"I realise that some of my criticisms may be mistaken; but to refuse to criticize judgements for fear of being mistaken is to abandon criticism altogether... If any of my criticisms are found to be correct, the cause is served; and if any are found to be incorrect the very process of finding out my mistakes must lead to the discovery of the right reasons, or better reasons than I have been able to give, and the cause is served just as well."

-Mr. HM Seervai, Preface to the 1st ed., Constitutional Law of India.

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

News, Links and Comments

Kumkum Sen has written this article in Business Standard on the Sumitomo v. ONGC case we had discussed previously in this blog. Do check it out.

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Himachal Techno Engineers & Anr. (MANU/SC/0524/2010) is about how limitation period for challenge of arbitral award under S 34 ought to be calculated. Two conclusions from the decision are stated below:

  • The date of receipt by a government entity on a holiday cannot be taken as the date of receipt of the award. The date of receipt is the working day immediately after the said holiday. So, the date of receipt in S 34 is the date of effective receipt.
  • A month is not equivalent to thirty days. It refers to the actual days in a calendar month. Thus, for example, February would consist of 28 or 29 days. Similarly January would consist of 31 days. Thus, "within three months from 1st January" would mean "prior to or on 1st April".
Added after posting: Also do check out this article in the Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law  [27 Ariz. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 1(2010)] criticising the law as it stands on S 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
    Posted by at
    Labels: , , , ,

    No comments:

    Post a Comment

    Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)