No abstract

Research examining regulatory independence has either suggested de jure independence to be a predictor of de facto independence or suggested that the presence of de jure may not always indicate de facto independence. We study the Indian Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) to emphasize how AERB has enjoyed de facto independence, even in the absence of de jure independence. Using “judicial deference” principle, and through a mapping of substantive court cases, the article demonstrates Indian judiciary has consistently applied deference to AERB’s decision-making process, thereby showing confidence in the nuclear regulatory regime sustained as its inception.

No abstract

The performance of obligations under a contract may be hindered by unexpected supervening events, leading to contractual uncertainties. The doctrine of frustration paves the way for a just consequence of such an unfortunate event, which has happened without any fault of the contracting parties. The doctrine fills the void in a contract regarding supervening events, based on principles of fairness and equity.Considering the large implications on the obligatory and binding nature of a valid contract, it becomes important to analyse the factors that guide the courts to determine its application. Unlike common law, the Indian Contract law explicitly incorporates the doctrine of frustration under section 56 of the Contract Act.However, the evolution of this doctrine in India has been greatly influenced by English law. This paper attempts to restate the law on the doctrine of frustration as applicable in India.

No abstract