Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Arbitral award – Construction of the terms of a contract is primarily for an arbitrator to decide, unless the arbitrator construes a contract in a manner which no fair minded or reasonable person would take i.e. if the view taken by the arbitrator is not even a possible view to take.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PATEL ENGINEERING LTD. — Appellant Vs. NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD. (NEEPCO) — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, Indu Malhotra and…
Accident Compensation – Income To Be Assessed Based On Employee’s Entitlement, Without Deduction Of AllowancesHELD “The bifurcation of the salary into diverse heads may be made by the employer for a variety of reasons. However, in a claim for compensation arising out of the death of the employee, the income has to be assessed on the basis of the entitlement of the employee. We, therefore, proceed for the purpose of the computation on the basis of the annual income of AED 4,82,395”.
Accident Compensation – Income To Be Assessed Based On Employee’s Entitlement, Without Deduction Of Allowances : SC [Read Judgment] Radhika Roy 19 May 2020 8:46 PM The Supreme Court on…
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 – Section 28(4) – Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 – Sections 4A(1), 15, 15(2) and 15(4) – Permission for development of building or land – Appellants had permitted the Project Proponents to construct housing complex at a location outside the demarcated area for five Townships HELD Project Proponents are also obliged to ensure compliance of ODP/Master Plan and if so complied, the Planning Authority cannot create any impediment – If the State accords approval to the deviation in terms of the FWA itself, the Project Proponents may be competent to carry on such a work – To put it differently, prior approval of the State for deviation from the stipulations and specifications in the FWA is the quintessence. Appeal allowed. d/19.05.2020
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISE LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before…
HELD “Suffice it to observe that to constitute civil contempt, it must be established that disobedience of the order is wilful, deliberate and with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom” – It is well-settled principle of law that if two interpretations are possible, and if the action is not contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable”.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE WORKMEN THROUGH THE CONVENER FCI LABOUR FEDERATION — Appellant Vs. RAVUTHAR DAWOOD NASEEM — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh…
Succession Act, 1925 – Sections 63, 81,89, 268 and 276 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 151 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 68 – Grant of probate of Will – Prayer of the appellant for grant of probate in relation to the Will in question has been declined concurrently by the Trial Court and by the High Court essentially after finding several unexplained suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will in question. HELD mere proof of signatures are not sufficient to prove will. Will in question is required to be considered void as per Section 89 of the Succession Act, when the principal bequeathing stipulation in the Will suffers from uncertainty to the hilt.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAVITA KANWAR — Appellant Vs. MRS. PAMELA MEHTA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil…
ARNAB RANJAN GOSWAMI CASE :: Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 32 – Quashing of FIR – There can be no quashing of FIR under Article 32 – Transfer of Investigation to CBI – Accused cannot ask for changing the investigating agency or to do investigation in a particular manner including for court-monitored investigation. HELD accused “does not have a say in the matter of appointment of investigating agency” Investigating agency is entitled to decide “the venue, the timings and the questions and the manner of putting such questions” during the course of the investigation.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARNAB RANJAN GOSWAMI — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and M R…
Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 65 and 66 – Secondary evidence – Will – Prove of – It is a settled position of law that for secondary evidence to be admitted foundational evidence has to be given being the reasons as to why the original Evidence has not been furnished. HELD Needless to observe that merely the admission in evidence and making exhibit of a document does not prove it automatically unless the same has been proved in accordance with the law – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAGMAIL SINGH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. KARAMJIT SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari, JJ. )…
Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017 – Rule 2(2) – Restoration of 4G speed internet services in Jammu and Kashmir – Rejection of – Committee comprising of the following Secretaries at national, as well as State, level formed to decide the contentions of parties.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH FOUNDATION FOR MEDIA PROFESSIONALS — Appellant Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ANOTHER ( Before : N.V. Ramana, R. Subhash Reddy…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 27, 34 and 37 – Contract Act, 1872 – Sections 56 and 65 – Arbitral award – Interpretation of contract – High Court held that the interpretation of the terms of the contract by the Arbitral Tribunal is erroneous and is against the public policy of India HELD The interpretation of the Arbitral Tribunal to expand the meaning of Clause 23 to include change in rate of HSD is not a possible interpretation of this contract, as the appellant did not introduce any evidence which proves the same.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SOUTH EAST ASIA MARINE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. (SEAMEC LTD.) — Appellant Vs. OIL INDIA LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana,…
Environment Law – Sisodia Rani ka Bagh (Monument) – Monument may be used for appropriate multi-purpose activities between 8.00 A.M. to 8.00 P.M. only – No activity to be permitted after 8.00 P.M. – Use of laser lights, loud music, and fireworks is ordered to be completely restrained – Musical and other fountains to be maintained and to be kept in working order. Environment Law – Sisodia Rani ka Bagh (Monument) – Monument may be used for appropriate multi-purpose activities between 8.00 A.M. to 8.00 P.M. only – No activity to be permitted after 8.00 P.M. – Use of laser lights, loud music, and fireworks is ordered to be completely restrained – Musical and other fountains to be maintained and to be kept in working order. SC To Monitor Beautification Of 18th Century Garden. n
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND MUSEUMS, JAIPUR AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ASHISH GAUTAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Arun…