A Division Bench of SC has criticized the intervention made by the High Court in arbitration proceedings. The SC has explicitly held that the High Court under its writ jurisdiction can intervene in arbitration proceedings only when the order of the arbitral tribunal is patently perverse.
In the present case, the High Court had directed the arbitral tribunal to grant additional time to one of the parties to cross-examine even when the arbitral tribunal had provided sufficient time to cross-examine the witnesses in accordance with the equity principle under Section 18 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (the Act).
The SC noted that the High Court in its decision couldn’t identify the perversity in the decision of the arbitral tribunal. Furthermore, the SC stated that when equal opportunity was provided to both the parties in accordance with Section 18 of the Act, the High Court should have restrained its interference in arbitration proceedings.
Sign Up on mentblue here: 
And check out each of mentblue offerings here:
While the legislative framework of criminal justice has undergone structural changes, the core principles remain steadfast. These foundational tenets continue to be upheld through judicial precedents, ensuring consistency in legal interpretation and application. The Supreme Court, through its judgments, bridges the transition from IPC/CrPC to BNS/BNSS, reinforcing that while the nomenclature and procedural aspects may evolve, the essence of justice remains...
Supreme Court, today, granted interim protection from arrest to YouTuber and podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia (𝗕𝗲𝗲𝗿 𝗕𝗶𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘀) in connection with multiple FIRs filed against him over alleged obscene remarks made on the YouTube show ‘𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗮’𝘀 𝗚𝗼𝘁 𝗟𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁’.
In a recent Judgment, the Supreme Court of India held that obtaining prior approval of the Competition Commission of India is mandatory before presenting a Resolution Plan involving a combination to the Committee of Creditors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).