Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
SC held that contractual clauses excluding disputes from arbitration must be construed narrowly and consistently with the rule of law. Where liability itself is disputed, one party cannot finally decide its own alleged breach or negligence and then bar both court and arbitral review. Clause 3.20 was read as permitting finality only on quantification where liability is admitted; it did not exclude arbitration of a contested liability dispute. The arbitral tribunal therefore had jurisdiction, the award did not relate to an excepted matter, and the High Court erred in treating the dispute as non-arbitrable. The appeals were allowed and the award restored.
SC held that contractual clauses excluding disputes from arbitration must be construed narrowly and consistently with the rule of law. Where liability itself is disputed, one party cannot finally decide its own alleged breach or negligence and then bar both court and arbitral review. Clause 3.20 was read as permitting finality only on quantification where liability is admitted; it did not exclude arbitration of a contested liability dispute. The arbitral tribunal therefore had jurisdiction, the award did not relate to an excepted matter, and the High Court erred in treating the dispute as non-arbitrable. The appeals were allowed and the award restored.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.