𝐀𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐚 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Tag: #DelhiHighCourt

Delhi High Court Overturns Tribunal Decision: Compensation Ordered for Railway Accident Victim’s Family
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 02.09.2026

Delhi High Court Overturns Tribunal Decision: Compensation Ordered for Railway Accident Victim’s Family

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Madhumita Jha. The views expressed are based on her interpretation of the law. She can be reached at her email id jhamadhumita27@gmail.com .

The Delhi High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Sweety Kumari & Ors. vs. Union of India, addressing the rights of victims’ families in railway accident compensation claims. This article provides a detailed overview of the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications for future claims under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act.

Background of the Case

On November 1, 2017, Vivek Kumar, a 35-year-old passenger, was traveling from Ghaziabad to Chhapra by train. Due to heavy crowding, he stood near the compartment door. As the train approached Dasna Flyover, Ghaziabad, a sudden jerk caused him to fall from the moving train, resulting in fatal injuries. The journey ticket was reportedly lost during the incident.

The deceased’s family filed a compensation claim under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. However, the Tribunal rejected the claim, citing the non-recovery of the journey ticket and lack of eyewitnesses. The family appealed this decision to the Delhi High Court.

Key Legal Issues

1. Proof of Bona Fide Passenger Status

The central question was whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger, given the absence of the journey ticket. The appellants argued that the ticket was lost in the accident, and the deceased’s father provided an affidavit affirming that his son had purchased a valid ticket. The Court referenced Supreme Court precedents, notably Union of India v. Rina Devi, which clarified that claimants need only establish foundational facts, such as the purchase of a ticket, to shift the burden of proof to the Railways.

2. Nature of the Incident: “Untoward Incident”

The Court examined whether the death qualified as an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) read with Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. Police and medical records confirmed the location and cause of death, supporting the family’s account. The Railways relied on a Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) inquiry conducted over a year after the incident, which failed to provide contemporaneous evidence or contradict the family’s version.

3. Evidentiary Value of Delayed Inquiries

The Court criticized the delayed DRM inquiry, noting that such delays undermine the reliability of findings. Citing previous judgments, the Court held that delayed inquiries lacking contemporaneous records cannot outweigh immediate police and medical evidence.

Court’s Findings and Decision

After reviewing all evidence, the Court concluded:
1. The deceased was a bona fide passenger, as established by the father’s affidavit and lack of contrary evidence from the Railways.
2. The death resulted from an accidental fall, constituting an “untoward incident” under the Act.
3. The delayed DRM inquiry held little evidentiary value.
The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s judgment, remanded the matter for assessment of compensation, and directed the authorities to disburse the amount within two months of the Tribunal’s order.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling reinforces several important principles:
1. Affidavits and Foundational Facts: Claimants can rely on affidavits and circumstantial evidence to establish bona fide passenger status when tickets are lost in accidents.
2. Contemporaneous Evidence Prevails: Immediate police and medical records carry more weight than delayed internal inquiries by the Railways.
3. Burden of Proof: Once foundational facts are established, the burden shifts to the Railways to disprove the claim.
Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Sweety Kumari & Ors. vs. Union of India is a landmark for railway accident compensation law. It clarifies the evidentiary standards for claimants and underscores the importance of timely and credible investigations. Families of accident victims now have clearer guidance on their rights and the process for seeking justice under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act.

Connected Matter

Supreme Court Clarifies Railway Compensation: Passenger Rights and No-Fault Liability

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Delhi High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com
September 2, 2026
Delhi High Court Clarifies Law on Court-Auction Sales
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 31.08.2026

Delhi High Court Clarifies Law on Court-Auction Sales

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Madhumita Jha. The views expressed are based on her interpretation of the law. She can be reached at her email id jhamadhumita27@gmail.com .

A recent judgment by the Delhi High Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Pahwa v. Universal Polychem (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. has provided significant clarity on the legal procedures and principles governing court-conducted property auctions. This article offers a detailed analysis of the case, the legal arguments presented, and the implications for future auction sales under Indian law.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose from the auction of property No. J-60, First Floor, Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi, conducted to satisfy a court decree. The auction was held under the supervision of a Court Auctioneer, with a reserve price set at Rs. 1,70,00,000. Multiple bidders, including the appellant Radhey Shyam Pahwa and respondent Lokesh Mendiratta, participated.

During the auction, a disagreement emerged regarding the increment (lot size) for bids. While the Court Auctioneer set the increment at Rs. 10,00,000, some bidders requested a reduction to Rs. 1,00,000 once the bidding reached Rs. 2,50,00,000. The Auctioneer declined, but noted all bids for transparency. Ultimately, Lokesh Mendiratta’s bid of Rs. 2,60,00,000 was recorded as the highest in accordance with the set lot size, though Pahwa offered Rs. 2,61,00,000, which was not accepted as it did not conform to the prescribed increment.

