'Article 142 Doesn't Empower Court To Ignore Substantive Rights Of Litigants' : Supreme Court Issues Guidelines On Exercise Of Inherent Powers

While overturning the 2018 Asian Resurfacing judgment that mandated an automatic vacation of stay orders after six months, the Supreme Court issued crucial guidelines on the exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. Read More>>

Court May Refuse To Appoint Arbitral Tribunal If S.11(6) Petition Is Barred By Limitation Or Claim Is Ex-Facie Time Barred : Supreme Court

"...there is no doubt as to the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to arbitration proceedings in general and that of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to a petition under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 in particular", said the Bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra. Read More>>

Money Recovery Suit Won't Be Commercial Suit Unless Disputed Property Is 'Actually Used' In Trade and Commerce: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that merely because the dispute is related to an immovable property wouldn't per se make it a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 unless the immovable property is 'actually used' exclusively in trade or commerce. Read More>>

Ownership Over Property Can't Be Claimed When Sale Deed Is Executed By Person Having No Title : Supreme Court

Reversing the findings of the High Court which held the plaintiff to be an owner of the property, the Bench Comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Sanjay Kumar observed that the mere participation of the person, who doesn't hold title over the property, as a signatory to the execution of the sale deed wouldn't entitle the plaintiff to claim the ownership/title of the property. Read More>>

Live-In Relation Of A Married Muslim Woman With Another Man Is 'Haram' & 'Zina' As Per Shariat: Allahabad HC Dismisses Protection Plea

A bench of Justice Renu Agarwal asserted thus while rejecting a protection plea filed by a married Muslim woman and her Hindu live-in partner fearing for her life against her father and other relatives. The Court added that the 'criminal act' of the woman "cannot be supported and protected" by the Court. Read More>>