Latest news with #IndianContractAct
The Hindu
7 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
CM office, Raj Bhawan submit separate stands to J&K High Court on Gulmarg lease issue
The J&K Chief Minister's office and the Raj Bhawan on Tuesday (August12, 2025) submitted two separate positions to the J&K High Court that was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on Gulmarg, a hill resort in north Kashmir that attracts high-end tourists to the Valley round-the-year. The Division Bench, comprising J&K Chief Justice Arun Palli and justice Rajnesh Oswal, was informed by Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin-ul-Showkat Qadri that there were two separate replies from the Chief Minister's office and the Lieutenant Governor's office. These were produced before the court in a sealed cover. The court was hearing the PIL on environmental concerns of Gulmarg and the recent eviction of owners of the Nedou's Hotel in Gulmarg after 137 years of possession. Justice Palli and Justice Oswal, while taking note of the two separate replies, decided to hear the case again on August 28, 2025. However, J&K Chief Minister Omar Abdullah expressed displeasure over the Raj Bhawan's move. Talking to The Hindu, Mr. Abdullah said, 'Until recently the L-G has continued to maintain that he only has responsibility for security and Law and Order. Now suddenly he's got involved in this. It's unfortunate that the elected government is sought to be undermined by the unelected government'. Around 55 hotels out of 59 could go under the hammer because of the lack of lease extensions in Gulmarg. The J&K Land Grant Rules-2022, which replaced the J&K Land Grants Rules-1960, introduced by the L-G in 2022 barred extension in case of lease expiry. The L-G administration had asked the outgoing lease holders to evict properties or else face evictions under the new rules. However, the current land holders termed these rules 'exclusive to J&K where the first right to lease-holders has not been granted and revised rates negotiated'. Many leaseholders have already challenged the new rules before the court. During the L-G rule, it was decided that an expert committee will enlist all properties where lease had ended and will be e-auctioned afresh. For the first time, the earlier bar that only locals could apply for lease of land has been done away with. The new rules instead open bidding to 'any person legally competent under Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.' In the past, no land in Gulmarg was granted on lease to any person who was not a permanent resident of the erstwhile state of J&K.
United News of India
07-08-2025
- Business
- United News of India
Serious fraud cases: SC rejects appeals against Patna HC order appointing arbitrators
New Delhi, Aug 7 (UNI) In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court today outlined the legal principles governing the arbitrability of disputes involving serious allegations of fraud, while dismissing a batch of civil appeals challenging the Patna High Court's decision to appoint arbitrators under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A Division Bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra reiterated a set of guiding principles to determine when disputes involving fraud can and cannot be resolved through arbitration. The appeals stemmed from a challenge to the Patna High Court's orders allowing arbitration proceedings in multiple cases despite allegations of serious to justice for the enforcement of rights is generally through ordinary civil courts. However, Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 saves contractual resolution mechanisms such as arbitration. Section 2(3) of the Arbitration Act restricts arbitrability in cases where other statutes explicitly prohibit arbitration. The Court clarified that the existence or possibility of criminal proceedings arising from the same facts does not automatically render a civil dispute non-arbitrable. Civil matters such as coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation under the Indian Contract Act can still be resolved through the precedent in Swiss Timing Ltd., the Court observed that permitting arbitration to proceed alongside criminal proceedings does not inherently prejudice either Between 'Serious Fraud' and 'Fraud Simpliciter' The Court reaffirmed that serious fraud, due to its public law implications, may exclude a dispute from arbitration, unlike 'fraud simpliciter,' which remains arbitrable. The Court laid out two tests, first when the arbitration agreement itself is in doubt, i.e., one party denies entering into it altogether. Second, when allegations are made against the State or its instrumentalities, requiring scrutiny beyond contractual issues, touching upon public law principles. Serious fraud allegations with potential criminal implications and broader public impact, such as corruption affecting governance or national security, are non-arbitrable. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider fraud-related disputes within the contract, even if the contract is terminated or challenged, the apex judiciary stated. However, fraud allegations directly targeting the arbitration clause itself are non-arbitrable. When fraud is alleged specifically against the arbitration agreement, the Tribunal lacks authority to adjudicate the issue. The party raising a plea of non-arbitrability bears the burden to prove it, the court said. UNI SNG SSP
United News of India
07-08-2025
- Politics
- United News of India
SC clarifies law on arbitrability in cases involving serious fraud