Legal Issues and Arguments

Appellant’s Contentions
1. Irregularities and Fraud Alleged:
  - The appellant argued that the auction process was marred by irregularities, including the arbitrary fixation of the lot size and lack of transparency.
  - He claimed that as the highest bidder (Rs. 2,61,00,000), he should have been declared the purchaser.
2. Mandatory Compliance with CPC:
  - Cited Order XXI Rules 84 and 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which require the highest bidder to deposit 25% of the bid immediately and the balance within 15 days.
  - Argued that these timelines should run from the date of the auction and identification of the highest bidder.
3. Precedents Relied Upon:
  - Relied on Supreme Court and High Court judgments emphasizing strict compliance with auction rules and timelines, and the need for fairness and transparency in court auctions.
Respondent’s Contentions
1. No Declaration of Purchaser at Auction:
  - The respondent argued that the Court Auctioneer did not declare any bidder as the purchaser on the auction date due to disputes over the highest bid.
  - The matter was referred to the Executing Court for a final decision.
2. Compliance with Court Orders:
  - Both the appellant and respondent deposited 25% of their respective bids, but the final declaration of the purchaser was made only by the court in its impugned order.
  - The respondent deposited the remaining 75% of the bid amount immediately after being declared the successful purchaser.
3. Legal Principle:
  - Cited case law establishing that in court-supervised auctions, the sale is not complete until the court formally declares the purchaser and confirms the sale.
Court’s Analysis and Decision

The High Court meticulously analyzed the auction process, the relevant provisions of the CPC, and the arguments of both parties. Key findings include:
1. Authority of the Court Auctioneer:
  - The Auctioneer was empowered by the Proclamation of Sale to set the bid increment. The lot size of Rs. 10,00,000 was validly fixed and announced.
2. Declaration of Purchaser:
  - No purchaser was declared at the auction due to disputes. The Executing Court, after considering objections, declared Lokesh Mendiratta as the successful purchaser.
3. Timelines for Deposit:
  - The mandatory timelines under Order XXI Rules 84 and 85 CPC for depositing the purchase money commence only after the court declares the purchaser, not merely upon the conclusion of the auction.
  - Since the declaration occurred on 05.05.2026, and the respondent deposited the balance amount on the same day, there was no violation of the CPC provisions.
4. Objections and Non-Compliance:
  - The appellant’s objections regarding the lot size and the auction process were found to be without merit.
  - The court held that mere non-compliance with interim directions (such as deposit deadlines before the purchaser was declared) did not invalidate the sale, as the core issue of the successful purchaser was unresolved at that stage.
5. Final Outcome:
  - The appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the Executing Court’s order declaring Lokesh Mendiratta as the successful purchaser and confirmed the auction sale.
Key Legal Takeaways
1. Court’s Role in Auction Sales:
  - In court-supervised auctions, the sale is not complete until the court formally declares the purchaser and confirms the sale, even if the highest bid is recorded at the auction.
2. Strict Compliance with Auction Terms:
  - Bidders must adhere to the terms set out in the Proclamation of Sale, including bid increments. Deviations may result in bids being disregarded.
3. Timelines for Payment:
  - The 25% and 75% payment requirements under Order XXI Rules 84 and 85 CPC are triggered only after the court’s declaration of the purchaser.
4. Transparency and Fairness:
  - The court reaffirmed the need for transparency, fairness, and adherence to procedure in judicial auctions to protect the interests of all parties.
Implications for Future Auctions

This judgment provides a clear precedent for handling disputes in court-conducted auctions. It underscores the importance of following the auction terms and the central role of the court in finalizing the sale. Bidders and legal practitioners should ensure strict compliance with all procedural requirements and be aware that the court’s declaration is the definitive step in concluding a judicial auction.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Delhi High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com
August 31, 2026
Quashing of Summoning Order and Defamation Proceedings under Section 500 IPC by Delhi High Court
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 29.08.2026

Quashing of Summoning Order and Defamation Proceedings under Section 500 IPC by Delhi High Court

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Madhumita Jha. The views expressed are based on her interpretation of the law. She can be reached at her email id jhamadhumita27@gmail.com .

The Delhi High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Pinaki Mishra v. State & Anr., quashing a criminal defamation case against Pinaki Mishra. This article provides a detailed overview of the case background, legal arguments, judicial reasoning, and the broader implications for defamation law in India.

Background of the Case
1. Origin of the Dispute
  - The controversy began when Siddhartha Singh filed a complaint with the Bar Council of Delhi, alleging professional misconduct by Pinaki Mishra.
  - Following this, Mishra allegedly referred to Singh as a “crook” and “black mailer” in a response and in an interview published by Dailyhunt News.
  - Singh filed two separate criminal complaints under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for defamation, leading to summoning orders against Mishra.
2. Proceedings in Lower Courts
  - The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) took cognizance of the complaints and summoned Mishra to face trial.
  - Mishra challenged the summoning order and the underlying complaint, seeking their quashing before the Delhi High Court.
Legal Arguments Presented

