Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11 - Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 - Scope and extent of the power of the High Court and the Supreme Court - Power of the Court is confined only to examine the existence of the arbitration agreement - The object of the amendment is to ensure minimum intervention of the court in arbitration proceedings. TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd. v. Lindsay International Private Limited, Soumen Sen, J. A.P. No. 969 of 2017 22-01-2019
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11 - Novation of Contract - the legislative amendment of the 1996 Act by the Act of 2015 is essentially to minimize court’s intervention at the stage of appointing arbitrator, and this intention ought to be respected - the court should and need only look into one aspect – the existence of an arbitration agreement - Whether there has been any novation to the original contract, it is a matter for the arbitrator to decide in the said proceeding. IFGL Refractories Ltd. v. Lindsay International Pvt. Ltd., Soumen Sen, J. A.P. No. 413 of 2017 22-01-2019
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXVI Rule 4A - Commission for examination of any person resident within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court - Whether Rule 4A of Order XXVI of The (CPC) renders redundant the preceding Rules of Order XXVI and gives a court powers to grant commissions solely on the touchstone of "interest of justice or for the expeditious disposal of the case or for any other reason. Narendra Kumar Berlia v. Om Prakash Berlia, Moushumi Bhattacharya, J. G.A. No. 3136 of 2018 21-01-2019
Companies Act, 1956 - Ss. 397 & 398 r/w. 402 - Application to Tribunal for relief in cases of oppression - Application to Tribunal for relief in cases of mismanagement - Powers of Tribunal on application under section 397 or 398 - Discussed. Beltas Merchants Private Limited v. Indian Fibres Limited, I.P. Mukerji, J. A.C.O. No. 159 of 2013 18-01-2019
Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 147, 148, 302, 307 r/w. 149 - Mentioning of the names of assailants before the treating doctor too is not an absolute imperative. Moreover, the injured might have thought that as the First Information Report mentioned all the names, it was not necessary to specifically name the accused in the injury reports. Motia Rahaman Dewan v. State of West Bengal, Md. Mumtaz Khan & Jay Sengupta, JJ. Crl. A. 391 of 2009 18-01-2019
Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 304 / 34 - Common Intention - In order to bring home the charge of common intention, the prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial there was plan or meeting of mind of all the accused persons to commit the offence. Ismail Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J. Crl.A. No. 669 of 2012 18-01-2019
Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 304 / 34 - Common Intention - In order to bring home the charge of common intention, the prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial there was plan or meeting of mind of all the accused persons to commit the offence. Ismail Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J. Crl.A. No. 669 of 2012 18-01-2019