LawforAll

▼
Wednesday, May 20, 2026

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss.34 and 37 — Scope of interference with arbitral award — Re-appreciation of evidence — Computational objection — Adjustment of mobilization advance. Jurisdiction under Section 37 being narrower than jurisdiction under Section 34, appellate Court cannot undertake fresh factual determination or re-appreciation of evidence relating to computation and reconciliation of accounts between parties. Where arbitral award and material on record disclosed that mobilization advance and recoveries thereof had been duly accounted for, challenge alleging excess award on account of non-adjustment, founded merely on speculative apprehension and not on demonstrable patent illegality, does not warrant interference under Sections 34 or 37. (Paras 23 to 40)

›
 Delhi High Court held that  Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss.34 and 37 — Scope of interference with arbitral award — Re-apprecia...

Anticipatory bail — Scope of jurisdiction while deciding bail application — Departmental enquiry against police officials — Judicial overreach. While considering application for anticipatory bail, Court is confined to question of grant or refusal of bail and cannot travel beyond scope of proceedings by directing departmental enquiry against police officials, monitoring disciplinary proceedings or passing adverse remarks unrelated to adjudication of bail application. After disposal of anticipatory bail application, Court becomes functus officio and cannot continue proceedings by calling status reports or supervising departmental action. (Paras 12 to 18)

›
  Delhi High Court  Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S.438 — Anticipatory bail — Scope of jurisdiction while deciding bail application — Depa...

Cross-examination — Closure of opportunity — One final opportunity — Grant of costs. Where party failed to cross-examine defence witness despite earlier opportunities, High Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 granted one final opportunity for cross-examination subject to payment of costs, holding that denial of opportunity would cause grave prejudice and that interests of justice would be adequately balanced by compensating opposite party through costs. (Paras 6 to 8)

›
  Delhi High Court held that  Constitution of India — Art.227 — Supervisory jurisdiction — Cross-examination — Closure of opportunity — One ...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XII Rule 6 — Judgment on admissions — Scope — Recovery suit — Admissions in e-mails — Refund of advance amount — Preliminary decree. Where correspondence exchanged through e-mails clearly disclosed unequivocal admission by defendant regarding refund of specified amount after agreed deductions towards modification charges, Court was justified in passing decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC to extent of admitted liability, while leaving disputed balance claims for trial. Conditional stipulation regarding time of repayment did not dilute clear admission of liability to refund admitted amount. (Paras 51 to 56)

›
  Delhi High Court held that Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XII Rule 6 — Judgment on admissions — Scope — Recovery suit — Admissions in ...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S.20(c) — Territorial jurisdiction — Recovery suit — Part of cause of action arising within jurisdiction — Effect. Where consignments were handed over at Delhi, payments and dishonoured cheques were received and presented at Delhi, accounts were maintained at Delhi and defendant company had registered office at Delhi, part of cause of action arose within Delhi conferring territorial jurisdiction upon Delhi Courts under Section 20(c) CPC. Mere mention of administrative office at another place in invoices or airway bills, in absence of exclusive jurisdiction clause, does not oust jurisdiction of Delhi Courts. (Paras 7 to 14)

›
  Delhi High Court held that  Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S.20(c) — Territorial jurisdiction — Recovery suit — Part of cause of action aris...