Arguments by Pinaki Mishra (Petitioner)
1. Lack of Prima Facie Evidence
  - Mishra argued that the complainant failed to produce any witness (other than himself) to establish that the alleged defamatory statements had actually lowered his reputation in the eyes of others, as required by Explanation 4 to Section 499 IPC.
2. Admissibility of Evidence
  - The online news article was not proved through its reporter, nor was it accompanied by the necessary certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, making it inadmissible as evidence.
3. Procedural Irregularities
  - The complaint was based on hearsay and secondary evidence, and the complainant had not fulfilled the legal requirements for establishing defamation.
4. Non-Appearance of Complainant
  - The complainant remained absent for extended periods, further weakening the case.
Arguments by Siddhartha Singh (Respondent)
- Singh maintained that the statements were defamatory and had harmed his reputation, and that the court at the summoning stage only needed to see if a prima facie case existed.
- He argued that disputed facts and evidentiary issues should be decided at trial, not at the stage of issuing summons.
Judicial Reasoning and Findings
1. Requirement of Prima Facie Evidence
  - The Court emphasized that to constitute defamation under Section 499 IPC, there must be an imputation that lowers the reputation of the complainant in the estimation of others.
  - Citing Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Court held that the complainant must produce at least one witness (other than himself) to show that his reputation was actually lowered.
2. Admissibility of Online News Reports
  - The Court noted that the news article was not proved by examining the reporter or providing the required electronic evidence certification, rendering it hearsay and inadmissible.
3. Absence of Foundational Material
  - The complainant’s failure to provide independent evidence or witnesses meant that the basic ingredients of the offence were not established, even at the prima facie stage.
4. Judicial Discretion and Abuse of Process
  - The Court found that continuing the criminal proceedings would not serve the ends of justice and would subject the petitioner to unnecessary hardship.
Outcome
- The Delhi High Court quashed the summoning order and all consequential proceedings against Pinaki Mishra, allowing his petition.
Broader Implications for Defamation Law
1. Higher Threshold for Summoning in Defamation Cases
  - Complainants must provide independent evidence that the alleged defamatory statement actually harmed their reputation in the eyes of others.
2. Strict Admissibility Standards for Electronic Evidence
  - Online publications must be properly proved in court, including certification and examination of relevant witnesses.
3. Judicial Scrutiny at the Summoning Stage
  - Courts must ensure that the basic statutory requirements are met before issuing process in criminal defamation cases.
Conclusion

This judgment reinforces the principle that criminal defamation proceedings cannot be initiated lightly. The requirement for independent evidence and proper proof of publication serves as a safeguard against frivolous or vexatious litigation. The decision is a significant precedent for future defamation cases involving online publications and highlights the importance of procedural rigor in criminal law.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Delhi High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com
August 29, 2026
Delhi High Court Acquits Accused in Dacoity Preparation: Emphasizes Mandatory Requirement of Five Persons Under Sections 399/402 IPC
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 25.08.2026

Delhi High Court Acquits Accused in Dacoity Preparation: Emphasizes Mandatory Requirement of Five Persons Under Sections 399/402 IPC

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Madhumita Jha. The views expressed are based on her interpretation of the law. She can be reached at her email id jhamadhumita27@gmail.com .

A recent judgment by the Delhi High Court has brought to light critical legal and procedural issues in criminal cases involving charges of dacoity and related offenses. The case, involving appellants Tulsi, Shyam Kumar, and Maharam Singh, centered on allegations of preparation to commit dacoity under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as possession of illegal arms under the Arms Act. This article provides a detailed analysis of the case, the court’s reasoning, and its broader implications for criminal jurisprudence in India.

Background of the Case

On August 26, 1999, the police received secret information about a planned dacoity at Roshnara Park, Delhi. Acting on this tip, a police team set up a raid and apprehended four individuals—Maharam Singh, Shyam Kumar, Tulsi, and Shyam Kishore—while a fifth alleged conspirator, Raju, reportedly escaped. Weapons were recovered from the accused, and charges were framed under Sections 399/402 IPC (preparation and assembly for dacoity) and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

Key Legal Issues Raised

1. Requirement of Minimum Five Persons for Dacoity Charges

The defense argued that the essential ingredient for invoking Sections 399 and 402 IPC—assembly of at least five persons—was missing. The prosecution’s case relied on the presence of a fifth person, Raju, who was never apprehended or identified beyond the police narrative. The defense cited Supreme Court precedents emphasizing that less than five persons cannot be convicted for dacoity-related offenses.

2. Credibility of Witnesses and Evidence

The court scrutinized the testimonies of key police witnesses and found inconsistencies, particularly regarding the presence and actions of the alleged fifth conspirator. The absence of independent public witnesses during the raid and recovery of weapons further weakened the prosecution’s case.

3. Recovery of Weapons

The defense challenged the legitimacy of the weapon recovery, suggesting the possibility of evidence being planted. The court noted the lack of independent corroboration and the questionable credibility of the official witnesses.

