Case Name: M/s Citicorp Finance (India0 Limited v. Snehasis Nanda
Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia & Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Citation: 2025 INSC 371
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court held that a consumer retains the choice to opt for either consumer forum or arbitration even when the agreement explicitly provides forarbitration as the dispute resolution mechanism. The court further clarified that the consumer has the exclusive right to decide whether to pursue arbitration or approach the consumer forum. To arrive at this conclusion, the court relied on its previous rulings Emaar MGF Land Lt. v. Aftab Singh and M. Hemlatha Devi v. B. Udayasri.
The dispute arose from a tripartite agreement for the purchase of a flat, which contained an arbitration clause. The respondent (complainant before the NCDRC) had purchased the flat with a housing loan of Rs. 17, 64,644 from ICICI Bank. Subsequently, Mr Mubarak Vahid Patel expressed interest in purchasing the flat for Rs. 32,00,000.
To facilitate the transaction, the borrower and the appellant, Citicorp Finance, entered into an agreement where the borrower requested the appellant to disburse Rs. 17,80,000 to ICICI Bank to secure the release of the flat. However, the respondent later filed a complaint before the NCDRC, seeking a direction for the appellant to pay the balance consideration amount, contending that the tripartite obligated the appellant to deposit the entire sale amount.
The NCDRC ruled in favour of the respondent, directing the appellant to refund Rs. 13,20,000 along with interest and an additional Rs. 1,00,000 towards litigation costs.
𝗝𝗼𝗶𝗻 mentblue 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆.
𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁𝘀𝗔𝗽𝗽 : https://lnkd.in/g9gBHk9j
𝗧𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗺 : https://t.me/mentblue
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that High Courts can quash FIRs at the nascent stage of investigation under Section 482 CrPC/ Section 528 BNSS if the allegations do not disclose a prima facie offence. In a recent judgment, the Court quashed an FIR against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi, stating that the case was a clear abuse of the legal process.
The Delhi High Court, in 𝑭𝒂𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒖𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒗𝒔. 𝑵.𝑾.𝑮.𝑬.𝑳 𝑪𝒉𝒖𝒓𝒄𝒉 (𝑨𝑹𝑩.𝑷. 1318/2024), ruled that when an arbitration agreement does not specify a seat or venue, the court's jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, must be determined based on Sections 16 to 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The ruling, delivered by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri on March 20, 2025, emphasized that 𝗷𝘂𝗿𝗶�...
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India in Disortho S.A.S. v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. held that Indian courts have jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator even if the arbitration venue is in a foreign country, provided the contract specifies Indian law as the governing law.