Interpretation of Arbitration Clauses Must Ensure Full Effect: Rajasthan High Court
[M/s Argon Remedies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rajasthan Medical Services Corporation Ltd. ARBAP-64/2023]
The Rajasthan High Court recently emphasized that arbitration agreements should be interpreted to honor the parties' intent to resolve disputes through arbitration. Even if certain clauses seem to limit the scope, courts should interpret them to uphold, not undermine, the arbitration process.
The dispute arose when M/s Argon Remedies Pvt. Ltd. alleged wrongful cancellation of a purchase order by Rajasthan Medical Services Corporation Ltd. Despite the Respondent's objection to the arbitration clause's validity, the Court ruled in favor of arbitration, affirming that the clause demonstrated the parties' clear intent to arbitrate, even without explicit wording on the finality of the arbitrator's decision.
Mere Pendency of Suit Not a Bar for Mutation Entry: Rajasthan High Court
[Satya Narayan vs. State of Rajasthan; 2024:RJ-JD:48962]
In a recent ruling, the Rajasthan High Court held that the mere pendency of a suit cannot justify denying a bona fide purchaser's application for mutation, especially when a petition for a temporary injunction has already been rejected.
The case involved a bona fide purchaser who applied for mutation after obtaining necessary permissions for residential construction. A third party, claiming ownership, filed a suit and sought an injunction, both of which were dismissed. Despite this, municipal authorities rejected the mutation application citing the pending suit.
The Court ruled that the rejection was "unreasonable" and "frivolous", emphasizing that a bona fide purchaser cannot be denied mutation rights due to a pending suit, particularly when no injunction exists. The Court directed authorities to process the mutation in the Petitioner's favor.
Plaintiff Must Prove Financial Readiness for Specific Performance: Supreme Court
[R. Shama Naik vs. G. Srinivasiah, (SLP(C) No. 13933/2021)]
The Supreme Court of India recently reaffirmed that under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, individuals seeking specific performance of a sale agreement must prove both their "readiness" and "willingness" to fulfill the contract. In a case involving a 2005 sale agreement, the Petitioner paid half the agreed consideration but alleged the Respondent failed to complete the sale. The trial court ruled in favor of the Petitioner, but the Karnataka High Court overturned the decision, citing the Petitioner's failure to prove financial readiness. The Supreme Court upheld this, stressing the need for clear evidence of both financial ability and genuine intent to perform the contract. The appeal was dismissed as the Petitioner failed to meet these requirements.
Condition requiring perpetual services of the données is equivalent to modern day slavery: Supreme Court
[Smt. Naresh Kumari & Ors. v. Smt. Chameli & Ors. (Neut. Cit. No.: 2024:INSC:965)]
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India declared that a gift deed imposing a condition for perpetual, unpaid services is unconstitutional, as it amounts to forced labor and violates fundamental rights. The case involved a 1953 oral gift deed with such a condition on the données and their successors.
The Court held that such a condition is not only illegal but also morally wrong, equating it to modern-day slavery. Citing Article 23 of the Constitution, which prohibits forced labor, the Court reinterpreted the condition to apply only to past services, not as a perpetual obligation.
While the gift deed itself was not invalidated, this ruling ensures that the donees can retain peaceful possession of the property. The decision has significant implications for property law and human rights, emphasizing the need to protect individuals from exploitation, even in gift transactions.
Disputes falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of statutory authorities are not arbitrable: Supreme Court
[Dushyant Janbandhu v. M/s Hyundai AutoEver India Pvt. Ltd. (Neut. Cit. No.: 2024:INSC:966)]
The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that disputes falling within the jurisdiction of statutory authorities are not arbitrable. In this case, the dispute over non-payment of wages and termination of employment was governed by the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Applying the principles from Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 2402/2019), the Court ruled that such disputes are non-arbitrable as they are covered by mandatory statutory provisions. The Court also imposed a ₹5 lakh cost on the respondent for pursuing arbitration in bad faith, deeming it an abuse of the legal process.
Delhi High Court holds that certain provisions of CPC can be applied to the court orders passed in arbitration proceedings.