Court’s Analysis and Findings
- Legal Requirement Not Met: The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of five or more persons, a mandatory requirement for dacoity charges under Sections 399/402 IPC, as derived from Section 391 IPC.
- Witness Testimony Unreliable: Contradictions in police testimonies, especially regarding the role of Constable Arjun Singh and the elusive Raju, undermined the prosecution’s narrative.
- No Independent Witnesses: The inability to secure any public witnesses in a busy public park was deemed implausible, casting further doubt on the prosecution’s version.
- Recovery of Weapons in Doubt: The court found the recovery process lacked transparency and independent verification, making the evidence unreliable.
Judgment and Outcome

The Delhi High Court acquitted all appellants of the charges under Sections 399/402 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The court ordered the destruction of the recovered weapons and discharged the bail bonds of the accused.

Implications of the Judgment
1. Strict Adherence to Legal Requirements: The judgment reinforces the necessity of meeting all statutory ingredients, especially the minimum number of accused in dacoity cases.
2. Importance of Credible Evidence: It highlights the need for reliable, corroborated evidence and the risks of relying solely on official witnesses without independent support.
3. Procedural Fairness: The case underscores the importance of procedural integrity in criminal investigations and trials.
Conclusion

This judgment serves as a significant precedent in cases involving dacoity and related offenses, emphasizing the importance of strict legal compliance and credible evidence. It also acts as a reminder to law enforcement agencies about the necessity of transparent and fair investigative practices.

Connected Matter

Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction Under Section 396 IPC: Legal Requirement of Five or More Persons for Dacoity

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Delhi High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com
August 25, 2026
Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitral Award: Scope of Judicial Review u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 18.08.2026

Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitral Award: Scope of Judicial Review u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Arbitrator Shobhit Mallik. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id shobhit.Ica23@gmail.com .

A recent judgment by the Delhi High Court has brought clarity to the scope of judicial intervention in arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The case involved a contractual dispute between India Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC) and Bajaj Electricals Ltd. (BEL) regarding specialized illumination work at the Safdarjung Tomb Monument in New Delhi. This article provides a detailed analysis of the dispute, the arbitral award, the grounds for challenge, and the court’s findings.

Background of the Dispute
- Project Overview: ITDC awarded BEL a contract for the supply, installation, testing, and commissioning of state-of-the-art lighting at Safdarjung Tomb, following a competitive tender process.
- Contractual Timeline:
  1. Tender submitted by BEL on 6 February 2007.
  2. Letter of Intent issued on 4 April 2007 for Rs. 2,08,90,095/-.
  3. Detailed work order and contract signed in May 2007, incorporating General Conditions of Contract (GCC).
- Execution Issues:
- During execution, media reports highlighted alleged damage to the monument, prompting the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to revise fixture layouts and require new approvals.
- BEL completed the revised work, and ASI took over the installation in June 2009.
- BEL submitted a final bill of Rs. 1,18,95,572/- but faced delays in payment, leading to disputes and eventual arbitration.
The Arbitral Award
- Award Details:
  - Principal amount of Rs. 46,92,298.22/- awarded to BEL.
  - Interest of Rs. 33,27,886/- (from July 2009 to April 2013) and Rs. 31,17,742.91/- as pendente lite interest (April 2013 to October 2018).
  - Future interest from the date of award until payment.
- ITDC’s Challenge:
  - ITDC filed a petition under Section 34 to set aside the award, alleging errors in contract interpretation, non-consideration of deductions, and excessive interest.
Key Contentions and Court’s Analysis

1. Total Value of Work and Deductions
- ITDC’s Argument: The arbitrator ignored legitimate deductions (Rs. 11,07,832/-) for non-execution or substitution of materials, as recorded in the Measurement Book.
- Court’s Finding: The arbitrator based the award on evidence, including ITDC’s own admissions. Deductions recorded after 13 August 2008 (not signed by all parties) were rightly excluded. No patent illegality was found.
2. Statutory Deductions (ESI/EPF, Service Tax, Labour Cess)
- ITDC’s Argument: Amounts withheld for ESI/EPF, service tax, and labour cess were already deposited with authorities, and BEL failed to provide adequate proof.
- Court’s Finding: BEL submitted required indemnity bonds and challans. The arbitrator’s acceptance of these documents was within his discretion and based on contract terms.
3. Interest Rate
- ITDC’s Argument: The 12% per annum interest awarded was excessive.
- Court’s Finding: The arbitrator has wide discretion under Section 31(7) of the Act to award interest. The rate was not so unreasonable as to shock the court’s conscience.
4. Post-Award Payments
- ITDC’s Argument: A payment of Rs. 13,93,368/- made after the award should be adjusted against the principal for future interest calculation.
- Court’s Finding: Such adjustments are to be addressed at the execution stage, not under Section 34 proceedings.
Legal Principles Affirmed
- Limited Scope of Section 34: The court reiterated that it does not sit in appeal over arbitral awards. Interference is limited to grounds such as patent illegality, violation of public policy, or fundamental procedural errors.
- Respect for Arbitrator’s Findings: If the arbitrator’s view is plausible and based on evidence, courts will not substitute their own conclusions, even if another view is possible.
- Interest Awards: Arbitrators have discretion to award reasonable interest unless expressly barred by contract.
Conclusion

The Delhi High Court dismissed ITDC’s petition, upholding the arbitral award in favor of Bajaj Electricals Ltd. This judgment reinforces the principle of minimal judicial interference in arbitral awards and underscores the importance of clear contractual compliance and documentation in public works contracts.

