judicial interference - The Legal Chamber

Key Ruling on Vakalatnama & “No Instructions”: Supreme Court Clarifies Lawyer-Client Procedure in Civil Cases

4Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Key Ruling on Vakalatnama & “No Instructions”: Supreme Court Clarifies Lawyer-Client Procedure in Civil Cases

The Supreme Court clarified that a counsel’s “no instruction” pursis does not equate to withdrawal of vakalatnama under the Advocates Act or Civil Manual. Absent a formal withdrawal, the court is not obligated to issue fresh notice; a litigant’s failure to instruct counsel cannot invalidate proceedings. The High Court’s interference under Article 227 was deemed unwarranted. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Shri Digant, filed a civil suit in 2014 against the respondents, M/s. P.D.T. Trading Co. & Ors., for possession under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The defendants were initially served summons, and after they failed to appear, the suit proceeded ex parte. Upon applications, these ex parte orders were later recalled, and the defendants filed written statements. Duri...

Supreme Court: Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contracts, Upholds IRCTC’s Catering Policy

The Supreme Court held that an arbitral award which contravenes binding government policy circulars—incorporated into the parties' contracts—is patently illegal and in conflict with the public policy of India under Section 34(2A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. An arbitrator cannot rewrite contractual terms that reflect such policy. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from contracts for catering services on premium Indian Railways trains (Rajdhani, Shatabdi, Duronto). The Railway Board initially increased meal tariffs in 2013 but simultaneously introduced a cheaper "combo meal" to replace the second regular meal on long journeys. This combo meal was swiftly discontinued days later, and caterers were directed to serve a second regular meal instead, but were to be reimbu...

“Courts Can’t Decide Arbitrability” Supreme Court Clarifies Arbitrator Appointment Scope Under Section 11 Arbitration Act

The Supreme Court ruled that under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration Act, courts must limit their examination to the existence of an arbitration agreement and cannot decide arbitrability or exclude claims as "excepted matters" at the appointment stage. Citing the 7-judge bench in In Re: Interplay and 3-judge bench in SBI General Insurance, it held that arbitral tribunals—not courts—must determine whether claims fall under non-arbitrable categories. The judgment clarifies that courts cannot bifurcate claims into arbitrable/non-arbitrable during arbitrator appointments, ensuring minimal judicial interference at the referral stage. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a contractual agreement between Office for Alternative Architecture (Appellant) and IRCON Infrastructure (Respondent), ...