Our Expertise​

• Tendering Authority cannot reject bid on requirement not expressly & specifically stated in RFP – Supreme Court
• Arbitration Agreement valid and enforceable in cases where contract is not signed but acted upon – Supreme Court
• Clause barring interest on delayed payment wont bar interest during pendency of dispute – Supreme Court
• CA Certified Audited Statements are valid proof of actual expenditure – Delhi High Court
• Court can modify awards to the extent of typographical, clerical and computation errors and, the rate of post Award interest in case of party driven delay – Supreme Court
• In case of multi-party arbitrations, Arbitrator(s) can implead/add parties even if they were not issued Notice or made party to the Section 11 petition – Supreme Court
• Dispute over Full & Final Settlement is arbitrable even if parties fully discharge the contract – Supreme Court
• Arbitration Agreement can be enforced against legal representatives of a deceased party – Supreme Court
• Authorities cannot impose tender conditions which deny the bidder a level playing field – Supreme Court

• Bank has to remain vigilant and is responsible for detecting and preventing fraudulent transactions in bank account. Once duly reported, it is the Banks’ responsibility to refund and Account Holder has Zero Liability – Supreme Court
• Debt need not always be proved by a written contract – NCLAT
• No service tax payable for catering services provided to educational institutions – CESTAT
• Debtors statement to enter into an OTS with Creditor is proof of debt and default – NCLAT
• It is the bounden duty of the borrower to intimate the creditor of any change in address, cannot plead non-service if Demand Notice sent to previous address in case of non-intimation – NCLAT
• Director also liable for dishonour of cheque by company if he is in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business – Supreme Court
• Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process cannot be continued once debtor has repaid the entire debt – NCLAT
• Disputes between Banks over secured assets cannot be resolved by Debt Recovery Tribunal, have to be resolved by Arbitration – Supreme Court
• Advance consideration for supply is operational debt enabling Petition for Insolvency – NCLAT

• Consumer is exclusively entitled to approach consumer forum even if the concerned Agreements has an Arbitration Clause – Supreme Court
• In case of long delay in handover of possession, the consumer cannot be forced to accept possession, and is entitled to opt for and seek refund with reasonable interest. – Supreme Court
• Consumer Complaint cannot be dismissed simpliciter for Non-Joinder of necessary party – National Commission
• Insurance Claim can be denied if driver lacked valid license at the time of accident – National Commission
• Members of a cooperative society can approach the consumer forums for disputes with the cooperative society – National Commission
• Manufacturing defect in vehicle cannot be proved solely on the basis of conduct of frequent repairs, expert opinion is necessary – National Commission
• Real – Estate bought for commercial purposes not covered under consumer law, unless the purchaser can show that the purchase was intended towards self-employment – National Commission
• Insurance Company liable for deficiency in service in case of delay in furnishing insurance coverage documents without any reasons – National Commission
• Clause in insurance policy shortening limitation period is void and unenforceable – Delhi High Court

• Consumer commissions cannot invent a new case of negligence and find doctor / hospital liable when projected / complained case is not made out – Supreme Court
• Negligence must be proven through expert opinion, ultrasound is not a conclusive proof – Supreme Court
• Exaggerated compensation for mental agony can be reduced – National Commission
• Complainant has to proof breach of duty by doctor / hospital and causation of injury by it to prove a case of medical negligence – National Commission
• It cannot be presumed that a doctor or institution would deliberately engage in rash or negligent medical practices – Rajasthan High Court
• Hospital is vicariously liable for its doctors’ negligence – Supreme Court
• Failure to inform risk of failure of sterilisation process is ground for medical negligence claim – Punjab & Haryana High Court
• Absence of finding of negligence by Ethics Board is strong proof of lack of negligence by the doctor / hospital – National
  Commission