This case serves as a significant reference for parties involved in government contracts and arbitration, highlighting the need for meticulous record-keeping and the finality of arbitral decisions within the statutory framework.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Delhi High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com
August 18, 2026
Enforceability of Shareholders’ Agreements in Auditor Appointments
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 17.08.2026

Enforceability of Shareholders’ Agreements in Auditor Appointments

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Arbitrator Shobhit Mallik. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id shobhit.Ica23@gmail.com .

The recent judgment in the case of DHANUKA AGRITECH PRIVATE LIMITED vs. IOTECHWORLD AVIGATION PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. provides a significant precedent on the interplay between Shareholders’ Agreements (SHA), Articles of Association (AoA), and the rights of investors in private companies. This article explores the background, legal arguments, and implications of the case for corporate governance and shareholder protections in India.

Background of the Dispute
- Investment and Agreements: DHANUKA AGRITECH invested Rs. 30 crores in IOTECHWORLD AVIGATION, with the investment governed by a definitive SHA. The SHA included specific safeguards for the investor, notably requiring an affirmative vote from the investor’s nominee director for key decisions, including the appointment of auditors.
- Board Resolution: Despite these provisions, the Board of IOTECHWORLD appointed M/s SC Verma and Co. as statutory auditors without obtaining the required affirmative vote, leading to a dispute and arbitration.
Key Legal Issues
1. Binding Nature of SHA vs. AoA:
  - The core issue was whether the SHA’s provisions, especially those requiring affirmative votes for certain decisions, are enforceable if not incorporated into the AoA.
2. Waiver of Rights:
  - The respondents argued that the investor had waived its rights by conduct, while the appellant insisted that any waiver must be in writing as per the SHA.
Arguments and Judicial Reasoning

Appellant’s Position (DHANUKA AGRITECH)
- Enforceability of SHA: Clauses 3.3.9 and 3.4.1 of the SHA require written consent from the investor’s nominee director for auditor appointments.
- Company as Party: The SHA was signed by both shareholders and the company, making it binding on all parties.
- No Written Waiver: The SHA explicitly requires any waiver to be in writing, which had not occurred.
Respondents’ Position
- Primacy of AoA: Citing legal precedents, the respondents argued that unless SHA provisions are incorporated into the AoA, they cannot override the AoA.
- Alleged Waiver by Conduct: They claimed the investor had, by its actions, waived the right to an affirmative vote.
Court’s Analysis
- Supreme Court Precedents: The judgment referenced key Supreme Court decisions, including Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India, which clarified that while SHAs are private contracts, their provisions cannot override the AoA unless incorporated.
- Company as Signatory: The court distinguished this case from others by noting that the company itself was a party to the SHA, making its terms binding on the company.
- No Conflict with AoA: There was no inherent conflict between the SHA and AoA; the SHA simply added an extra layer of protection for the investor.
- No Written Waiver: The court found no evidence of a written waiver, as required by the SHA.
Outcome and Immediate Impact
- Stay on Auditor Appointment: The court stayed the board resolution appointing the auditor and the majority arbitral order, pending final disposal of the appeal.
- Regulatory Compliance: The court noted that the company could seek an extension from regulatory authorities if needed due to the stay.
Broader Implications for Corporate Governance
1. Importance of Incorporating SHA Provisions into AoA:
  - While SHAs can provide additional protections, their enforceability against the company is strongest when the company is a signatory and when provisions are reflected in the AoA.
2. Investor Protections:
  - Affirmative vote clauses are common to protect minority or strategic investors. This case reinforces their validity when properly documented and agreed upon by all parties, including the company.
3. Written Waivers:
  - Parties must strictly adhere to contractual requirements for waivers; informal or implied waivers may not be recognized.
Conclusion

The DHANUKA AGRITECH case underscores the need for clarity and diligence in drafting and implementing SHAs, especially regarding their relationship with the AoA. For investors and companies alike, ensuring that key contractual protections are both agreed upon and properly incorporated into company governance documents is essential for enforceability and effective corporate management.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Delhi High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com
August 17, 2026
Delhi HC Affirms Importers’ Right to Refund of Excess Customs Duty Paid Without Assessment Order u/s 27 of Customs Act
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 17.08.2026

Delhi HC Affirms Importers’ Right to Refund of Excess Customs Duty Paid Without Assessment Order u/s 27 of Customs Act

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .

Aman Medical Products Ltd. found itself in a legal dispute after inadvertently paying a higher customs duty on imported goods. The company failed to claim a concessional rate available under Notification No. 6/2002 dated 1.3.2002 due to ignorance and paid the excess duty while filing the Bill of Entry. The central question was whether an importer who pays excess duty by mistake, without an assessment order or contest, can claim a refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Legal Issue

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) had previously ruled that a refund could only be claimed if the excess duty was paid “in pursuance to an order of assessment.” According to CESTAT, without an assessment order, the importer could not seek a refund unless an appeal was filed against such an order.

