May 5, 2024 6:33 pm

Once the order of DRT and DRAT has become final and parties acted upon accordingly then action of court commissioner in approaching MSMEDF council for arbitration award is illegal and invalid-Impugned orders of MSMEDF council and of High Court upholding orders of council, set aside.

Bysclaw

Aug 8, 2018

This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.

By sclaw

Related Post

Arbitration Constitution

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Curative petition – The Court found that the arbitral tribunal’s decision was not perverse or irrational and that the CMRS certificate did not conclusively prove that defects were cured within the cure period – The Court emphasized the tribunal’s domain to interpret the contract and the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards – The Supreme Court concluded that the curative petition was maintainable and that there was no miscarriage of justice in restoring the arbitral award.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw

“Arbitration Clause Dispute Settled: Supreme Court Rules Against Appointing Sole Arbitrator in Weir Construction Contract” – The Court analyzed the applicability of the arbitration clause and found that a general reference to the tender documents does not incorporate the arbitration clause into the contract – The Court discussed the conditions under which an arbitration clause from one document can be incorporated into another contract, emphasizing the need for a specific reference to the arbitration clause – The Court concluded that the arbitration clause does not apply to the contract between NBCC and Zillion and set aside the High Court’s orders, directing that disputes be resolved through civil courts in Delhi.

Mar 25, 2024 sclaw

Arbitration Limitation

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) – Whether the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to an application for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – The court allows the petition and appoints a former judge of the Supreme Court as the sole arbitrator – The court also suggests that the Parliament should consider bringing an amendment to the Act, 1996 prescribing a specific period of limitation for filing an application under Section 11 of the Act, 1996

Mar 8, 2024 sclaw

Categories

Archives

You missed

A. Education Law – The case involves a service rule amendment by the State of Madhya Pradesh, impacting job aspirants – The amendment was later recalled, but not before affecting an ongoing recruitment process – The main issue was the application of the amended rule to the recruitment process, leading to legal challenges and the question of whether meritorious reservation category candidates should be treated as unreserved at the preliminary examination stage – The petitioners challenged the validity of the amended rule and its application to the recruitment process, arguing it caused injustice to candidates who had already cleared the main examination – The State and MPPSC defended the amended rule’s application and the subsequent recruitment process, including the normalization method used for merging examination results – The Court dismissed the civil appeal, finding no merit in the challenge against the High Court’s judgment, which had directed a special main examination for newly eligible candidates – The Court agreed with the High Court’s reasoning that holding a special main examination was justified and that the normalization process was consistent with legal requirements – The Court referred to precedents affirming that meritorious reservation category candidates are entitled to be selected in the open category without counting against the reserved quota – The Supreme Court concluded that the normalization process was transparent and fair, and upheld the High Court’s judgment directing the completion of the recruitment process as per the unamended rules. B. Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules, 2015 – Rule 4 of 2015 Rules was amended by the State of Madhya Pradesh – The Supreme Court of India dismissed a civil appeal challenging the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission’s (MPPSC) decision to normalize the marks of candidates who appeared in two different main examinations – The court found that the process of normalization and the consequent merger of marks secured by the candidates in the two main examinations was transparent and above board – The court also noted that the earlier amendment to the rules, which harmed the interests of reservation category candidates, was restored, enabling the drawing up of the result of the preliminary examination by segregating deserving meritorious reservation category candidates with meritorious unreserved category candidates – The court concluded that the impugned judgment did not brook interference on any ground, be it on facts or in law.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

“Murder Conviction Overturned! Supreme Court Acquits Appellant Due to Inconsistent Eyewitness Accounts and Insufficient Evidence” Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Property Dispute – The High Court affirmed the conviction, which led to this appeal – The appeal challenges the reliability of eyewitnesses and the recovery of the murder weapon, questioning the appellant’s conviction – The appellant claims false implication, questioning the credibility of eyewitnesses and the voluntariness of the extra-judicial confession – The State argues that the conviction is based on correct evidence assessment and that the appellant’s guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant of all charges, and directed his release, if not required in another case – The Court found inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts and doubted their presence at the crime scene, leading to the acquittal – The Court scrutinized the eyewitness testimonies, the extra-judicial confession, and the recovery of the weapon, finding them insufficient for conviction – The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in the appellant’s acquittal.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

“Conviction Quashed After 18 Years: Supreme Court Acquits Man Due to Flawed Identification and Doubtful Evidence” Explosive Substances Act, 1908 – Sections 3(a) and 4(a)(i) – Arms Act, 1958 – Section 27(1) – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302, 307,143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 427 and 449 read with Section 149 – The case involves who appealed against his conviction under various sections of the IPC and other acts – The incident occurred on March 6, 2006, involving an unlawful assembly, murder, and grievous injuries with deadly weapons – The appeal challenges the High Court’s partial allowance of Appellant’s appeal, which set aside some convictions while confirming others, and modified the sentences – The petitioner argued that identification in court without a Test Identification Parade, after four and a half years, is unreliable. They also contested the motive attributed to the appellant and the credibility of the recovered iron rod with alleged blood stains – The respondent emphasized the credibility of the injured eyewitness (PW-2) and the concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court, which found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the previous judgments, and acquitted the appellant of all charges, directing his immediate release if not required in another case – The Court found the identification of the appellant in court, without prior identification parades, to be insufficient for maintaining the conviction, especially given the time elapsed since the incident – The Court questioned the preservation of blood stains on the recovered iron rod over two years and two monsoons, casting doubt on the prosecution’s evidence – The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in the appellant’s acquittal.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

“Divided Verdict in Narcotics Case: One Conviction Upheld, Another Overturned Due to Procedural Lapses” Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 42, 50 and 67 – The appeals arise from a common judgment by the Gujarat High Court, dismissing appeals against a trial court’s conviction of the appellants under the NDPS Act for possession of narcotics – The main issues revolve around the compliance with mandatory procedures of the NDPS Act during the search and seizure, and the admissibility of confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act – The appellants contend non-compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act, questioning the seizure procedure and the reliability of witnesses – The NCB argues that the procedures were followed correctly, the witnesses are reliable, and there was no motive to falsely implicate the appellants – The Court dismissed Anwarkhan’s appeal, upholding his conviction, while allowing Appellant’s appeal, acquitting him due to insufficient evidence and doubts about the seizure procedure – The Court found the evidence against Anwarkhan convincing but had reservations about the evidence against Appellant, particularly the identification and the admissibility of his confessional statement – The Court applied the principles from the case of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, which ruled that confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are not admissible as evidence – Anwarkhan’s conviction stands, while Appellant is acquitted and his bail bonds discharged. The Court directed Anwarkhan to surrender to serve the remaining sentence.

May 5, 2024 sclaw