Latest Post

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. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302, read with 34 – Murder – The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not properly address whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was a plausible conclusion from the evidence – The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the accused do not have to prove their innocence unless there is a statutory reverse onus – The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence did not warrant overturning the acquittal, as the Trial Court’s view was possible and not perverse. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Dispute over a blocked pathway – The Court found no evidence of provocation by the deceased that would justify the appellants’ brutal attack, nor any exercise of the right to private defence – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine the lack of private defence and the presence of intention to cause harm – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellants’ actions were not in self-defence and that their intention was to inflict harm, affirming the lower courts’ decisions. Consumer Law – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 45 – Policy not to be called in question on ground of mis-statement after two years – The Court found no suppression of material facts and criticized the NCDRC for not requiring proper evidence from the respondent – The judgment discusses the principles of ‘uberrimae fidei’ (utmost good faith) and the burden of proof in insurance contracts – The Court concluded that the insurance company failed to prove the alleged suppression of facts, thus the repudiation was unjustified. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 read with 34 and 120B – Murder – The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish that the discovery of the body was solely based on the appellants’ statements and that the chain of evidence was incomplete – The Court applied the principles for circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that the circumstances must fully establish the guilt and exclude all other hypotheses – The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.

Disaster Management Act, 2005 – Section 12(iii) – Ex gratia assistance on account of loss of life to the family members of the persons who died due to Covid-19 – Directions issued : (a) Authority to recommend guidelines for ex gratia assistance on account of loss of life to the family members of the persons who died due to Covid-19 (b) Simplified Procedure for Issuance of Death Certificates/Official Document – (c)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH REEPAK KANSAL – WRIT PETITIONER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan And M.R. Shah, JJ. ) Writ…

(i) Whether the provisions of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to arbitration proceedings initiated under Section 18(3) of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 ?; HELD YES (ii) Whether, counter claim is maintainable in such arbitration proceedings ? HELD YES “MSMED Act, being a special Statute, will have an overriding effect vis-à-vis Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which is a general Act.”

“18. With regard to first issue, namely, applicability of Limitation Act, 1963 to the arbitration proceedings initiated under provisions of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, we need…

Tamil Nadu State legislature had legislative competence to enact Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019 and is not inconsistent with Article 254 of the Constitution of India. HELD “We hold the 2019 Act to be a legitimate legislative exercise and find it to be consistent with and within the four corners of Article 254 of the Constitution of India and also of the High Court judgment.”,

State legislature had legislative competence to enact retrospective validating Act As regards the competency of legislature to enact a retrospective validating Act, the bench referred to precedents and noted the…

HELD – Persons With Disabilities Have Right To Reservation In Promotions Siddaraju vs. State of Karnataka FOLLOWED Further HELD that the principle in Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India & Others – (1992) Supp. 3 SCC 215 against reservation in promotions will not extend to PWDs.

The Supreme Court on Monday held that persons with physical disabilities have right to reservation in promotions also. A 2-judge bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R Subhash Reddy…

HELD “Thus, for covering an offence under Section 364A (IPC) , apart from fulfillment of first condition, the second condition, i.e., “and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person” also needs to be proved in case the case is not covered by subsequent clauses joined by “or”.”

Issues framed by the Supreme Court The Supreme Court considered the following issues : I.What are the essential ingredients of Section3 46A to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the…

You missed