Lawwebfeedspostsdefault

IntroductionThe Delhi High Court’s decision in Eureka Forbes Ltd v Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Decided On: 12.05.2026 Citation: MANU/DE/3689/2026 throws sharp light on a recurring but under‑discussed problem in arbitral practice: what happens to a counterclaim when a respondent is proceeded ex parte. In setting aside an arbitral order that outr...

 In light of the foregoing discussion and the judicial precedents noticed hereinabove, the governing test for determining whether an order qualifies as an "interim award" may now be articulated.(a) Whether the Order finally adjudicates a substantive dispute or claims between the parties;(b) Whether such adjudication attains finality and has a binding effect insofar as that ...

 Introduction: Why this judgment mattersThe recent Supreme Court decision Alka Agrawal and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors Decided On: 15.05.2026,2026 INSC 489, under the MPID Act marks a doctrinal shift with direct implications for trial courts, designated courts under MPID, and High Courts dealing with overlapping civil and criminal remedies. By treat...

6.7. The contention is therefore entirely misconceived that having failed to establish the offences under the Indian Penal Code, the complaint Under Section 3 of the MPID Act could not be maintained. In the same way, the plea that the dispute is of civil nature bear no relevance, once it is found that the transaction between the Appellants and Respondent Nos.2 to 6 satisfies the...

 Therefore, the procedural drill would be this way: A complaint is presented before the Magistrate under Section 223 of the BNSS; on presentation of the complaint, it would be the duty of the Magistrate/concerned Court to examine the complainant on oath, which would be his sworn statement and examine the witnesses present if any, and the substance of such examination should...