Latest Post

Under Sections 34/37 of Arbitration Act, 1996, courts lack power to modify awards but can set aside, partially set aside (sever) severable parts, or correct computational/clerical errors. Courts must strictly enforce building laws, order demolition of unauthorized structures, and refuse regularization pleas from violators, upholding the rule of law. The Right to Life (Art 21) includes digital access; inaccessible digital KYC processes violate this and the RPwD Act, mandating regulators ensure accessible alternatives and reasonable accommodation. An Arbitral Tribunal possesses the power under Section 16, Arbitration Act, 1996, based on consent principles in Sections 2(1)(h) & 7, to implead non-signatories bound by arbitration agreement. Refund of earnest/advance money requires specific pleading under S. 22(2) Specific Relief Act, even if specific performance is refused; forfeiture of earnest money is generally permissible upon purchaser’s default. Shree Hanuman Cotton Mills v. Tata Air Craft Ltd., (1969) 3 SCC 522 — Principles reiterated.; Videocon Properties Ltd. v. Bhalchandra Laboratories, (2004) 3 SCC 711 — Followed. ; Satish Batra v. Sudhir Rawal, (2013) 1 SCC 345 — Followed and applied. ; Central Bank of India v. Shanmugavelu, (2024) 6 SCC 641 — Followed.; Fateh Chand v. Balkishan Dass, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 49 — Distinguished regarding earnest money; Applied regarding penalty.; Maula Bux v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 554 — Distinguished regarding earnest money; Applied regarding penalty.; Kailash Nath Associates v. DDA, (2015) 4 SCC 136 — Considered and distinguished on facts.; Godrej Projects Development Ltd. v. Anil Karlekar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 222 — Cited.
Under Sections 34/37 of Arbitration Act, 1996, courts lack power to modify awards but can set aside, partially set aside (sever) severable parts, or correct computational/clerical errors. Courts must strictly enforce building laws, order demolition of unauthorized structures, and refuse regularization pleas from violators, upholding the rule of law. The Right to Life (Art 21) includes digital access; inaccessible digital KYC processes violate this and the RPwD Act, mandating regulators ensure accessible alternatives and reasonable accommodation. An Arbitral Tribunal possesses the power under Section 16, Arbitration Act, 1996, based on consent principles in Sections 2(1)(h) & 7, to implead non-signatories bound by arbitration agreement. Refund of earnest/advance money requires specific pleading under S. 22(2) Specific Relief Act, even if specific performance is refused; forfeiture of earnest money is generally permissible upon purchaser’s default. Shree Hanuman Cotton Mills v. Tata Air Craft Ltd., (1969) 3 SCC 522 — Principles reiterated.; Videocon Properties Ltd. v. Bhalchandra Laboratories, (2004) 3 SCC 711 — Followed. ; Satish Batra v. Sudhir Rawal, (2013) 1 SCC 345 — Followed and applied. ; Central Bank of India v. Shanmugavelu, (2024) 6 SCC 641 — Followed.; Fateh Chand v. Balkishan Dass, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 49 — Distinguished regarding earnest money; Applied regarding penalty.; Maula Bux v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 554 — Distinguished regarding earnest money; Applied regarding penalty.; Kailash Nath Associates v. DDA, (2015) 4 SCC 136 — Considered and distinguished on facts.; Godrej Projects Development Ltd. v. Anil Karlekar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 222 — Cited.

Decree obtained by fraud—Such a judgment, decree or order —by the first Court or by the final Court— has to be treated as nullity by every Court. When sale to become absolute be set aside—Where a third party challenges the judgment-debtor’s title by filing a suit against the auction-purchaser, the decree holder and the judgment-debtor should be necessary parties to that suit and if the suit is decreed, the Court shall direct the decree-holder to refund the money to the auction-purchaser.

  2007(4) LAW HERALD (SC) 3365 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi Civil Appeal No. 4727…

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, S.12–lnsurance–Theft of Vehicle-Delay of 21/2 months in giving intimation of theft by insured to insurer-It amounts to breach of policy-­Insured was obligated to give intimation immediately after theft came to his knowledge-Mere intimating the police or lodging FIR does not amount to sufficient compliance-Claim held to be rightly repudiated.

2017(1) Law Herald (SC) 558 (NCDRC) : 2017 LawHerald.Org 598 IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Before The Hon’ble Mr. Presiding Member V.K. Jain Revision Petition No. 176 of…

Remand— Only when a charge sheet is not filed and investigation is kept pending, benefit of proviso appended to Sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code would be available to an offender; once, however, a charge sheet is filed, the said right ceases. Such a right does not revive only because a further investigation remains pending within the meaning of Sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code. Investigation–Further investigation can be carried on despite filing of a police report, in terms of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

    2007(4) LAW HERALD (SC) 3348 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi Criminal Appeal No.…

Sanction—The order granting sanction must be demonstrative of the fact that there had been proper application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority. Sanction—Only because an order of sanction contains certain irregularities, the court would not set aside an order of conviction.

  2007(4) LAW HERALD (SC) 3342 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi Criminal Appeal No. 766…

Rape on minor—Punishment–It must depend upon the conduct of the accused, the state and age of the sexually assaulted female and the gravity of the criminal act. Rape on minor—Sentence less than–Minimum punishment of 10 years—Recourse to the proviso can be had only for “special and adequate reasons” and not in a casual manner.

2007(4) LAW HERALD (SC) 3337 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.P. Naolekar Criminal Appeal No. 782 of 2001…

Murder–Circumstantial Evidence–It is not an inflexible rule that the identification of the body, cause of death and recovery of weapon with which the injury may have been inflicted on the deceased are not established, it would result in acquittal provided the charges against the accused otherwise can be established on the basis of the other reliable and trustworthy evidence.

  2007(4) LAW HERALD (SC) 3327 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendaran The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.Sudershan Reddy Criminal Appeal No. 101 of…