These notes are written for litigants and for younger members of the Bar. They explain procedure as it operates in the Delhi courts — the sequence of steps, the timelines that matter, and the points at which a matter is commonly lost. They are general information, not advice on any particular case.
Tribunals Are Not Appeal Courts – Advocate Manish Jha
Supreme Court holds an arbitral tribunal under Section 17 cannot sit in appeal over a court's Section 9 order — a pending Section 37 appeal cannot be remitted to it, even by consent.
Read → 30 September 2026 · Commercial & CorporateExecution Court or Arbitrator? – Advocate Manish Jha
Delhi High Court declines to appoint an auditor in execution of the family settlement decree dividing the Hamdard businesses, holding the dispute is referable to the pending arbitration.
Read → 30 September 2026 · Commercial & CorporateNo Deposit, No Challenge: MSME Awards – Advocate Manish Jha
Calcutta High Court holds the 75% pre-deposit under Section 19 MSMED Act is mandatory and jurisdictional; a dismissed Section 34 challenge cannot be restored without it.
Read → 30 September 2026 · Commercial & CorporateWrit Courts and SARFAESI: Wrong Door – Advocate Manish Jha
Patna High Court dismisses a borrower's writ against SARFAESI possession and e-auction, reiterating that the DRT under Section 17 is the proper forum.
Read → 29 September 2026 · Commercial & CorporateMSME Award Restored on Appeal – Advocate Manish Jha
The Delhi High Court restored a ₹27.76 lakh award made in an MSMED Act Section 18 reference, holding that service-rule objections to the arbitrator are not statutory ineligibility under Section 12(5).
Read → 29 September 2026 · Commercial & CorporateAward Capped by the Contract Ceiling – Advocate Manish Jha
A Division Bench upheld the partial setting aside of a ₹911 crore highway arbitration award: a tribunal that enlarges a defined Total Project Cost through extrinsic material rewrites the contract.
Read → 29 September 2026 · Commercial & CorporateAward Partly Set Aside, Claim Revived – Advocate Manish Jha
In Dwarika Projects v. NOIDA, the Delhi High Court severed the patently illegal rejection of a price variation claim, remitted quantum to fresh arbitration and preserved the rest of the award.
Read → 29 September 2026 · Commercial & CorporateNew Arbitrator After Void Appointment – Advocate Manish Jha
After awards by unilaterally appointed arbitrators in PWD contracts were set aside, the Delhi High Court declared the Chief Engineer appointment clause void and appointed a fresh sole arbitrator under Section 11, under the aegis of DIAC.
Read → 28 September 2026 · Commercial & CorporateMSME Revival Plea Came Too Late – Advocate Manish Jha
An MSME must claim the 2015 Revival and Rehabilitation Framework promptly — ideally before NPA classification — and cannot re-invoke it after breaching committee undertakings to stall SARFAESI recovery.
Read → 28 September 2026 · Commercial & CorporateNPA Tag Upheld, RBI Norms Bind – Advocate Manish Jha
A borrower’s challenge to its NPA classification failed: RBI prudential guidelines have statutory force, and grievances about partial disbursement could not displace the contract’s repayment discipline.
Read → 28 September 2026 · Commercial & CorporateHindrance Register Wins the Award – Advocate Manish Jha
The Delhi High Court dismissed DJB’s Section 37 appeal: an arbitrator’s delay findings built on the contemporaneous hindrance register — 312 of 334 days attributed to the department — are beyond appellate reach.
Read → 28 September 2026 · Commercial & CorporateToll Contract Award Set Aside – Advocate Manish Jha
An award holding a ₹62-crore NHAI toll contract void for uncertainty was set aside under Section 34: accepted commercial risk allocation cannot be recharacterised as misrepresentation.
Read →What Is Covered Here
The chamber writes on the areas in which it appears: criminal procedure under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, bail practice, matrimonial and family proceedings before the Delhi Family Courts, cheque dishonour and recovery, and proceedings before the NCLT and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals. Notes on reported judgments of the Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Delhi are published with a link to the official text of the decision, so that a reader can verify the position rather than rely on a summary.
No article on this page identifies a client or discusses a pending matter conducted by the chamber. Where a statutory provision is cited, the section number is given so that a reader can verify it against the bare Act.