On July 5, the Delhi High Court, composed of Judge Sanjeev Narula, ruled that it was inappropriate to intervene in the ruling unless there were grounds for allegations of deliberate misconduct and prejudice against scholars. The arbitrator and the court found that if the court does not interfere with such a decision, the well-trained arbitrator will review all the documents in the minutes of the meeting very methodically and evaluate the evidence provided by both parties before concluding.


The motion attempted to set aside the arbitration award under Article 34 of the Arbitration and Mediation Act 1996. The sole learned arbitrator acknowledged the claim of the defendant Saptrishi Builders Private Limited (abbreviated as SBPL) and 1,30,02,314.13 rupees with interest on the date of award During the month, Veg Sanchar Vihar Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd.’s interest was 12% of the prescribed amount. (VSV for short) has appointed SBPL as the contractor for 68 apartments. In Dwarka 6, District 19-B, New Delhi, under the tariffs and conditions stipulated there, SBPL stated that it had performed work under the specifications stipulated in the contract, but VSV refused to pay for the contract. SBPL had previously seen a legal notice dated July 14, 2010, went to the arbitration, and asked VSV to approve the appointment of Mr. P. Bhatia (colleague engineer) as the arbitrator. Controversial decision.


SAAM’s lawyer, Mr. V. V. Gautam, stated:

  • The appointment of learned arbitrators allegedly violated Article 43 of the contract, which stipulates that arbitrators must be learned officials. From the Institute of Engineers (India) or Institute of Architects (India). The sole arbitrator, Mr. Vivekanand, did not meet any criteria, so his appointment should be invalid.
  • Some people think that because of the subject matter contained in Articles 20-27 (except for Article 25), it does not fall within the scope of arbitration under Article 42(a). The arbitration will only be resorted to after the procedures in paragraph 42 have been implemented.
  • It was argued that since the construction project, the quality, quantity, and quality of the materials used, as well as the invoices, have been overdue. 27 They are supervised and protected. The statement of the responsible arbitrator is unfounded and is deliberately disadvantageous to SAAM.


SBPL Attorney, Shekhar Nanavaty made the following argument:

  • It has been alleged that the arbitrator was appointed by this court under Article 11 of the Act at the request of the SBPL and therefore cannot currently be appointed to be questioned.
  • It was further argued that at the time of appointment or according to Section 13 of the Act, no objections had been raised before the Scientific Arbitrator. No document was recorded demonstrating fraud or forgery by the Referee.
  • It was further alleged that the learned arbitrator, after examining the competing allegations and evidence, approved a well-reasoned award that was free from weakness or illegality and should therefore not be interfered with by this court.


The honorable court made the following determination:

  • The arbitration is fully justified and corresponds to the contractual scheme. There is no contradiction to clause 42 of the contract. and the objection raised on this basis is untenable.
  • The conclusions and reasoning of the experienced arbitrator based on the allegations and evidence are reasonable and cannot be objected to once the final invoice has been received. Therefore, the court found no merit, viz. Falsification or fraud in connection with the final invoice.
  • The SAAM’s argumentation is not only vague, but it is also completely wrong and legally untenable. After carefully examining the documents, the scientific arbitrator awarded the amount in favor of the SBPL. In the light of the foregoing, the Court of First Instance found the present petition neither to be justified nor to have grounds capable of prejudice to the contested award.

A petition was filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Information Technology (Guidelines for intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 claiming that the new IT Rules violate the law, citing Article 14 (equality before the law), Articles 19 (1) (a) (to freedom of speech and expression), and 19 (1) (g) (to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business).

The rules are being challenged because they seek to impose unreasonable, excessive, and vague burdens on digital news publishers. The Rules seek to these publishers of news and current affairs content under the ambit of the Press Council of India Act, 1978, and the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, without amending the respective legislations.

It is argued in the petition that the new IT Rules 2021 are beyond the Central Government’s legislative power because the Information Technology Act of 2000, does not contain anything that seeks to regulate or enables the regulation of digital content and ethics of online publishers, apart from a single provision that allows for the banning of content available online on specific grounds

The plea says these rules should be deemed unconstitutional under the Information Technology Act of 2000. In the meanwhile, it requested a stay on them.