Hindustan Construction Company Limited vs Union of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 1302

ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, SURYA KANT, V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
Hindustan Construction Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):A.M. Singhvi, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi Agrawala, Ankur Saigal, Madhavi Khanna, Shruti Arora, Devika Mohan, E. C. Agrawala, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Samar Kachwaha, Chanan Parwani, Akash Lamba, Toshiv Goyal, Namisha Chadhha, Pritha Suri, Divyanshu Srivastava, Varun Mathur, Prashant Kumar, Aditya Dev Triguna, Awantika Manohar, Prashant Kumar, Awantika Manohar, Aditya Dev Triguna, For M/s. AP & J Chambers, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Pinky Anand, ASG Sumit Teterwal, Saudamini Sharma, Snidha Mehra, Hemant Arya, Kirti Dua, Tanisha Samanta, Chakitan V.S. Papta, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Astha Tyagi, Madhusweta, Kanika Tandon, Subhashree Mohapatra, Piyush Sharma, Gauhar Mirza, Nishant Dushi, S. S. Shroff, Shailesh Madiyal, Shail Kumar Dwivedi, C.A. Sundaram, Ashish Bhan, Mohit Rohatgi, Ketan Gaur, Ayush Mitruka, Rajendra Dangwal, Syed Jafar Alam, Abhishek Gupta, Zafar Inayat, Rohini Musa, Ashwani Kumar, Peeha Verma, Ravinder Nain, Ravindra Lokhande, Abhishek Atrey, Advocates

JUDGMENT :

R.F. NARIMAN, J.

1. This set of Writ Petitions seek to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 87 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the “Arbitration Act, 1996”) as inserted by Section 13 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the “2019 Amendment Act”) and brought into force with effect from 30.08.2019. They also seek to challenge the repeal (with effect from 23.10.2015) of Section 26 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the “2015 Amendment Act”) by Section 15 of the 2019 Amendment Act. Apart from the aforesaid challenge, a challenge is also made to various provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Insolvency Code”) which, as stated by the Petitioners, result in discriminatory treatment being meted out to them.

2. The facts relevant for the determination of these matters may be gleaned from Writ Petition (Civil) No.1074 of 2019. The Petitioner No.1 therein, i.e. Hindustan Constructio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 1302

ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, SURYA KANT, V.RAMASUBRAMANIANHindustan Construction Company Limited – AppellantVersusUnion of India – Respondent

Cases Referred (24)

ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, SURYA KANT, V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
Hindustan Construction Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent