Month: December 2023

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 – Private agreements cannot be enforced in Slum Rehabilitation Schemes as against the statutory mandate of Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) – Slum society or private Developer cannot dictate terms to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) and it must act in terms of its own policies and circulars – Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) has to act in terms of its own policies and circulars without allowing private or contractual interests to prevail over public policy especially a policy which is welfare based.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAYUNKTA SANGARSH SAMITI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia,…

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Section 19 – Money Laundering Case – Non-furnishing of grounds of arrest – Illegal Arrest – Seeking direction to release – Since by way of safeguard a duty is cast upon the concerned officer to forward a copy of the order along with the material in his possession to the Adjudicating Authority immediately after the arrest of the person, and to take the person arrested to the concerned court within 24 hours of the arrest, the reasonably convenient or reasonably requisite time to inform the arrestee about the grounds of his arrest would be twenty-four hours of the arrest – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAM KISHOR ARORA — Appellant Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. ) Criminal…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 8 – Reference to Arbitration Clause – A plea of fraud – Two conditions which must be satisfied before the Court can refuse to refer the matter to the Arbitrator, a forum consciously decided by parties in an agreement – First is whether the plea permeates the entire contract and above all, the arbitration agreement, rendering it void or secondly, whether the allegation of fraud touches upon the internal affairs of the parties inter se having no implication in the public domain

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUSHMA SHIVKUMAR DAGA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MADHURKUMAR RAMKRISHNAJI BAJAJ AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.…

Service Matters

HELD it may be recorded here that subsequent to date, there was a chargesheet issued against the Respondent and ultimately, the entire proceedings came to be dropped on 11.12.2019. Since the eligibility conditions in Rule 9 (1)(a)(iii), the validity of which is not under challenge before us, requires us to limit our inquiry into the question of eligibility as on date of consideration, what happens after that becomes insignificant to the inquiry. – In the background of facts and position of law analysed here in, it has to be concluded that as on the date of consideration, disciplinary action was contemplated against the writ petitioner Dinesh Singh, and therefore he was rightly held to be ineligible for selection of his name in Register A-1.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DINESH SINGH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar, JJ. )…

You missed

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.