New Delhi, Aug 7 (UNI) In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has outlined the legal principles governing the arbitrability of disputes involving serious allegations of fraud, while dismissing a batch of civil appeals challenging the Patna High Court's decision to appoint arbitrators under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A Division Bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra reiterated a set of guiding principles to determine when disputes involving fraud can and cannot be resolved through arbitration. The appeals stemmed from a challenge to the Patna High Court's orders allowing arbitration proceedings in multiple cases despite allegations of serious fraud. Access to justice for the enforcement of rights is generally through ordinary civil courts. However, Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 saves contractual resolution mechanisms such as arbitration. Section 2(3) of the Arbitration Act restricts arbitrability in cases where other statutes explicitly prohibit arbitration. The Court clarified that the existence or possibility of criminal proceedings arising from the same facts does not automatically render a civil dispute non-arbitrable. Civil matters such as coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation under the Indian Contract Act can still be resolved through arbitration. Citing the precedent in Swiss Timing Ltd., the Court observed that permitting arbitration to proceed alongside criminal proceedings does not inherently prejudice either party. Distinction Between 'Serious Fraud' and 'Fraud Simpliciter' The Court reaffirmed that serious fraud, due to its public law implications, may exclude a dispute from arbitration, unlike 'fraud simpliciter,' which remains arbitrable. Contextual Assessment of 'Serious Allegations of Fraud' The Court laid out two tests: When the arbitration agreement itself is in doubt, i.e., one party denies entering into it altogether. When allegations are made against the State or its instrumentalities, requiring scrutiny beyond contractual issues, touching upon public law principles. Serious fraud allegations with potential criminal implications and broader public impact, such as corruption affecting governance or national security, are non-arbitrable. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider fraud-related disputes within the contract, even if the contract is terminated or challenged. However, fraud allegations directly targeting the arbitration clause itself are non-arbitrable. When fraud is alleged specifically against the arbitration agreement, the Tribunal lacks authority to adjudicate the issue. The party raising a plea of non-arbitrability bears the burden to prove it. The court's role in preliminary enquiry is that when a non-arbitrability plea is raised, the Court examines it only as a jurisdictional question to determine whether the dispute falls within the scope of arbitration. Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar appeared for the Appellants, while Senior Advocate Amit Sibal represented the Respondents. The Court clarified that it had left all jurisdictional objections, including limitation and non-arbitrability, to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal as preliminary issues. "The issues that we have not taken up and left to the arbitral tribunal are jurisdictional issues, involving barring of the arbitral proceedings due to limitation or for the reason that they are non-arbitrable. These issues shall be taken up as preliminary issues and the arbitral tribunal will consider them after giving opportunity to all the parties," the bench concluded. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, effectively allowing the arbitration proceedings to continue in accordance with the Patna High Court's earlier directions. The Court observed that disputes involving allegations of serious fraud need more clarity so that there is a certainty about the available remedy. UNI SNG RN
India.com
12-07-2025
- Business
- India.com
Landlord Refusing to Return Your Deposit? Here's What You Can Do
New Delhi: In India, many people live in rented homes, and one of the biggest problems tenants face is landlords not returning the security deposit. Even though the law says tenants should get their money back if they leave the house in good condition, some landlords delay or refuse to pay. Here's how you can make sure you get your security deposit back and avoid trouble: If you return the property without any damage, your landlord must return your security deposit. If they don't, it's illegal. You can complain to the local rent authority or even go to the consumer forum for help. Things to Do Before Moving In Get a Written Agreement: Always have a rent agreement that clearly mentions the deposit amount, when you'll get it back, and any deduction rules. Take Pictures: Click photos or make a video of the house when you move in and before you move out. This helps if the landlord claims you caused damage. Ask for a Receipt: When you leave, get a signed receipt from your landlord showing you paid and got your deposit back. If the Landlord Doesn't Return Your Deposit Contact the Rent Authority: Many states have special offices to solve these problems quickly. Send a Legal Notice: A lawyer can send a formal notice to your landlord, which often makes them return your money. Keep Evidence: Save your rent agreement, payment proofs, receipts, messages, emails, and photos. Go to Court: If needed, you can file a case under laws like the Indian Contract Act or the Consumer Protection Act. If your refund cheque bounces, you can use the Negotiable Instruments Act. Tips for Tenants Security deposits are usually 1 to 3 months' rent and must be returned if there's no damage. Always pay by cheque or online so you have proof. Keep all talks with your landlord polite and in writing. By staying aware and careful, you can protect your money and make sure your rights as a tenant are respected.
