Articles and Updates

• Vasanth Rajasekaran - 18-08-2021

The Hon'ble Supreme Court on 9 August 2021 passed an order refusing to interfere with the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka (High Court) allowing the Competition Commission of India (CCI) to initiate a probe against e-commerce giants Flipkart and Amazon. The present article briefly evaluates the timeline of proceedings and the judgment of the High Court which was approved by the Apex Court.

• Vasanth Rajasekaran - 10-08-2021

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark decision of Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd. & Ors.1 has held that emergency arbitral awards are orders under Section 17(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). The Apex Court also held that an order passed under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration Act in enforcement of an award of an emergency arbitration was not appealable. In this article, we briefly analyze the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which led to the aforementioned conclusions.

• Vasanth Rajasekaran - 10-08-2021

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent matter of Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and Ors.1 while deciding upon a property dispute empathetically discussed the plight of the decree holders and the challenges they face in the execution of the decrees. The three-judge bench of former Chief Justice of India S.A. Bobde and Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhatt issued a landmark decision involving 14 (fourteen) directions to all courts that dealt with suits and execution of decrees to expedite the execution of decrees. The directions aim to allow a decree-holder to enjoy the fruits of litigation without any inordinate delay and unnecessary hurdles.

• Vasanth Rajasekaran - 10-08-2021

In a recent decision in South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s. S. Kumar's Associates AKM (JV)1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere issuance of a letter of intent would not create a binding contractual relationship amongst the parties. The Apex Court observed that where the mandatory obligations to bring the contract to life were not performed by a party, the letter of intent would not bind them. The present article briefly examines the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

• Vasanth Rajasekaran - 10-08-2021

In the recent decision of The Project Director, NHAI v. M. Hakeem and Anr., the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a court is not empowered to modify an award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). The present article briefly examines the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned matter.