Latest Post

E-auction — Typographical error — e-auction for a manganese and iron ore block submitted a bid of 140.10% instead of its intended bid of 104.10% due to a typographical error — The court allowed the company’s appeal and ordered a fresh e-auction for the block — The company was also ordered to pay Rs 3 crore ($400,000) to the state as compensation for the delay caused by its error. Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 — Paragraph 13 — Recovery of overcharged amount of drugs — Demand made by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) to recover an overcharged amount for a Cloxacillin-based drug formulation called Roscilox — The Court found that the appellant’s admission of purchasing the drug directly from the manufacturer made it liable under Paragraph 13 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 (DPCO) — The Court also rejected the appellant’s claim that it was only a ‘dealer’ and not a ‘distributor’ under the DPCO, as the definitions of these terms under the DPCO are not mutually exclusive — The Court further noted that the objective of the DPCO is to control the prices of medicinal drug formulations and ensure they are made available to the common man, and thus, the provision should not be subjected to a restricted or hidebound interpretation — Appeal Dismissed. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 498A, 323 and 504 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3 and 4 — Irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce — The court recognized that irretrievable breakdown of marriage, where the parties have been living separately for a significant period and all efforts at reconciliation have failed, can be a valid ground for divorce — This expands the grounds for divorce beyond the traditional grounds mentioned in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.— One-time settlement as a mode of permanent alimony — The court allowed the parties to opt for a one-time settlement as a mode of permanent alimony, instead of periodic payments — This provides flexibility to the parties in resolving their financial obligations towards each other. Bihar City Manager Cadre (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2014 — Rules 5 and 11 — The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals challenging the validity of a judgment by the Patna High Court, which allowed a candidate to be considered for appointment as a City Manager in Bihar — The candidate had scored to meet up the minimum qualifying marks of 32% — The court found that the minimum qualifying marks were only for the written test and not for the overall selection process — The court also rejected the appellants’ reliance on an executive order issued in 2007, stating that it was not applicable to the rules issued in 2014 — The court concluded that the candidate was eligible and qualified to be considered for appointment as she had met the minimum qualifying marks in the written test. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Where, under an appointment procedure agreed upon by the parties — Section 11(6) —The Supreme Court has clarified the scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 — The court held that the court’s role in appointing an arbitrator is limited to examining the existence of an arbitration agreement and not to delve into the merits of the dispute or the validity of the agreement — The court further clarified that the issue of whether a claim is time-barred or not should be left to the arbitrator to decide, and the court should not conduct an intricate enquiry into the same — The court’s role is to ensure that the parties’ intention to resolve disputes through arbitration is upheld, and the legislative intention of minimum judicial interference in arbitral proceedings is given full effect — The court’s decision aims to streamline the position of law and avoid conflicts between different decisions in the future.

Notification–Issuance of a fresh declaration under Section 6 of the Act after withdrawing the earlier one issued under Section 6 of the Act did not have the effect of rendering the notification under Section 4 ineffective and in fructuous. Reference–Plea of on authorised possession cannot be taken under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Compensation–Assessment of compensation, does involve some rational guess work.

2007(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 57 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. P. Singh The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir Appeal (Civil) 1330 of 1997;…

Accomplice–Evidence of an accomplice is admissible but should ordinarily be corroborated by same other evidence. Contraband–Confession made by accused under NDPS Act before an officer of department of revenue intelligence, may not be hit by Section 25 of Evidence Act. Contraband–Only evidence against the appellant was retracted statement of accused no. 1 and his own retracted confession–Benefit of doubt–Acquittal.

  2007(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 17 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandeya Katju Appeal (Crl.) 996  of 2006…

You missed