High Court’s Analysis

The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justices A.K. Sikri and Valmiki J. Mehta, examined Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court highlighted two key points:
1. Alternative Grounds for Refund: Section 27(1) allows a refund claim for duty “paid by him in pursuance of an order of assessment” or “borne by him.” The use of “or” means these are alternative grounds. Thus, a refund can be claimed even if the duty was not paid under an assessment order.
2. No Assessment Order Required: The Court clarified that if duty is paid without an assessment order—such as in cases of ignorance or inadvertence—the importer is still entitled to claim a refund under Section 27(1)(ii).
The Court distinguished this case from earlier Supreme Court judgments (CCE, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs), noting that those cases involved a formal assessment order and a failure to appeal, which was not the situation here.

Judgment and Outcome

The High Court set aside the CESTAT’s order and upheld the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal). The matter was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refund) to examine the merits of Aman Medical Products Ltd.’s refund claim. The Court confirmed that the company’s claim was maintainable under Section 27 of the Customs Act, even without an assessment order or a prior appeal.

Key Takeaways
1. Importers’ Rights: Importers who pay excess customs duty by mistake, without an assessment order, can claim a refund under Section 27(1)(ii) of the Customs Act.
2. No Appeal Requirement: The absence of an appeal against the Bill of Entry does not bar the importer from seeking a refund.
3. Legal Clarity: The judgment clarifies the scope of Section 27, ensuring that procedural technicalities do not prevent genuine refund claims.
This decision strengthens the rights of importers and provides clear guidance on the interpretation of refund provisions under Indian customs law.

Connected Matter

Delhi High Court Clarifies Limitation Law in Customs Refunds

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Delhi High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com
August 17, 2026
Delhi High Court Clarifies Limitation Law in Customs Refunds
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 14.08.2026

Delhi High Court Clarifies Limitation Law in Customs Refunds

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .

A recent batch of appeals before the Delhi High Court has brought significant clarity to the application of limitation law in customs refund cases. Senior India Pvt Ltd, a prominent importer, challenged several orders of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) regarding the classification of imported goods and the timeliness of their refund claims. This article provides a detailed overview of the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications of the Court’s decision.

Background of the Case

Senior India Pvt Ltd imported pressure relief valves, which were initially classified under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 8481 40 00. From September 2018, the company began declaring these goods under CTI 8409 99 41 and paid a higher duty, reportedly at the insistence of Customs authorities. Fourteen Bills of Entry were assessed between September 2018 and February 2019, with two additional Bills in March and May 2019.

The legal landscape at the time, shaped by earlier Delhi High Court decisions, allowed importers to seek refunds under Section 27 of the Customs Act even if the assessment had not been appealed. Acting on this, Senior India filed two refund applications on 26 August 2019, within the statutory one-year period.

The Turning Point: Supreme Court Judgment in ITC Limited

While the refund proceedings were pending, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment in ITC Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV (2019), holding that a refund claim could not be entertained unless the assessment was first modified in appeal. This fundamentally changed the legal basis for refund claims.

Within days, Senior India sought to amend the Bills of Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act and requested that refund proceedings be kept in abeyance. However, the refund authority rejected one claim as premature, and the company subsequently filed appeals under Section 128, seeking exclusion of the period spent on the refund process from the limitation period, invoking principles from Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

Key Legal Issues

The High Court focused on two main questions:
1. Whether the authorities were justified in denying the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to Senior India, given the change in law by the Supreme Court’s ITC Limited judgment.
2. Whether CESTAT was correct in dismissing an appeal as time-barred when the underlying appeal had been filed within the prescribed period.
The Court’s Analysis and Findings
- Application of Section 14 Principles: The Court recognized that while the Limitation Act does not directly apply to customs appeals, the principles underlying Section 14 (exclusion of time spent in bona fide proceedings) do apply. The Court found that Senior India had acted diligently, pursuing remedies as per the law prevailing at the time, and promptly adjusted its approach after the Supreme Court’s decision.
- Exclusion of Time: The period during which Senior India pursued the refund remedy and sought amendment of Bills of Entry was excluded from the limitation calculation. The Court held that, due to the legal transition caused by the ITC Limited judgment, the authorities should have allowed this exclusion.
- Statutory Extension Due to COVID-19: The Court also noted that the period for filing appeals was further extended by government notifications issued during the COVID-19 pandemic, making Senior India’s appeals timely.
- Error in Dismissing Appeals as Time-Barred: In one case, the Court found that the appeal had been filed well within the statutory period, and its dismissal by CESTAT as time-barred was manifestly erroneous.
Outcome and Directions
- The High Court set aside the orders of CESTAT and the Commissioner (Appeals) that had rejected Senior India’s appeals on limitation grounds.
- The appeals were restored for decision on merits, with instructions to the authorities not to revisit the limitation issue.
- The Court directed that the restored appeals be decided within four months, and that refund and amendment applications be processed in accordance with the final outcome.
Implications of the Judgment

