Lawyers Bathinda Bathinda Lawyers Advocates

⚖️  Shri Ganpati Jurists | Legal Insight Series ⚖️ Important ruling by the Supreme Court in   …

Bathinda Lawyers

⚖️ Supreme Court Clarifies Law on Specific Performance Decrees In Habban Shah v. Sheruddin, th…

⚖️ Supreme Court on Summary Judgment in Commercial Suits In Reliance Eminent Trading and Commercial Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Development Authority, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified the scope and application of Order XIII-A CPC for summary judgment. 🚨 Key Takeaways: ✔️ Procedural compliance under Order XIII-A is mandatory ✔️ Summary judgment applies where: • Plaintiff has no real prospect of success, OR • Defendant has no real prospect of defence ✔️ Courts must ensure: • No unnecessary trial is conducted • No “mini trial” takes place • Only real issues (not fanciful defences) are considered ✔️ Courts can decide short questions of law without full trial ✔️ Evidence assessment includes: • Existing material • Evidence likely to be produced at trial ⚠️ Important: Summary judgment is an exceptional power — to be used only when full trial is not required. 📌 If justice demands: • Weighing evidence • Testing credibility • Drawing detailed inferences 👉 Then the matter must proceed to trial. 💡 Insight: This judgment reinforces efficiency in commercial litigation while safeguarding fairness. #SupremeCourt #CommercialLitigation #CivilProcedure #SummaryJudgment #Order13A#ShriGanpatiJuristAdvocacy#LawyersOfIndia #PunjabLaw #ChandigarhLawyers #ChandigarhAdvocates #ChandigarhLegal #BathindaLawyers #BathindaAdvocates

⚖️ Supreme Court on Summary Judgment in Commercial Suits In Reliance Eminent Trading and Comme…

⚖️ Shri Ganpati Jurists | Legal Insight Series ⚖️ Landmark Clarification on Limitation under IBC Shankar Khandelwal v. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. (SC) 📌 The Supreme Court has drawn a clear line on limitation in insolvency proceedings: 🔹 Section 7 IBC Applications are governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act — limitation starts from the date of default. 🔹 Mere admission of claim by IRP ❌ is NOT an acknowledgment of liability under Section 18, Limitation Act. 🔹 IRP’s role is administrative, not determinative — admission of claim ≠ extension of limitation. 🔹 ⛔ Time-barred claims cannot be revived by such admissions. 🔹 ✅ Acknowledgment must be within limitation period to extend it. 🔹 🛑 However, Section 60(6) IBC allows exclusion of limitation during moratorium. 📖 Key Takeaway: Creditors must act within limitation — procedural admissions won’t save stale claims. #IBC #SupremeCourt #InsolvencyLaw #LimitationAct #LegalUpdate #Advocacy#ShriGanpatiJuristAdvocacy#LawyersOfIndia #PunjabLaw #ChandigarhLawyers #ChandigarhAdvocates #ChandigarhLegal #BathindaLawyers #BathindaAdvocates

Bathinda Lawyers ⚖️  Shri Ganpati Jurists | Legal Insight Series ⚖️  Landmark Clarification on …

Bathinda Lawyers

🚨  LANDMARK BAIL RULING BY SUPREME COURT  ⚖️ NARAYAN v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH A significant…

⚖️ Shri Ganpati Jurists | Legal Insight Series ❓ Can a Legal Representative Challenge an Arbitral Award? If yes, HOW? 📌 Case: V.K. John vs. S. Mukanchand Bothra (HUF) & Ors. 🔍 Q1: If a party dies, do arbitration proceedings stop? 👉 No. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does NOT end proceedings upon death. Legal representatives step into the shoes of the deceased. 🔍 Q2: Can Legal Representatives challenge an arbitral award? 👉 Yes. They are treated as a “party” under the Act if they claim through the deceased. 🔍 Q3: What is the CORRECT legal remedy? 👉 File an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. 🔍 Q4: Can they file under Article 227 or Section 115 CPC? ❌ No. Not maintainable. The Supreme Court of India clarified that: ➡️ Arbitration Act is a complete code in itself ➡️ Alternative remedies like Article 227 or Section 115 CPC are NOT appropriate 🔍 Q5: Does the arbitral award bind legal representatives? 👉 Yes. Under Section 35, it binds: ✔️ Parties ✔️ AND persons claiming under them (including LRs) 💡 Key Takeaway: ⚖️ Legal Representatives must challenge arbitral awards strictly under Section 34 — not through supervisory or revisional jurisdiction. 📣 Follow Shri Ganpati Jurists For sharp, practical legal insights that matter! #ArbitrationLaw #SupremeCourt #LegalAwareness #Jurists #Section34 #CPC #Litigation#ShriGanpatiJuristAdvocacy#LawyersOfIndia #PunjabLaw #ChandigarhLawyers #ChandigarhAdvocates #ChandigarhLegal #BathindaLawyers #BathindaAdvocates

⚖️  Shri Ganpati Jurists | Legal Insight Series ❓  Can a Legal Representative Challenge an Arb…

Advocate’s Bathinda

⚖️  Shri Ganpati Jurists | Case Insight 📚  Pramod Shroff v. Mohan Singh Chopra 🔍  Key Takeaw…

Load More
That is All