-
Sep 23, 2024 | 
mondaq.com | Pratik Pawar |Siddhesh S Pradhan |Meher Mistri |Farhad Sorabjee
JSA successfully represented Chemco Plastic
Industries Private
Limited1 (“Plaintiff-Respondent”)
before the Bombay High Court (“Bombay
HC”), which has inter alia held
that in deciding whether a plaintiff has sought urgent interim
relief only to bypass the bar of compulsory pre-litigation
mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015
(“Commercial
Courts Act”), delay in seeking
interim relief is not a factor.
-
Sep 13, 2024 | 
mondaq.com | Siddhesh S Pradhan |Meher Mistri |Farhad Sorabjee
J
JSA
More
JSA is a leading national law firm in India with over 400 professionals operating out of 7 offices located in: Ahmedabad, Bengaluru, Chennai, Gurugram, Hyderabad, Mumbai and New Delhi.
-
Sep 13, 2024 | 
mondaq.com | Siddhesh S Pradhan |Meher Mistri
In a recent iteration, the Supreme Court of India
(“Supreme Court”) in the case
of Purni Devi and Another v. Babu Ram and
Another1 has held that in terms of
Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963
(“Limitation Act”)
the time period during which a plaintiff has pursued a matter
diligently and in good faith against the same party before a wrong
forum should be excluded when computing the limitation period
before the court of competent jurisdiction.
-
Jul 30, 2024 | 
mondaq.com | Shanaya Cyrus Irani |Siddhesh S Pradhan |Meher Mistri |Farhad Sorabjee
J
JSA
More
JSA is a leading national law firm in India with over 400 professionals operating out of 7 offices located in: Ahmedabad, Bengaluru, Chennai, Gurugram, Hyderabad, Mumbai and New Delhi.
-
Jul 16, 2024 | 
lexology.com | Farhad Sorabjee |Pratik Pawar |Siddhesh S Pradhan |Meher Mistri
JSA successfully represented Chemco Plastic Industries Private Limited1 (“Plaintiff-Respondent”) before the Bombay High Court (“Bombay HC”), which has inter alia held that in deciding whether a plaintiff has sought urgent interim relief only to bypass the bar of compulsory pre-litigation mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (“Commercial Courts Act”), delay in seeking interim relief is not a factor.
-
Jun 21, 2024 | 
lexology.com | Siddhesh S Pradhan |Meher Mistri
In a recent iteration, the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in the case of Purni Devi and Another v. Babu Ram and Another has held that in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (“Limitation Act”) the time period during which a plaintiff has pursued a matter diligently and in good faith against the same party before a wrong forum should be excluded when computing the limitation period before the court of competent jurisdiction.
-
Jun 21, 2024 | 
lexology.com | Farhad Sorabjee |Siddhesh S Pradhan |Meher Mistri
By an office memorandum dated June 3, 2024, the Ministry of Finance, Government of India has issued guidelines to government entities and agencies including central public sector enterprises (“CPSEs”), public sector banks (“PSBs”), and government companies in contracts for domestic procurement (“Guidelines”).
-
Apr 25, 2024 | 
lexology.com | Farhad Sorabjee |Shanaya Cyrus Irani |Siddhesh S Pradhan |Meher Mistri
A single bench of the Bombay High Court (“Bombay HC”) has in Cardinal Energy and Infra Structure Private Limited & Anr. v. Subramanya Construction and Development Co. Limited & Ors.1 held that the power to implead a nonsignatory to an arbitration proceeding vests in an arbitral tribunal on the basis of the group of companies doctrine laid down in Cox and Kings Limited v. SAP India Private Limited & Anr2 (“Cox and Kings”).
-
Oct 6, 2023 | 
lexology.com | Varghese C Thomas |Yohaann Limathwalla |Meher Mistri
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (“NCLAT”) has in the case of SVA Family Welfare Trust & Anr v. Ujaas Energy Limited & Ors inter alia held that a resolution plan can contain a clause which extinguishes security interest, such as personal guarantees, after paying compensation to the financial creditor in whose favour such security interest was created.
-
Oct 6, 2023 | 
lexology.com | Farhad Sorabjee |Pratik Pawar |Siddhesh S Pradhan |Meher Mistri
The Bombay High Court (“Bombay HC”) has in Parekh Plastichem Distributors LLP vs. Simplex Infrastructure Limited considered two conflicting arbitration clauses and held that an arbitration clause contained in a purchase order, which sets out the terms of engagement between the parties, prevails over an arbitration clause contained in an invoice raised by a party.
