Contractual And Statutory Limits Of Interest In Arbitration

Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides the comprehensive framework for executing decrees in Indian civil litigation. This article examines the procedural mechanisms for decree execution, including filing execution petitions, methods of property attachment, and the legal processes for recovering money decrees through sale of attached assets.

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”) was introduced to enhance the credibility of cheque-based transactions and ensure financial discipline in commercial dealings by criminalising the dishonour of cheques issued towards the discharge of legally enforceable debts.

The word Panchanama is not used as such or defined particularly anywhere in any book of Law, but the same can be read into Section 100 under Chapter VII of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (Cr.P.C.).

Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is a critical legal provision aimed at safeguarding the dignity and modesty of women. It penalizes assault

Let us first understand the word "execution". Execution is defined as the process where the implementation of the order or judgement passed by the court of justice.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution provides for the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, and its interpretation by the Indian judiciary has significantly impacted the protection of

In India, an injunction is a legal remedy available to parties who wish to prevent the other party from carrying out a certain action or behavior.

Understanding the critical timelines and legal frameworks governing money recovery suits in India requires navigating the complex interplay between the Limitation Act of 1963 and the Indian Contract Act of 1872. When does the clock actually start ticking on your right to sue, and how can acknowledgments or digital evidence extend or restart that crucial three-year window?

Lok Adalat is a method of alternate dispute resolution that is governed under Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "Act").

The Supreme Court of India in Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi & Ors. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1961) has clarified that when a property ownership dispute...

The Allahabad High Court (HC) in the Shivakar Singh case denied relief to employee Shivakar Singh (Singh) of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL).

The Supreme Court, in the K. Gopi case, held on April 7, 2025 that Sub-Registrar or Registering Authority cannot adjudicate on the seller's title document to execute transfer property and refuse registration in the absence of the same.

The High Court of Kerala ("HC"), in the Sanjeevan Swamy case, held that in ex parte proceedings, the Court can issue an order in favour of the party present only if they prove their rights or the opposite party's liability.

The Allahabad High Court in Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. v. State of U.P., held that the writ jurisdiction can be invoked to safeguard existing rights and not for seeking to establish any new right.

The Kerala High Court (HC), in the case of Sakkir Hussain,1 held that it can exercise jurisdiction over the order of compensation by the Commissioner when there is a lack of evidence to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship.

The Gujarat High Court in the Sadgunbhai Semulbhai Solanki case1 held that depriving a person of their leave encashment, which is equivalent to their salary, violates their constitutional right.

The Supreme Court ("SC"), in Leela and others case,1 held that a will is not deemed valid simply by being registered. Rather, it must be proven in compliance with Section 682 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 633 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

The Delhi High Court ("HC") in Baikuntha Nath Das case1 held voluntary retirement could not be cancelled.

The Chhattisgarh High Court in Yaad Das Sahu case held that even for contractual employment, if any stigmatic termination order is to be passed, it must be done after holding proper enquiry and giving due opportunity of hearing to the concerned employee.

The Delhi High Court (HC), in the Broad Peak case,1 dealt with a case where two companies held trademark registration over an identical trademark.