Tag: Section 37

Commercial Contracts & Interest Rates: Supreme Court Reaffirms ‘Party Autonomy’ Over ‘Public Policy’
3Mar By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Commercial Contracts & Interest Rates: Supreme Court Reaffirms ‘Party Autonomy’ Over ‘Public Policy’

The Supreme Court held that under Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, party autonomy prevails; where a commercial contract specifies an interest rate, the arbitral tribunal has no discretion to deviate. A stipulated interest rate of 36% with monthly rests in a bill discounting agreement between equal bargaining parties is not unconscionable or against public policy. The rule of contra proferentem does not apply to mutually negotiated commercial contracts. Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated from a bill discounting facility extended by the respondent, Morgan Securities and Credits Private Limited, to M/s BPL Display Device Ltd (BDDL) and the appellant, BPL Limited, through sanction letters dated 27.12.2002 and 11.06.2003. The facility allowed BDDL to ...
Read More
Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Order Rejecting Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 is Appealable as a Decree
29Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Order Rejecting Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 is Appealable as a Decree

The Supreme Court held that an order rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is a decree under Section 2(2). Consequently, such an order is appealable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as it constitutes a final adjudication, not merely an interlocutory order restricted by the proviso. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, MITC Rolling Mills Private Limited, filed a commercial suit before the Commercial Court. The respondents, M/s. Renuka Realtors and others, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint. Their ground was that the appellant had not undertaken the mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement (PIMS) as required under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The...
Read More
Supreme Court: Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contracts, Upholds IRCTC’s Catering Policy
28Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

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...
Read More
Supreme Court Allows Business Expense Deduction for Firm in “Lull Period” Between Contracts
2Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Business Expense Deduction for Firm in “Lull Period” Between Contracts

The Supreme Court held that a temporary lull in business activities does not amount to cessation of business. The absence of a permanent establishment or a subsisting contract is not determinative; continuous business efforts, such as correspondence and bidding, suffice to constitute "carrying on business" for claiming deductions under Sections 37 and 71 and carry-forward of depreciation under Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Pride Foramer S.A., a French non-resident company engaged in oil drilling, was awarded a 10-year contract by ONGC in 1983, which concluded in 1993. A subsequent drilling contract was awarded only in October 1998, formalized in January 1999. During the interregnum assessment years (1996-97, 1997-98, 1999-2000), the comp...
Read More
Fabricated Documents Can’t Validate a Sale, Rules Supreme Court in Insolvency Case
19Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Fabricated Documents Can’t Validate a Sale, Rules Supreme Court in Insolvency Case

The Supreme Court held that for a sale by an Official Receiver to be protected under Section 37 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 upon annulment, the underlying transaction must be valid and attain finality. A transfer based on a fundamentally flawed and fabricated agreement is not a "duly made" disposition and does not survive the annulment of insolvency, requiring the property to revert to the debtor. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a partnership firm, M/s Gavisiddheshwara & Co. Following the death of partner Singamasetty Subbarayudu, his son (the appellant) was inducted. Due to family indebtedness, the appellant was alleged to have offered his inherited one-anna share for sale via a letter. Respondent Allam Karibasappa claimed to have accepted this offer, assertin...
Read More