TIER-1

        A, cold storage company , taken a fire insurance policy for the stocks stored in its storage. The stocks are owned by the farmers and cold storage company holds them in trust. The fire has happened at cold storage and entire stock & building collapsed. The Insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that; (i) there is non-disclosure of parallel insurance policy from other insurance co. for the same subject and (ii) the ownership of stocks is disputed. Hon’ble NCDRC held that: [1]   (i)              For any loss or damage of stock the cold storage is liable to compensate the owners of the stock. If the Insurance had any grievance regarding ownership of the stock, they were required to clarify the same at the time of issuing the Policy.   (ii)            After issuance of the Policy, the Insurance Company cannot evade its liability on the ground that the cold storage was not owner of the insured stock.   (iii)          That purchasing one or more c

  Shubham Budhiraja [1]   Mr. A took his ford Eco-sport to the service center  around 10AM. It is his case that Job card was prepared at 11AM and there was in delay commencement of service due to which Mr. A had to un-necessary waste his precious time in waiting at the workshop. Learned District Forum and State Commission held the service center  is deficient in service. Hon’ble NCDRC held that [2] :   (i)              The service center/ workshop has failed to prove one record that the vehicles of the customers were serviced, as per first-come-first serve policy.   (ii)            No evidence has been produced by the workshop regarding adherence of schedule and priority followed in carrying on the servicing of vehicles.   (iii)          The consumer was unnecessarily made to wait in the waiting room, for about more than two hours, and by that time, his vehicles were not even touched by any worker of workshop.   (iv)          Thus, there is a clear-cut deficiency

    Hon’ble Delhi High in MMTC Limited v. Aust Grain Exports , OMP (Comm) 6/2022 has held that procedural irregularities like some of the Orders not been signed by the Arbitrator and one of the Arbitrators not being present during certain Arbitral Proceeding are such which do not affect the rights of the parties or cause denial of justice to any of the parties. These irregularities are not such which may affect the decision of the Arbitrators. The Arbitral Award can suffer from irregularity but the irregularity cannot be a ground to set aside the Award unless such irregularity goes to the root of the matter and shocks the conscience of the Court thus making the Award illegal. [Shubham Budhiraja, +91-9654055315]

  Shubham Budhiraja [LLB, ACS, BCOM(H)] Budhirajalawchambers@gmail.com  Company-A has filed section 7 against company-B. The rejoinder was not taken on record because it was filed after the stipulated time. Despite this, NCLT in its order relied upon the contents of rejoinder and read it against the Company. NCLAT in appeal held that relying on aforesaid pleading/ rejoinder which is not on record is a patent illegality. [1]   (i)              On the one hand the Court has passed the effective orders for not taking on record the rejoinder filed by the Financial Creditor and on the other hand the Court has made reference to the rejoinder under the specific head created for that purpose ‘rejoinder of the petitioner’ and then recorded the findings also on the basis thereof.   (ii)            The impugned order is patently illegal as it has taken into consideration the pleadings which were not on record and therefore, the appeal is hereby allowed and the impugned order is set asid