Indian Judgements

Indian Judgements

Arbitration: Arbitrator appointed with the consent of both parties

Picture of Judgments Online

Judgments Online

The High Court of Delhi disposed of a petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by appointing a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from a 2016 transportation services contract between M/S Vivek Travels Private Limited and Northern Railway. The appointment was made with the consent of both parties, following the court’s confirmation of the existence of a valid arbitration agreement.

  • Dispute Origin: The petitioner provided transportation services under a contract executed in April 2016. Upon the contract’s expiry, the petitioner alleged that the respondent failed to release outstanding bill payments and failed to refund the Earnest Money Deposit, Security Deposit, and Performance Guarantee.
  • Claim Amount: The petitioner’s aggregate claim is approximately Rs. 4,66,421/-, excluding interest and costs.

Key Findings and Directives

  • Arbitration Agreement: The court noted that there was no dispute regarding the existence of a valid arbitration clause (Clause 42 of the Agreement) and that the parties were in agreement regarding the reference of the dispute to arbitration.
  • Appointment: Vinayak Mishra, Advocate (Mobile: 9205619949), was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator.
  • Procedural Requirements:
    • The Arbitrator must enter upon the reference within two weeks.
    • The Arbitrator is required to provide disclosures under Section 12(2) of the Act within two weeks of entering the reference.
    • The proceedings will be conducted under the rules and aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), with fees determined by the DIAC Schedule of Fees.
  • Liberty to Parties: Both parties retain the right to raise all pleas, including objections regarding arbitrability and jurisdiction, before the appointed Arbitrator.
  • Independent Adjudication: The Court clarified that the Arbitrator is to decide the disputes independently on their merits, uninfluenced by the observations made during the petition process.

2026 DHC 5618

M/S Vivek Travels Private Limited Vs. Northern Railway (D.O.J. 13.07.2026)

2026 DHC 5618 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Limitation: Probate of a Will is a “continuous right”

July 16, 2026 No Comments

Supreme Court held that an application for the probate of a Will is a “continuous right” and is not subject to an absolute three-year limitation period starting from the date of the testator’s death. The Court further clarified that questions regarding the limitation of a probate application and the potential “suspicious” nature of a Will cannot be adjudicated summarily under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), as these constitute mixed questions of law and fact requiring evidence.

Background

The case involved an application for probate of a Will executed on 15th April 1995, filed by an executor on 31st August 2005. The District Judge, Deoghar, rejected the application based on an Order VII Rule 11 CPC application filed by objectors, citing an unexplained delay since the testator’s death in 1995. The High Court subsequently affirmed this decision, leading to the current appeal.

Key Legal Findings

  • Limitation Period for Probate: The Court clarified that the Indian Succession Act (ISA) does not prescribe a specific time limit for filing a probate application. Referencing established precedent, the Court held that the right to apply for probate is a “continuous right” that accrues when it becomes necessary to apply, rather than automatically upon the death of the testator.
  • Accrual of Right: In this specific case, the Court found the application to be within limitation, as the necessity to apply arose when the respondents took actions hostile to the Will (the execution of a Power of Attorney by the testator’s wife on 8th August 2005), which occurred shortly before the probate application was filed.
  • Scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC: The Court ruled that lower courts erred by deciding the merits of the Will’s sanctity during a summary proceeding under Order VII Rule 11. Rejection of a plaint at this threshold stage is a “drastic power” and is legally unsustainable when the issue of limitation involves mixed questions of law and fact that require the parties to lead evidence.

Outcome

  • Judgment Set Aside: The Supreme Court set aside the orders of both the District Judge and the High Court of Jharkhand.
  • Case Restoration: The appeal was allowed, and the matter was restored to the concerned Civil Court to proceed in accordance with the law.

Is there anything specific regarding the procedural aspects of this judgment you would like me to clarify?

2026 INSC 708             

Sanjay Sharma @ Sanjay Bhardwaj v. Krishnadhan Khaware and Ors (D.O.J. 15.07.2026)

2026 INSC 708 click here to view full text of judgment

Next Story

Conviction set aside in 41 years old murder case – Highly Unusual Circumstances

July 16, 2026 No Comments

Supreme Court set aside the conviction and life sentences of the accused-appellants, acquitting them of all charges. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, as the foundational narrative regarding the timing and manner of the occurrence was significantly undermined by “highly unusual circumstances” and serious investigative lapses, leading to the conclusion that the First Information Report (FIR) was a post-investigation document.