[ADO India Pvt. Ltd. v. ATS Housing Private Limited (Neut. Cit. No.: 2024:DHC:9461)]
The Delhi High Court recently ruled that Sections 152 and 153 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, can be applied to rectify clerical or arithmetic errors in court orders within arbitration proceedings, as long as they do not alter the order's fundamental intent.
In a specific case, ADO India Pvt. Ltd. sought correction of a typographical error in a work order number in an order appointing an arbitrator. While the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, addresses errors in arbitral awards, it doesn't cover errors in court orders. The Court emphasized that corrections should not prejudice the other party and should preserve the original intent of the order. However, the power to rectify is limited to clerical or arithmetic errors and cannot be used for substantive changes.
Orissa High Court rules that copyright infringement disputes are arbitrable
[Shri Binaya Kumar naik v. Sanjay Kumar Naik & Anr. (Arb. P. No. 9/2024)]
The Orissa High Court has determined that disputes arising from copyright infringement are indeed arbitrable. This ruling signifies a significant development in the realm of intellectual property law and arbitration.
In this case, a party filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act to appoint an arbitrator to resolve a copyright infringement dispute. The opposing party contested the arbitrability of the dispute, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Vidya Drolia & Ors.v. Durga Trading Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 2402/2019) ("Vidya Drolia Case").
The High Court carefully examined the Supreme Court's ruling in Vidya Drolia Case. It clarified that while the Supreme Court had recognized that copyright infringement claims are generally arbitrable, there may be specific circumstances where they might not be. It was held in the Vidya Drolia Case that:
"...Therefore, a claim for infringement of copyright against a particular person is arbitrable, though in some manner the arbitrator would examine the right to copyright, a right in rem. Arbitration by necessary implication excludes actions in rem..."
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Court proceeded to appoint the sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.
Dharma Productions film 'Jigra' faces trademark infringement charge by Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF)=
[Medecins Sans Frontieres International v. Dharma Productions Private Limited & Ors., (CS(COMM) 1134/2024)]
The plaintiff, commonly known as 'Doctors without Borders', has moved the Delhi High Court to claim relief from the alleged trademark infringement by the film makers due to a particular shot in the film that the plaintiff alleged "creates the dangerous and highly defamatory impression that the plaintiff's credibility can be used for illegal immigration and that anyone can impersonate as MSF worker to illegally cross international borders".
In the film, the contested scene features the actors disguising themselves as doctors who are associated with an organization known as 'Medics without Frontiers' or 'Doctors without Borders' in order to illegally enter Malaysian waters. The use of the terms, as the plaintiff argued, "causes immense damage to its reputation and goodwill and tarnishes the plaintiff's image as an independent and impartial humanitarian organization, especially, in political sensitive and conflict-ridden zones".
Although the plaintiff sought for exemption for Pre-Institution Mediation under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the High Court in order to encourage amicable settlement, has still referred the dispute to Pre-Institution Mediation.
The Supreme Court sets aside the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) order which declared interest rates beyond 30% on credit card default as unfair trade practice
[Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp. Ltd. V. Awaz & Ors., (Civil Appeal No. 5273 of 2008)]
The Supreme Court recently set aside the NCDRC's ruling that declared interest rates over 30% charged by banks on credit card defaults as unfair. The complainant, Awaz (a consumer association), had argued that rates between 36% and 49% violated RBI guidelines.
The banks, including the appellant, contended that the RBI exclusively determines interest rates under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and that courts cannot adjudicate on such matters. The Court also held that bank policies do not qualify as "services" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and thus the NCDRC lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.
The iconic characters Popeye and Tintin are set to enter the public domain in the United States on January 1, 2025
As per the U.S. legislation, the Copyright Act of 1976, Chapter 3, some of the earliest comic characters ever published – Popeye and Tintin – are to enter the public domain on January 1, 2025 with the 95-year old long copyright tenure coming to an end.
Chapter 3 of the Copyright Act of 1976 states that any anonymous work, pseudonymous work or work made for hire is vested with a copyright tenure of 95 years from date of its publication or 120 years from date of its creation, whichever is earlier.
Both Popeye and Tintin were first published in the year 1929 and are considered works for hire, therefore, falling within the 95-year long copyright window. From January 2025 onwards, the first published/earliest version of the two characters can be used by any person without the need for any permission from or payment or compensation to any copyright holder.
To view the full article click here
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.