This decision is significant for importers and legal practitioners dealing with customs disputes:
1. Clarifies Limitation Law: The judgment affirms that bona fide pursuit of remedies under the law as it stood can justify exclusion of time from limitation, especially when the legal position changes due to a higher court ruling.
2. Ensures Fairness: The Court’s approach prevents penalizing parties for following the law as it existed before a judicial shift.
3. Guidance for Future Cases: The decision provides a roadmap for handling similar disputes where refund claims or appeals are affected by changes in legal interpretation.
Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s ruling in the Senior India Pvt Ltd case underscores the importance of judicial flexibility and fairness in applying limitation law, especially in the context of evolving legal standards. Importers and legal professionals should take note of this precedent when navigating refund and appeal processes under the Customs Act.

Connected Matter

Delhi HC Affirms Importers’ Right to Refund of Excess Customs Duty Paid Without Assessment Order u/s 27 of Customs Act

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Delhi High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com
August 14, 2026
Delhi HC on Scope of IP-I Registration, Telecom Licensing, and Arbitral Award Review under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 13.08.2026

Delhi HC on Scope of IP-I Registration, Telecom Licensing, and Arbitral Award Review under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Arbitrator Shobhit Mallik. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id shobhit.Ica23@gmail.com .

The Delhi High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the case between the Union of India (Department of Telecommunications) and Sterlite Technologies Limited, addressing complex issues around telecom infrastructure licensing, regulatory compliance, and the scope of arbitral review. This article provides a detailed analysis of the dispute, the legal arguments, and the implications of the court’s decision.

Background of the Dispute

Sterlite Technologies Limited (STL), a leading provider of digital network solutions, was granted an Infrastructure Providers Category-I (IP-I) Registration Certificate by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT). This certificate authorized STL to provide passive telecom infrastructure, such as fiber ducts and related facilities, but explicitly barred it from dealing with active telecom equipment or providing end-to-end bandwidth services, which require a separate telecom service provider (TSP) license.

STL, through its wholly owned subsidiary Speedon Network Limited (SNL), entered into Master Service Agreements (MSAs) with various TSPs, notably Citycom Networks and Microscan Computers. The payment structure under these agreements was based on subscriber base and revenue sharing, rather than traditional lease rentals for passive infrastructure. The DoT alleged that STL, via these arrangements, was effectively functioning as a TSP without the necessary license, thereby violating the terms of its IP-I registration and causing loss of government revenue.

Key Events Leading to Arbitration
1. Inspection and Allegations:
  - In February 2015, DoT inspected STL’s premises in Pune and concluded that STL was operating beyond its permitted scope by selling bandwidth and managing active equipment through SNL.
  - The inspection report alleged unauthorized services and revenue evasion exceeding Rs. 2.5 crores.
2. Correspondence and Show Cause Notice:
  - STL provided detailed responses, clarifying that active equipment belonged to the TSPs, not STL or SNL.
  - In July 2018, DoT issued a show cause notice for violation of IP-I terms, followed by a demand notice in August 2020 for Rs. 8.55 crores.
3. Arbitration Proceedings:
  - STL challenged the demand, invoking the arbitration clause in the IP-I certificate.
  - The arbitrator ruled in favor of STL, declaring the demand notice illegal, arbitrary, and unjustified.
Legal Arguments Presented

Union of India (Petitioner)
- Ownership and Operation: Argued that STL and SNL, as related entities, owned and operated active equipment without a license, and that billing based on bandwidth proved provision of end-to-end services.
- Damages: Claimed inherent right to seek damages for breach of registration terms, even without explicit contractual provisions.
Sterlite Technologies Limited (Respondent)
- Separation of Entities: Emphasized that SNL and STL are legally distinct, with SNL holding its own IP-I registration and later a unified license.
- Scope of Services: Asserted that STL only provided passive infrastructure, with active equipment and bandwidth services managed and billed by the TSPs.
- Contractual Interpretation: Highlighted that the MSAs and subsequent novation agreements clarified the roles and responsibilities, limiting STL to passive infrastructure.
Court’s Analysis and Findings