Background

The accused-appellants were convicted by the trial Court in 1981 for offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including murder, based on the prosecution’s claim that they killed the deceased-victim, Harihar Saran, on the afternoon of 28th June, 1977. The High Court subsequently affirmed these convictions in 2011. During the pendency of the appeals before the Supreme Court, some of the original appellants passed away, leading to the abatement of their appeals.

Key Findings and Analysis

The Supreme Court identified several critical infirmities in the prosecution’s case that cast a “serious cloud of doubt” over the entire narrative:

  • Unnatural Conduct and Lack of Preservation: The Court noted it was highly unnatural that the dead body was left unattended at the place of occurrence throughout the night following the incident, despite the police station being located only about 3.5 miles away. No steps were taken by the police or the victim’s family to preserve the scene or the body.
  • Investigative Lapses: There was an inordinate and unexplained delay in conducting the post-mortem examination, which took place approximately 48 hours after the alleged time of the incident.
  • Contradictory Records: Material inconsistencies existed regarding the individuals who accompanied the complainant to the police station to lodge the FIR. The complainant’s testimony contradicted the contemporaneous General Diary entries maintained by the police.
  • Post-Investigation FIR: A crucial finding was that the FIR, although purportedly registered on 28th June, 1977, was only received in the Magistrate’s Court on 30th June, 1977. The Court concluded that, when viewed alongside other attendant circumstances, this delay, along with the other gaps in the investigation, clearly indicated that the FIR was a “post investigation document”.
  • Unreliable Eyewitnesses: Due to the aforementioned discrepancies, the Court found the testimony of the alleged eye-witnesses to be unreliable, making their presence at the crime scene “highly improbable”.

Outcome

  • Acquittal: The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, eroding the “substratum of the prosecution case”.
  • Final Order: The judgments of the trial Court and the High Court were set aside. The surviving accused-appellants (Hira Lal, Raj Bux, and Subedar) were acquitted of all charges.

Juvenility Plea: Having acquitted the accused on the merits of the case, the Court found it unnecessary to examine the plea of juvenility raised on behalf of one of the appellants.

2026 INSC 707

Deo Prasad and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (D.O.J. 15.07.2026)

2026 INSC 707 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

FIR In Matrimonial offence quashed on amicable settlement

July 16, 2026 No Comments

In the matter of Ankit Khanna & Ors. vs. State of NCT Delhi & Anr., the High Court of Delhi allowed the petition to quash FIR No. 0129/2022, registered at PS Greater Kailash for offenses under Section 498A/406/506/34 IPC, following an amicable settlement between the parties.

  • Background: The petitioners sought the quashing of the FIR based on a settlement reached regarding all matrimonial disputes.
  • Resolution:
    • The marriage between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 had already been dissolved by a decree of divorce.
    • Respondent no. 2, who maintains custody of their daughter, confirmed that she has received a full and final settlement amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000 in lieu of all claims regarding stridhan and maintenance.
    • Respondent no. 2 stated that she no longer wished to pursue the prosecution of the petitioners.
  • Court’s Decision: The Court, satisfied that the settlement was voluntary and that continuing the trial would not serve the interest of justice, allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings.

2026 DHC 5624

Ankit Khanna & Ors. Vs. State Of NCT Delhi Through Sho Police Station & Anr. (D.O.J. 14.07.2026)

2026 DHC 5624 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Petitioner is already pursuing a remedy before the appropriate forum – No Relief

July 16, 2026 No Comments

In the matter of Gaurav Jain vs. State, the High Court of Delhi dismissed a writ petition seeking directions for an effective, time-bound investigation in e-FIR No. 80055081/2026, on the grounds that the petitioner had already initiated parallel proceedings regarding the same subject matter before the Magistrate.

  • Relief Sought: The petitioner, a practicing advocate, approached the High Court to direct the Respondent to conduct a proper and time-bound investigation into a specific e-FIR and to submit periodic status reports.
  • Court’s Observation: The Court noted that the petition was not maintainable because the petitioner had already filed an application under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) before the concerned Magistrate, which remains pending.
  • Outcome: As the petitioner is already pursuing a remedy before the appropriate forum, the High Court declined to entertain the writ petition at this stage.

2026 DHC 5622

Gaurav Jain Vs. State (D.O.J. 14.07.2026)

2026 DHC 5622 click here to view full text of judgment

Share

The specified slider does not exist.

Recent Articles

Hi Judgments Online

Subscribed
Logins