Latest Post

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) and 11(6-A) — Appointment of Arbitral Tribunal (AT) — Scope of Judicial Scrutiny — The enquiry under Section 11 is confined to a prima facie determination of the existence of an arbitration agreement, and no further — The referral court must refrain from entering into contentious factual or legal issues related to authority, capacity, arbitrability, maintainability, or merits of claims, adhering to the principle of minimal judicial intervention. (Paras 14, 15, 17, 19) Criminal Law — Conviction — Circumstantial Evidence — Last Seen Together Theory — Must establish acquaintance between accused and deceased for theory to apply as a circumstance linking chain; mere fact of accused and deceased being in the same vicinity shortly before the crime, without proven acquaintance, is insufficient to propound the ‘last seen together theory’ as a conclusive link, though presence in same vicinity remains a relevant initial fact. (Para 6) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Suit for Permanent Injunction — Dismissal of Suit — Reversal by High Court — Scope of Interference by Supreme Court — Where the Trial Court dismissed a suit for permanent injunction on grounds of failure to establish title and uncertainty in property identification, and the High Court reversed this relying on unproven and unauthenticated documents/surveys (like a BDA survey not proved or authenticated, and a letter without a clear seal or legible signature), the High Court erred. (Paras 3, 4, 11, 12, 14) Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 — Proof of Will — Requirement of attestation — Will excluding one legal heir (daughter) — One attesting witness (DW-2) examined — DW-2 must speak not only to the execution by the testator and his own attestation, but also to the attestation by the other witness — Failure of the Trial Court and High Court to find the Will proved — Evidence of DW-2 affirmed the signatures of the testator and both attesting witnesses after being suggested so in cross-examination by the plaintiff — Where a positive suggestion is made in cross-examination, and the witness affirms it, the response has probative value and cannot be ignored merely because it was a leading question — Concurrent finding disbelieving the Will reversed. (Paras 6, 16, 23, 24, 29 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Claim Petition — Standard of Proof — In motor vehicle accident claims, the standard of proof is based on preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt — However, claimants must establish three elements: (i) occurrence of accident; (ii) involvement of the specific offending vehicle; and (iii) rash and negligent act of the driver — Mere occurrence of the accident alone is insufficient if the involvement of the vehicle and negligence are not established. (Paras 5, 7, 8, 16)

Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 56 – Disconnection of supply – Disconnection of supply is special power given to the supplier in addition to the normal mode of recovery by instituting a suit – HELD Once that plea for instalment payment was accepted and agreement was entered into for clearing the dues, it demonstrated willingness to pay on the part of the company of the dues in a manner acceptable to the appellant Board – Such plea of the company was accepted after keeping the matter pending for a long time – High Court was right in giving its finding that the act of disconnection was arbitrary – Appeals dismissed. Decided on : 27-04-2020

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ETC. — Appellant Vs. M/S ICEBERG INDUSTRIES LTD. AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and…

No ill-founded sympathy for Advocates who try to browbeat or threaten Judges: Supreme Court holds three Advocates guilty of Contempt of Court . HELD “both the complaints are ex facie contemptuous. Highly scurrilous and scandalous allegations have been levelled against the two judges of this Court. In our view, the entire contents of the complaints amount to contempt.”

No ill-founded sympathy for Lawyers who try to browbeat or threaten Judges: Supreme Court holds three lawyers guilty of Contempt of Court The Supreme Court has also observed in its…

[Sexual Harassment] HELD “A priori, when inaction or procrastination (intentionally or otherwise) is meted out in response to the attempt of setting the legal machinery in motion, what is put to peril is not just the individual cries for the assistance of law but also the foundational tenets of a society governed by the rule of law, thereby threatening the larger public interests. The denial of timely inquiry and by a competent forum, inevitably results in denial of justice and violation of fundamental right,”

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NISHA PRIYA BHATIA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. )…

Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 68 – Will – Proof of – Mere proof of the document in accordance with the requirements of Section 68 of the Evidence Act is not final and conclusive for acceptance of a document as a Will – When suspicious circumstances exist and the suspicions have not been removed, the document in question cannot be accepted as a Will – Appeal dismissed

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SHIVAKUMAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SHARANABASAPPA & ORS. — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Hemant Gupta and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. )…

Service Matters

Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 – Rule 27 – Constitutional validity – Criteria for appointment of a member of higher judicial service to the post of District Judge and Sessions Judge or its equivalent – HELD “while raising grievances with regard to the impact and effect of ACR gradings, the appellant appears to have missed out the fundamental factor that for the promotions in question, an individual”s minimum merit, by itself, was not going to be decisive, but the relevant factor was going to be comparative merit of the persons in the zone of consideration”.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUJATA KOHLI — Appellant Vs. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari,…

Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement – Articles 5(3)(e) and 7 – Liability to tax under DTAA – Meaning of expressions “business connection” and “business activity” has been articulated. HELD And since by a legal fiction it is deemed not to be a PE of the respondent in India, it is not amenable to tax liability in terms of Article 7 of the DTAA – High Court justly reckoned the same as being of preparatory or auxiliary character, falling under Article 5(3)(e) – Appeal dismissed.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. U.A.E. EXCHANGE CENTRE — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. )…

Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 – Sections 4 and 6 – Arbitration Act, 1940 – Section 17 – Contract Act, 1872 – Section 23 – Execution of Award – Execution of an award can be only to the extent what has been awarded/decreed and not beyond the same – Arbitrator in its Award had only declared the price of land and nothing more – Thus, the question of execution of a sale deed of the land at the price so declared by the Arbitrator in its Award, could not be directed

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH FIRM RAJASTHAN UDYOG AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. HINDUSTAN ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIES LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet…

Chit Funds Act, 1982 – Section 64 (1)(A) – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 21 Rule 89 and Section 151 – Auction – Merely a guarantor and not a borrower and that the entire due amount was deposited by respondent No. 1 with the respondent No. 2 – Chits Company, HELD since the Revision had been filed within less than a week of the auction and entire dues had been settled, the confirmation of the auction was not justified. – Appeal dismissed.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PAUL — Appellant Vs. T. MOHAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

West Bengal Cooperative Societies Rules, 2011 – Rule 133(1) – Membership – It is clear that besides the initial amount of Rs. 3.86 lakhs, the petitioners did not deposit any further amount and kept disputing the demands raised by the Housing Society – HELD the order of the Society expelling the petitioners had come into effect and thereafter the six flats have already been allotted to six different persons, who have deposited the requisite amounts – Application dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SK JALALUDDIN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman and Vineet Saran,…

You missed