Latest Post

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 5, 34, and 37 — Scope of Judicial Intervention — Minimum intervention of judicial authority in domestic arbitration matters is required under Section 5 — Challenge to an arbitral award under Section 34 is limited to specific grounds, including patent illegality or conflict with the public policy of India — Scope of interference by the Appellate Court under Section 37 is akin to and cannot travel beyond the restrictions laid down under Section 34 — Appellate Court cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award or re-interpret contractual clauses if the interpretation by the Arbitral Tribunal was a plausible view and upheld under Section 34 — Setting aside an arbitral award under Section 37, which was upheld under Section 34, based on providing a different interpretation of contractual clauses is unsustainable in law. (Paras 24, 25, 30, 31, 36, 37, 39, 50, 51) Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 54 — Suit for specific performance — Commencement of limitation period — Where the defendant subsequently executed an affidavit ratifying the agreement to sell and conveying no-objection to the transfer, the period of limitation commences from the date of the admitted affidavit, as this is the stage at which the executant finally refused to execute the sale deed to the extent of her share — Trial court and High Court erred in dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation calculated from an earlier disputed date. (Paras 13, 35, 36, 37) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9(2) read with Rule 9(4) of 2001 Rules — Setting aside High Court judgment — High Court erroneously treated the date of filing of the Section 11 petition (28.06.2024) as the commencement date, leading to the conclusion that proceedings commenced beyond the statutory period — Where the arbitration notice was served (on 11.04.2024) well within the 90-day period from the ad-interim injunction order (17.02.2024), proceedings commenced in time as per Section 21 — High Court’s finding unsustainable, resulting in the restoration of the Trial Court’s initial ad-interim injunction order. (Paras 28, 31, 32) E. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9 — Interim injunction — Dispute regarding existence Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 2(28) — Definition of “motor vehicle” — Components — Definition has two parts: an inclusive part (mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads) and an exclusive part — The second part expressly excludes “a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises” — Although Dumpers, Loaders, etc., may fall under the first part of the definition, they are excluded if their nature of use is confined to factory or enclosed premises, being special type vehicles/Construction Equipment Vehicles. (Paras 36, 37, 38, 39) Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of BootLeggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders etc. Act, 1986 — Section 3(2) — Preventive Detention — Grounds for Detention — Requirement of finding ‘prejudicial to the maintenance of public order’ — Detenu, a ‘drug offender’, was detained based on three criminal cases involving Ganja, with an apprehension that if released on bail, she would engage in similar activities — Held, mere apprehension that the detenu, if released on bail, would be likely to indulge in similar crimes would not be a sufficient ground for ordering preventive detention — Order of detention failed to indicate how the detenu’s activities were prejudicial to ‘public order’ as opposed to ‘law and order’ and was therefore unsustainable. (Paras 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 5, 34, and 37 — Scope of Judicial Intervention — Minimum intervention of judicial authority in domestic arbitration matters is required under Section 5 — Challenge to an arbitral award under Section 34 is limited to specific grounds, including patent illegality or conflict with the public policy of India — Scope of interference by the Appellate Court under Section 37 is akin to and cannot travel beyond the restrictions laid down under Section 34 — Appellate Court cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award or re-interpret contractual clauses if the interpretation by the Arbitral Tribunal was a plausible view and upheld under Section 34 — Setting aside an arbitral award under Section 37, which was upheld under Section 34, based on providing a different interpretation of contractual clauses is unsustainable in law. (Paras 24, 25, 30, 31, 36, 37, 39, 50, 51)

Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 54 — Suit for specific performance — Commencement of limitation period — Where the defendant subsequently executed an affidavit ratifying the agreement to sell and conveying no-objection to the transfer, the period of limitation commences from the date of the admitted affidavit, as this is the stage at which the executant finally refused to execute the sale deed to the extent of her share — Trial court and High Court erred in dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation calculated from an earlier disputed date. (Paras 13, 35, 36, 37)

Benefit of Additional licence – Export of processed iron ore – Merely because some others are granted the benefit wrongly, the appellant cannot be permitted to pray for the similar benefits – There cannot be any negative discrimination which may perpetuate the illegality

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHOWGULE & COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Krishna…

Allotment of land – Deputy Collector possess the powers to pass the orders of allotment – High Court has seriously erred in setting aside orders on the ground that the Deputy Collector was not having jurisdiction and therefore order is coram non judice – Matter is remitted to the High Court

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJARAM ABASAHEB DESHMUKH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. ) Civil…

Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021 – Rule 4 – Supply of documents – Right of the accused to receive the list of documents, material, etc. would only apply after the draft rules are adopted – would lead to an anomalous situation where the right of the accused in one state, prejudicially differs from that afforded to an accused, in another.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH P. PONNUSAMY — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI., S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela…

Article 129 of the Constitution of India – Contemnor acts clearly lower the authority of SCOI – interfered with the due course of judicial proceedings and obstructed the administration of justice which is a clear case of criminal contempt. Held sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs 12,50,000 each on two counts of civil and criminal contempt. Fine when realisd be paid to wife.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH IN RE: PERRY KANSAGRA – CONTEMNOR ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI. and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ. ) Suo-Motu Contempt Petition (Civil) No.…

Section 116A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 HELD appellant-successful candidate was not born on 30.09.1990 and was not twenty-five years old at the time of filing the nomination as the appellant has been unable to prove the said fact – the date of birth of the appellant as 01.01.1993 which have been proved the election petitioner. The issuance of the fresh passport during the pendency of the Election Petition of no value. Appeal dismissed

FULL BENCH MOHD. ABDULLAH AZAM KHAN — Appellant Vs. NAWAB KAZIM ALI KHAN — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi, B.V. Nagarathna and B.V. Nagarathna JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(S).…

HELD The management cannot be permitted to retain the amount recovered/collected pursuant to the illegal G.O. dated 06.09.2017. The medical colleges are the beneficiaries of the illegal G.O. dated 06.09.2017 which is rightly set aside by the High Court. The respective medical colleges have used/utilized the amount recovered under G.O. dated 06.09.2017 for a number years and kept with them for a number of year . Appeal dismissed with costs.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NARAYANA MEDICAL COLLEGE — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.…

The Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 – the capital value of the land and building must be based on situation “in presenti”- in projects which are in progress, the value addition to the property would be ongoing feature. However, it would mean that the governing principle must be the actual use and not the intended use in future.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI.…

Rape and Murder – Death Penalty – Acquittal – Circumstantial evidence – Lapses in investigation and trial – There was no Test Identification parade conducted by any of the Investigating Officers during the course of their respective investigations – Nor any of the witnesses had identified the accused during their respective depositions – As per the settled legal position, in order to sustain conviction, the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAHUL — Appellant Vs. STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI., S. Ravindra…

Company Secretaries Regulations, 1982 – Regulations 92(2) and 117(2) – Applicability of Regulation 92(2) – Regulation 92(2) shall be applicable only in a case of absence and not in a case where the post of Chairman and/or office bearer has fallen vacant – There is a distinction between the absence and the post fallen vacant

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INSTITUTE OF COMPANY SECRETARIES OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. BIMAN DEBNATH AND OTHERTS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.…

Army Act, 1950 – Sections 45 and 122 – Martial Proceedings – Period of limitation for trial – For the purpose of Section 122, the two dates will be relevant i.e., the date when the alleged offence comes to the knowledge of the person aggrieved and the date on which the authority competent to initiate action comes to know about the alleged offence

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH IC-56663X COL ANIL KUMAR GUPTA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI., and Bela…

You missed