• G.O. dated 22.06.2018 to the extent it denied gratuity to teachers continuing beyond superannuation was declared as illegal and invalid by Allahabad High Court
• Notional increment cannot be denied to employees retiring on 30th June – Supreme Court
• Authority has no power to redetermine Seniority once the Final List is prepared & published – Allahabad High Court
• Once candidate is absorbed on regular posts, irregularity in initial appointment is deemed to have been cured – Allahabad High Court
• Person o_iciated to higher post on orders is entitled to pay in that cadre even if found ineligible later – Andhra Pradesh High Court
• Payment of gratuity has to be made within one month of retirement, otherwise interest payable – Bombay High Court
• If employee is exonerated in Disciplinary Proceedings, he has to be provided interest on any withheld retirement benefits – Bombay High Court
• Control over work, level of integration, manner of remuneration, work for third party are key tests for employee – employer relationship – Supreme Court
• Supreme Court – Whether transfer of leasehold interest attracts GST?
• Supreme Court – Whether Stray Dogs can be permitted to stay on the streets?
• Supreme Court – Validity of amendments to Waqf Law
• Supreme Court – Whether rights of forest dwellers should prevail over environment protection laws?
• Supreme Court – Whether AYUSH Doctors have equal service conditions as Allopathy Doctors?
• Supreme Court – Should some District Judge Posts be reserved for entry-level judicial o_icers?
• Supreme Court – Can Environmental Clearance be given ex-post facto or subsequently?
• Supreme Court – Can Live-in Partner seek maintenance?
• Supreme Court – Whether compensation for no fault liability in motor accident claims limited to solely third party risks?
• Delhi High Court – Whether restaurants / hotels can mandatorily levy Service Charge with prior intimation?
• Delhi High Court – Whether the E-Waste Policy 2024 fixing minimum and maximum selling prices on sale of E-Waste to recyclers legally sustainable?
• Bombay High Court – Can Caste Scrutiny Committees recall Caste Certificates issued by them on their own accord?

• Supreme Court – Whether transfer of leasehold interest attracts GST?
• Supreme Court – Whether Stray Dogs can be permitted to stay on the streets?
• Supreme Court – Validity of amendments to Waqf Law
• Supreme Court – Whether rights of forest dwellers should prevail over environment protection laws?
• Supreme Court – Whether AYUSH Doctors have equal service conditions as Allopathy Doctors?
• Supreme Court – Should some District Judge Posts be reserved for entry-level judicial o_icers?
• Supreme Court – Can Environmental Clearance be given ex-post facto or subsequently?
• Supreme Court – Can Live-in Partner seek maintenance?
• Supreme Court – Whether compensation for no fault liability in motor accident claims limited to solely third party risks?
• Delhi High Court – Whether restaurants / hotels can mandatorily levy Service Charge with prior intimation?
• Delhi High Court – Whether the E-Waste Policy 2024 fixing minimum and maximum selling prices on sale of E-Waste to recyclers legally sustainable?
• Bombay High Court – Can Caste Scrutiny Committees recall Caste Certificates issued by them on their own accord?

• Homebuyers cannot be denied possession of flat once claim is verified & admitted by Resolution Professional in Insolvency Proceeding – Supreme Court
• Proposed Purchaser under an Agreement to Sell cannot directly seek restraint on a third party purchaser of property, in absence of the vendor and any payment under the Agreement to Sell – Supreme Court
• Court is duty bound to report to Income Tax Department of any suits pertaining to cash transactions of more than Rs. 2 Lacs or more to verify compliance with S. 269ST of Income Tax Act – Supreme Court
• Registration of transfer document cannot be refused by Registrar on the ground that seller’s / vendor’s title deeds aren’t produced or established – Supreme Court.
• Will being validly executed does not mean that it is genuine, suspicious circumstances are still required to be looked into – Supreme Court
• Gift Deed cannot be cancelled in absence of any clause or reservation to cancel – Supreme Court
• In case of long delay in handover of possession, the consumer cannot be forced to accept possession, and is entitled to opt for and seek refund with reasonable interest. – Supreme Court
• Landlord is the best judge of its own bona fide need to recover tenanted premises, not court or tenant – Delhi High Court
• Unregistered agreement to sell can be used as evidence of an agreement to sell but not that of a completed transfer – Supreme Court
• Participation of substantive beneficiary of a Will in its execution is ground for suspicion, must be dispelled with clear evidence – Supreme Court

• Diversion of initial interest of consumer amounts to passing o_ & trademark infringement even if the consumer subsequently realises (prior to purchase) that the brand is di_erent – Delhi HC
• Phonetic similarity, even though less significant in case of online sales, may be a relevant consideration leading to passing o_ – Delhi High Court
• No trademark infringement can be claimed against a person using his own or his predecessors’ name or place of business – Delhi High Court
• Likelihood of confusion is a must to grant interim injunction in trademark infringement cases – Supreme Court
• Delay is not a defence against trademark infringement or passing o_ where adoption of the mark is itself dishonest – Delhi High Court
• Personality Rights (bar against impersonation in any form) protected by various High Courts for Director Karan Johar and Actors Akshay Kumar and Abhishek Bachchan