The Chambers Of Jangra & Associates

30/06/2025

**e **eculture **e

24/06/2025

11/06/2025

For legal professionals, real estate stakeholders, and buyers alike, this ruling is a reminder to exercise caution and ensure thorough validation of ownership claims before entering into agreements.

27/05/2025

21/05/2025

Let's explore how this judgment might influence future judicial aspirants in the comments 💭

20/05/2025

For expert assistance in conducting thorough due diligence, contact us today and ensure a secure, hassle-free transaction.

17/05/2025

08/05/2025

30/04/2025

Supreme Court of India Clarifies Limitation Period Under Commercial Courts Act: Countdown Begins from Judgment Pronouncement, Not Receipt of Copy.
In a noteworthy development of “M/S R. K. TRANSPORT COMPANY VERSUS M/S BHARAT ALUMINUM COMPANY LTD. (BALCO): CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4763 OF 2025 ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No. 26489 OF 2024” for commercial litigation practice in India, the Supreme Court has clarified that the limitation period for filing appeals under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 begins from the date of pronouncement of the judgment, not from the date of receipt of the certified copy.
This ruling resolves a recurring procedural question concerning Section 13(1A) of the Act, which governs the timeline for preferring appeals before the Commercial Appellate Division. The bench, while delivering its verdict, underscored that the legislative intent behind the Commercial Courts Act is to ensure speedy resolution of commercial disputes. Interpreting limitation provisions liberally to accommodate procedural delays would defeat the statute’s core purpose.
The Court noted that parties involved in commercial litigation are expected to exercise a higher degree of diligence. In this context, the pronouncement date — which is public and readily accessible — marks the start of the appellate timeline. The availability or procurement of the certified copy cannot be used as a ground to delay or extend the statutory period prescribed for filing an appeal.
This decision aligns with the broader jurisprudential approach that discourages procedural laxity in commercial matters. It reinforces that litigants must track proceedings proactively and be prepared to take prompt legal steps once a judgment is rendered, rather than await formal service or documentation.
For lawyers and litigants operating under the Commercial Courts Act, this judgment serves as a critical reminder: limitation is a matter of substantive compliance, not administrative convenience. Failure to monitor case progress or to obtain a copy of the judgment in a timely manner may now result in the forfeiture of appellate rights.
The ruling is also a call to trial courts and registry systems to ensure that pronouncements are communicated transparently, and court websites are updated promptly to facilitate immediate access to the date and content of decisions.
Key Takeaway:
This Supreme Court interpretation enhances procedural clarity and affirms the statute’s objective of expeditious adjudication. Legal practitioners are advised to adopt internal systems to monitor judgment pronouncements and initiate appeals within the stipulated period, irrespective of when certified copies are received.
The decision marks yet another step in the judiciary’s ongoing effort to bring efficiency, discipline, and finality to commercial dispute resolution in India.

29/04/2025

Judicial Affirmation of Arbitral Autonomy: A Commentary on Central Depositories Services (India) Limited v. Ketan Lalit Shah, 2025
In a significant decision interpreting the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Bombay High Court, in “Central Depositories Services (India) Limited v. Ketan Lalit Shah, 2025: BHC-OS:4806-DB”, has clarified the scope of Section 32 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, particularly in the context of an Arbitral Tribunal’s power to permit withdrawal of claims.
Factual Matrix
The dispute arose between Central Depositories Services (India) Limited (hereinafter, “Petitioner”) and several Respondents, who were clients and holders of dematerialized (DEMAT) accounts. The Respondents alleged that due to the Petitioner’s negligence, they suffered substantial financial losses on trades and margin obligations executed through a broker.
Upon commencement of arbitration, the Arbitral Tribunal was faced with a procedural impasse due to the statutory timeline for rendering the award expiring in May 2024. The Tribunal, therefore, indicated that amendment of claims could not be permitted. However, it offered the Respondents two procedural routes: (i) withdraw the existing proceedings and initiate fresh arbitration, or (ii) continue without any amendment.
The Respondents opted for withdrawal, and the Tribunal dismissed the matter accordingly, while expressly preserving their right to refile the claims. The Petitioner, aggrieved by this approach, approached the Bombay High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Tribunal’s decision on the ground that Section 32 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act did not allow for such a withdrawal.

Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
The High Court, in rejecting the Petitioner’s contentions, reaffirmed the procedural autonomy of Arbitral Tribunals under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. Emphasis was placed on Section 19 of the Act, which empowers Arbitral Tribunals to conduct proceedings in the manner they consider appropriate, subject to party agreement. The Court made it clear that this autonomy extends to the determination of whether to allow withdrawal of claims, and that such procedural decisions do not require prior judicial approval.
Conclusion
In dismissing the writ petitions, the Bombay High Court upheld the principle that Arbitral Tribunals possess wide procedural latitude under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, including the authority to permit claim withdrawal. This judgment reinforces the importance of arbitral autonomy and provides much-needed clarity on the interpretive scope of Section 32 of the Act.
The decision serves as a vital precedent in Indian arbitration jurisprudence and aligns with the legislative intent of minimal judicial intervention in arbitral proceedings. It offers reassurance to parties and arbitrators alike that procedural flexibility remains a cornerstone of the arbitration framework under Indian law.

28/04/2025

A landmark relief secured by the team of The Chambers Of Jangra & Associates. Before Hon'ble Delhi High Court, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi - 110003