India Today
02-07-2025
- Business
- India Today
Non-compete clauses blocking job switch are not enforceable, says Delhi High Court
In a significant ruling that could have widespread implications, the Delhi High Court recently reaffirmed that non-compete clauses restricting an employee's right to work after leaving a company are unenforceable under Indian law. The judgment came in the appeal of Varun Tyagi, a software engineer, against his former employer, Daffodil Software Private Limited, which had sought to block him from joining a key client after resigning from the was the case?Varun Tyagi, an IT engineer, joined Daffodil Software in January 2022 and was later assigned to a government project run by Digital India Corporation, a business associate of Daffodil. Tyagi rose to a leadership position on the project, receiving specialised training and working closely with resigning from Daffodil in January 2025 and serving a three-month notice period, Tyagi accepted a job offer from DIC, which was to be effective from April 2025. Soon after, Daffodil, citing a non-compete and non-solicitation clause in Tyagi's employment contract with them, filed a suit before the court to restrain him from joining DIC. The company argued that this move could potentially harm their business interests and lead to the disclosure of proprietary employment agreement between Tyagi and Daffodil included a sweeping clause that prohibited Tyagi from soliciting or working with any business associates of Daffodil for three years after leaving the company and associating with any business associate he had interacted with during his trial court granted an interim injunction in favour of Daffodil, restraining Tyagi from joining DIC and from disclosing any confidential information. The court said there was a prima facie case in favour of the company and there existed a real risk of irreparable harm to Daffodil. Tyagi then challenged this decision before the Delhi High Court, arguing that the injunction and the non-compete clause violated his right to work and were void under Indian through his counsel, argued that non-compete clauses were a blanket prohibition, not just on competitors but also on clients and business associates. He further said that such a clause, which imposes a post-employment restraint, cannot be legally permitted under Indian law. Daffodil, on the other hand, argued that the non-compete was necessary to protect the company's interests, investments and intellectual property. They further argued that Tyagi had access to confidential information and proprietary knowledge that could potentially harm Daffodil's business did the High Court say?Justice Tejas Karia, who heard Tyagi's appeal, examined whether there was any legal foundation of non-compete clauses in India. The Court said that Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 clearly says that any agreement that restrains anyone from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business, except in the case of the sale of goodwill, shall be court clarified that Indian law, unlike English law, does not recognise the validity of 'partial' or 'reasonable' restraints. Citing several Supreme Court judgments, the court held that any post-employment restriction, no matter how limited, should be considered void unless it falls under the narrow exception for the sale of the High Court also found that Daffodil did not own the intellectual property or confidential information in question; rather, it belonged to DIC, the client. Most importantly, the court held that the non-compete clause, as drafted, was an impermissible restraint on Tyagi's right to work and was thus void under Section 27 of the Indian Contract have the courts said earlier?Indian courts have consistently held that non-compete clauses restricting an employee after they leave employment are void and unenforceable. Such clauses are seen as a restraint of trade and contrary to public policy, as they may deprive individuals of their fundamental right to earn a livelihood. This is, however, for enforcement of non-compete clauses post-employment only. Restrictions that apply during the period of employment are generally valid. Employers can prohibit employees from working with competitors or starting a competing business while still employed, provided the restrictions are reasonable and protect legitimate business there are certain exceptions that have evolved over time through judicial interpretations, in which a non-compete clause may be upheld. For example, courts may uphold non-compete clauses if they are specifically designed to protect trade secrets, proprietary information, or confidential data, provided the restrictions are reasonable in scope and duration. Additionally, as stated in Section 27, non-compete agreements that are part of a sale of business or goodwill may be enforceable to protect the buyer's the case of Superintendence Co. of India v. Krishan Murgai (1981), the Supreme Court of India emphasised that any agreement restraining a person from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business would generally be void, except with the limited exception to the sale of goodwill. 'The right to livelihood and to pursue any occupation is paramount and cannot be curtailed by such contractual restrictions' the top court the case of Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1967) the Supreme Court held that negative covenants or restrictions during the period of employment are valid if they are reasonable and necessary to protect the employer's interests, such as trade secrets or confidential information. However, restraints that operate after the termination of employment are generally void under Section 27. The court struck a balance, stating that while protecting trade secrets is legitimate, post-employment restrictions on an employee's right to work are not recently, in the case of Manipal Business Solutions v. Aurigain Consultants (2022), the Supreme Court held that restrictions on associating with a business associate or client post-employment are void under Section 27. The Court also held that such clauses, even if agreed upon, cannot be enforced after the employment relationship ends, as they amount to a restraint of trade and violate the right to livelihood.- Ends
