Judgment dated: 17.03.2025
Citation: ARB.P. 1119/2024
The Learned Single Judge allowed the Section 11(6) petition filed by the petitioner due to the failure of the Micro and Small Industries Facilitation Council to act upon the reference made under Section 18(1) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act, 2006). The Court also protected the statutory rights of the petitioner under the MSME Act by directing that its provisions shall continue to apply to the arbitration proceedings.
Forum: National Green Tribunal (NGT)
Advised on regulatory obligations arising from the use of diesel generators by mobile operators. The NGT held that such operations must obtain prior consent from the Pollution Control Board under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
Citation: 2024 7 SCC 218
Represented the appellant before the Supreme Court. The Court reiterated that the appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is narrower than the jurisdiction under Section 34. It further held that although there is no statutory embargo on the appellate court’s power to remand matters under Section 37(1)(c), such a power should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances.
Judgment dated: 10.01.2024
Citation: O.M.P. (COMM) 451/2016
The Learned Single Judge dismissed the Section 34 petition and upheld a Nil Award passed against the petitioner. The Court accepted the respondent’s contention that, as the arbitration was invoked prior to the 2015 amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the disqualification contained in Section 12(5), read with Schedule VII of the Act, was not applicable. It was further held that the petitioner had participated in the proceedings and challenged the appointment of the arbitrator on the ground of bias only after the award had been rendered against it.
Citation: (2023) 7 SCC 1
Provided advisory insights on this landmark judgment delivered by a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court, which held that an unstamped arbitration agreement is not void. The decision overturned a previous 3:2 majority view and reaffirmed that stamping defects are curable at the pre-referral stage, marking a significant shift in arbitration law.
Citation: 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7916
The Division Bench considered whether, for the purposes of calculating the limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, a delay of 6,263 days could be excluded and condoned under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The Court ruled in favour of the respondent, holding that the preconditions for such exclusion, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Irrigation Deptt., (2008) 7 SCC 169 and Madhavrao Narayanrao Patwardhan v. Ram Krishna Govind Bhanu, 1959 SCR 564, were not satisfied, as the appellant had been completely remiss in the prosecution of the case.
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 528 of 2017
Advised in this matter where the Supreme Court clarified that an intention to cause harm is sufficient to invoke Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (attempt to murder), even if the injuries are not on vital parts of the body. The ruling offers vital interpretive clarity for framing charges in criminal prosecutions.
Citation: (2017) 4 SCC 71
Advised on and analyzed the Supreme Court’s decision where it upheld the cancellation of MBBS admissions obtained through fraud in the Vyapam scam. The judgment reinforced the constitutional boundaries of Article 142 and underscored the judiciary’s role in preserving institutional integrity—principles that are critical for corporate governance and regulatory compliance.
Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 181
Represented one of the appellants before the Supreme Court. The Court held that a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) that involves a proposed combination (i.e., a merger or amalgamation of entities) must be placed before the Committee of Creditors (CoC) only after receiving approval from the Competition Commission of India (CCI).
Citation: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 472
In this notable case, the Supreme Court held that in heinous offenses where the death sentence is a possibility, the prosecution must present all relevant materials to assess mitigating circumstances—even if the trial court does not ultimately impose the death penalty. The Court extended the ratio laid down in Manoj vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353, to ensure that High Courts have the benefit of independent evaluation when adjudicating on sentencing.
office@mrm.legal
+91 11 4706 5013
Flat No 10, 3rd Floor, 1 - Link Road, Jungpura Extension, New Delhi- 110014