Arbitration Act, 1940 — Sections 14 and 17 — Interest on interest for the post-award period — The case involves a contract from 1984-85 between petitioners and respondent with an arbitration award passed in 1997 — Whether the petitioner is entitled to compound interest or interest on interest for the post-award period — The petitioner argued that the 12% interest awarded for the pre-award period should be included in the principal sum for calculating the 15% post-award interest — The respondent contended that compound interest or interest on interest is not payable unless specifically granted by the award or court order — The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the lower courts’ decisions that only simple interest is payable — The court emphasized that neither the Arbitration Act nor the contract provided for compound interest or interest on interest — The court referred to various legal provisions and precedents, including Section 34 of the CPC and the Interest Act, 1978, which prohibit awarding interest on interest — The Special Leave Petition was dismissed.
2024 INSC 587 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S D. KHOSLA AND COMPANY — Appellant Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and…
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — The appellant lent Rs. 2,00,000 to the respondent, who issued a cheque as a guarantee — The cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds — Whether the respondent committed an offence under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 and Section 420 of the IPC — The appellant argued that the respondent failed to repay the loan and intentionally cheated him — The respondent claimed the cheque was issued for security purposes to a third party and denied the loan transaction — The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s judgment that favored the respondent’s acquittal — The court found contradictions in the appellant’s statements and lack of evidence regarding the loan transaction — The court emphasized the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, 1881, and the burden on the respondent to rebut it — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent’s acquittal was upheld.
2024 INSC 586 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRI DATTATRAYA — Appellant Vs. SHARANAPPA — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Motor Accident Claims — Enhancement of Compensation — The claimant-appellant’s husband died in a motor accident involving an ambulance and a truck — The deceased was employed as a ‘Khalasi’ in the ambulance — The maintainability of the claim for compensation, the rash and negligent conduct of the truck driver, and the extent of compensation payable — The High Court awarded Rs. 8,30,000 as compensation, deducting Rs. 6,25,000 already paid by the employer — The Supreme Court modified the compensation to Rs. 10,06,900 with 7.5% interest — The appeal was allowed, and the compensation amount was modified.
2024 INSC 584 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ROJALINI NAYAK AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. AJIT SAHOO AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol,…
Motor Accident Compensation — Contributory Negligence — The claimant and his wife were involved in a motorcycle accident with two tractors, resulting in the wife’s death and the claimant’s severe injuries — The main issues were rash and negligent driving, contributory negligence and insurance liability — The claimant argued for higher compensation due to the loss of income from their business and the misapplication of the multiplier by the Tribunal — The respondents contended that the claimant was also negligent and thus partly responsible for the accident — The Supreme Court revised the compensation to Rs. 11,25,000 from Rs. 1,01,250, acknowledging the error in the Tribunal’s application of the multiplier and contributory negligence — The Court found that the claimant’s act of overtaking was not rash or negligent and that the offending vehicle was driven negligently — The appeal was allowed, and the compensation was significantly increased, with the interest rate adjusted to 8%.
2024 INSC 585 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PREM LAL ANAND AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. NARENDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay…
Arbitral Award — Contractual Dispute — The court held that the date of the arbitral award’s enforceability is the date when the objections against it are finally decided, and this date should be used to convert the award amount — If the award debtor deposits some amount before the court during the pendency of proceedings, the date of deposit should be used for conversion — The court further clarified that if the award holder is permitted to withdraw the deposited amount, even if it is conditional and subject to the final decision in the matter, the court must consider that the award holder could access and benefit from such deposit, and it is then the burden of the award holder to furnish security, as required by the court’s orders, to utilize the amount or to make an application for modification of the condition if it is unable to fulfill the same.
2024 INSC 593 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DLF LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DLF UNIVERSAL LTD) AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. KONCAR GENERATORS AND MOTORS LTD. — Respondent (…
Service Law — Removal from Service — Respondent appointed as Inspector in 1960 and later as Assistant Registrar, faced multiple charges of misconduct, including unauthorized appointments and financial irregularities —The main issue was whether the disciplinary proceedings and the subsequent removal of from service were justified —The State of Rajasthan argued that respondent’s actions demonstrated insubordination and financial misconduct, justifying his removal — Respondent contended that the disciplinary proceedings were flawed and that there was no substantial evidence to support the charges against him —Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s decision, reinstating the removal order against respondent —The Court found that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted fairly and that there was sufficient evidence to support the charges —The Court emphasized that it is not the role of the High Court to reappraise evidence in disciplinary matters unless there is a clear violation of natural justice —The Supreme Court restored the removal order, finding no procedural impropriety or lack of evidence in the disciplinary proceedings.
2024 INSC 592 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BHUPENDRA SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 323 read with Section 120B — Murder —Dispute over water supply — They were sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court, and the conviction was upheld by the High Court — The main issue was whether the appellants were rightly convicted based on the evidence presented — The appellants argued that the evidence was unreliable, key witnesses were not credible, and there were procedural lapses in the investigation — The State argued that the evidence was sufficient, the FIR was lodged promptly, and the injuries and recoveries corroborated the prosecution’s case —The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, finding the evidence insufficient and the investigation flawed — The Court found inconsistencies in witness testimonies, procedural lapses, and lack of credible evidence linking the appellants to the crime —The Court emphasized the importance of reliable evidence and proper investigation procedures, citing previous judgments to support its decision —The appeals were allowed, and the appellants were acquitted, with the Court highlighting the need for credible evidence and proper investigation.
2024 INSC 590 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ALLARAKHA HABIB MEMON ETC. — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.…
Service Law — Pay fixation error — The appellant, a retired government employee, was promoted and received a revised pay scale — Years after retirement, the government sought to recover excess payments due to a pay fixation error — Whether the government can retrospectively reduce the appellant’s pay scale and recover excess payments after retirement — The appellant argued that the government resolution protecting promotions before a certain date was misinterpreted, and the recovery was arbitrary and violated natural justice —The State of Bihar contended that the resolution applied uniformly and the recovery was justified due to the error in pay fixation —The Supreme Court quashed the government’s order to reduce the pay scale and recover excess payments, ruling it illegal and arbitrary —The court emphasized that the appellant’s promotion was valid and protected by the resolution, and the recovery was unjustified after such a long period —The court cited precedents where recovery of excess payments was deemed inequitable if not promptly addressed and without employee fault —The appellant’s pay scale and pension were restored, and any recovered amounts were to be reimbursed with interest.
2024 INSC 591 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAGDISH PRASAD SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sandeep Mehta and R. Mahadevan,…
Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 — Sections 139 and 140 — Primary responsibility for property taxes on whom to rest —Supreme Court upheld the High Court decision to refund a portion of property tax paid by Respondent No. 2 the Appellant — The dispute concerned tax arrears for a period before Respondent No. 2 acquired ownership of the property on September 3, 2015 — The Court ruled that under the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, the liability for property tax lies with the owner of the property at the time of assessment — Since Respondent No. 2 became the owner after the arrears had accrued, it was not liable for those taxes — The Court also noted that the previous owner had deposited a significant portion of the disputed tax in ongoing legal proceedings, further supporting the refund to Respondent No — 2. This decision clarifies that property tax liability is tied to ownership and cannot be automatically transferred to new owners for periods prior to their ownership.
2024 INSC 596 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJKOT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Augustine…