the halls of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”).Continue Reading Class Action Lawsuits: A New Horizon for Corporate Litigation?
Judicial pendency has been a roadblock in India’s quest to becoming a leading global economy. Although attributable to numerous factors, addressing the floodgate of litigation in the country is undoubtably the need of the hour[1]. Accordingly, various approaches have been adopted to promote the amicable settlement of pending litigation, including through alternate dispute redressal forums such as mediation, national lok adalats, etc., or by the volition of the State through numerous schemes such as Vivad se Vishwas[2].Continue Reading The Uphill Battle of Challenging a Compromise Decree
In the Indian jurisprudence, the levy of court fee is inter alia sanctioned by the Court Fees Act, 1870 (“Court Fee Act”) for the purpose of instituting a suit or claim by a party to the matter or litigation. The payment of court fee is a condition precedent for seeking the aid of the court. The amount to be paid as court fee is prescribed by law and until the pre-determined amount is paid, the litigant cannot be heard, save with the leave of the court. However, if the parties to a suit come to a mutual understanding to resolve the dispute amicably, the law also prescribes for a procedure for providing a refund of the previously paid court fee by the litigant. The only remaining question that begs determination is when and how much of the court fee will be refunded to the litigant.Continue Reading Deciphering Court Fee Refunds: A Comparative Analysis of Settlement via ADR v. Private Settlement
In India, execution of decrees is governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’), and execution of arbitration awards is governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’), and the CPC. For the purposes of enforcement, both domestic and foreign awards (recognition and enforcement thereof) are treated as decree of Court. This legal fiction also applies to consent awards, which are obtained after settlement is entered between parties. Domestic awards, which are basically India-seated arbitral awards, are governed by Part I of the 1996 Act, while foreign awards, which are foreign seated arbitral awards, are governed by Part II of the 1996 Act.Continue Reading Obviating Hurdles for Swifter Execution of Arbitral Awards
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its recent judgment in Mohammed Abdul Wahid v. Nilofer & Anr.,[1] adjudicated inter alia upon whether the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) makes a distinction between a ‘party to a suit’ and a ‘witness in a suit’ through its adopted phraseology? More specifically, whether a party to a suit i.e. a plaintiff or a defendant may be equated to a witness when interpreting the provisions of Order VII Rule 14 [Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies]; Order VIII Rule 1A(4)(a) [Duty of Defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him]; and Order XIII Rule 1(3)(a) [Original Documents to be produced at or before the settlement of issues] of the CPC?Continue Reading ‘Party’ and ‘witness’ on an equal footing for the purpose of adducing evidence in civil suit: Supreme Court clarifies