The High Court, upholding the arbitrator’s award, made several key observations:
1. Scope of IP-I Registration:
  - The regulatory framework and the IP-I certificate clearly prohibit IP-I holders from providing active services or end-to-end bandwidth.
  - The evidence showed STL provided only passive infrastructure, with TSPs responsible for active equipment and subscriber services.
2. Ownership of Equipment:
  - The court found no conclusive proof that STL owned or operated active equipment. Lease agreements and correspondence supported STL’s position.
3. Billing and Revenue Model:
  - The MSAs did not establish that STL’s charges were based on bandwidth utilization by end subscribers. The arbitrator’s factual findings on this point were upheld.
4. Legal Entity Distinction:
  - SNL and STL were recognized as separate legal entities, each with distinct registrations and licenses. The court rejected the argument that SNL was merely a façade for STL.
5. Demand Notice Validity:
  - The demand notice lacked statutory backing, as there was no provision in the IP-I certificate or the Indian Telegraph Act for such a penalty. The court emphasized that damages under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act require proof of actual loss, which was absent.
6. Scope of Judicial Review:
  - The court reiterated the limited scope of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, stating that plausible views taken by arbitrators should not be disturbed unless they are patently illegal or contrary to public policy.
Implications of the Judgment
- Regulatory Clarity: The judgment reinforces the distinction between passive infrastructure providers and licensed TSPs, providing clarity for industry participants.
- Arbitral Autonomy: It underscores the judiciary’s deference to arbitral awards, limiting court intervention to narrow grounds.
- Contractual Precision: The case highlights the importance of clear contractual definitions and compliance with regulatory frameworks in the telecom sector.
Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Union of India vs. Sterlite Technologies Limited sets an important precedent for telecom infrastructure regulation and the enforcement of arbitral awards. By upholding the arbitrator’s reasoned findings and emphasizing the limits of judicial review, the court has provided valuable guidance for both industry stakeholders and legal practitioners.

Connected Matter

Supreme Court on Taxation of Offshore Indirect Transfers and Cross-Border M&A

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Delhi High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com
August 13, 2026
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Due to Unilateral Appointment of Arbitrator by Government Authority
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 11.08.2026

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Due to Unilateral Appointment of Arbitrator by Government Authority

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Arbitrator Shobhit Mallik. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id shobhit.Ica23@gmail.com .

The Delhi High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Union of India vs. M/S Goodrich Foodtech Ltd., addressing crucial issues surrounding the unilateral appointment of arbitrators in government contracts. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the dispute, the arbitral proceedings, the legal principles involved, and the implications of the Court’s decision.

Background of the Dispute
1. Tender and Contract Formation
  - The Union of India invited bids for the supply of 1,390 MT of malted milk food with cocoa for the Defence sector for the year 2017-18.
  - M/S Goodrich Foodtech Ltd. emerged as the successful bidder, leading to five separate but identical contracts, each specifying delivery periods and quantities.
  - The respondent furnished performance bank guarantees totaling Rs. 2,49,87,020/- as per contract requirements.
2. Emergence of Disputes
  - After partial fulfillment of the contracts, the Union of India issued a defect notice, alleging the supplied product contained soya protein and non-milk fat (palm oil), contrary to contract specifications.
  - This led to show-cause notices, termination of four contracts, forfeiture and encashment of bank guarantees, and debarment of Goodrich Foodtech Ltd. from future procurements.
3. Arbitration Proceedings
  - Goodrich Foodtech Ltd. invoked the arbitration clause, and a sole arbitrator was appointed by the Competent Financial Authority (CFA) of the Ministry of Defence.
  - The arbitrator ruled largely in favor of Goodrich Foodtech Ltd., awarding substantial sums and quashing the termination, forfeiture, and debarment actions.
Key Legal Issues Examined

1. Unilateral Appointment of Arbitrator
- The core issue was whether the appointment of the sole arbitrator by the CFA (an official of the Union of India, a party to the dispute) was valid under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
- The Court examined whether mere participation in arbitration or lack of objection constituted a waiver of the right to challenge such an appointment.
2. Waiver under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act
- The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents, emphasizing that a waiver of ineligibility under Section 12(5) must be an “express agreement in writing” after the dispute has arisen.
- Conduct, participation, or implied consent does not amount to a valid waiver.
3. Jurisdiction and Validity of Arbitral Award
- The Court held that an award passed by an ineligible, unilaterally appointed arbitrator is a nullity and can be set aside under Section 34 of the Act.
- Even the party that made the unilateral appointment retains the right to challenge the award on this ground.
Court’s Findings and Decision
- The Court found that the appointment of the arbitrator by the CFA, an official of the Ministry of Defence, was in violation of Section 12(5) and the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration Act.
- There was no express written waiver by both parties after the dispute arose.
- The arbitral award was declared void ab initio and set aside.
Implications of the Judgment
1. Reinforcement of Party Autonomy and Neutrality
  - The judgment reinforces the principle that both parties must have an equal say in the appointment of arbitrators, ensuring neutrality and fairness in arbitral proceedings.
2. Strict Compliance with Section 12(5)
  - Any arbitration agreement allowing unilateral appointment of arbitrators is invalid unless expressly waived in writing after the dispute arises.
  - Participation in proceedings or silence does not constitute a waiver.
3. Impact on Government Contracts
  - Government agencies must review and revise standard arbitration clauses to comply with the law and avoid similar pitfalls.
  - Awards rendered by unilaterally appointed arbitrators are vulnerable to being set aside, even if both parties participated in the proceedings.
Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Union of India vs. Goodrich Foodtech Ltd. is a landmark ruling that clarifies and strengthens the legal framework governing the appointment of arbitrators in India. It underscores the necessity for express, written waivers and equal participation in the appointment process, setting a precedent for future contractual and arbitral practices, especially in government procurement.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Delhi High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com
August 11, 2026