This is a compilation of Case Analysis of Supreme Court Judgments of 2022.
SC Expounds: Prayer Clause, a sine qua non for Decree of Refund of earnest money
The Supreme Court observed that Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 sub-Section (2) puts a caveat that the reliefs shall not be granted by the court unless “it has been specifically claimed”. The proviso to sub-Section (2) further says that even if such relief was not specifically claimed in the plaint, it is the discretion of the Court to permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint “at any stage of the proceedings” and allow him to include the claim for refund of the earnest money or deposit paid. Failure to discharge such burden would treat any pre-estimated amount stipulated in the contract as a ‘genuine pre-estimate of loss’.
The Court deemed it appropriate to hold that the forfeiture was justified and within the confines of reasonable compensation as per Section 74 of the Contract Act because during the entirety of proceedings - firstly the nature of forfeiture was never contested by the Respondent and secondly the Respondent never prayed for the refund of earnest money.
SC Expounds: Income Tax Reassessment proceedings initiated during the pendency of the rectification application are Invalid
The Supreme Court propounded that In the absence of any specific order of withdrawal of the proceedings under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act,1961 the proceedings initiated under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act,1961 can be said to have been pending.
Further, it was observed that during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 154, Income Tax Act,1961, it was not permissible on the part of the Revenue to initiate the proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act,1961 pending the proceedings under Section 154 of Income Tax Act,1961. The High Court has erred in presuming and observing that the proceedings under Section 154 were invalid because the same was beyond the period of limitation.
SC rules: If Civil Remedy is available, quash Criminal Proceedings, prevent Abuse of Process of Court
The division judge bench of the Supreme Court observed that a complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture.
It was observed that the High Court must see whether the dispute which is in the substance of a civil nature is given a cloak of a criminal offence. In such a situation, if the civil remedy is available and is adopted, as has happened in the case on hand, the High Court should have quashed the criminal proceeding to prevent abuse of the process of the court.
SC opines: Dying Declaration can be treated as a Former Statement
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that given Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the so-called dying declaration can be treated as a former statement, and therefore, the same can be used for contradicting the witness.
SC expounds: Mere long period continual service on a Contractual basis not ground for regularization and permanency
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that merely because respondent No. 1 continued in service for a longer period on a contractual basis the High Court ought not to have passed the order of regularization more particularly, when a policy decision was taken to avail the services of the driver by the agency/contractor and that the appointment of respondent No. 1 and other similarly situated drivers was not made after any selection procedure.
The appointment of respondent No. 1 was purely on a stopgap and a contractual basis. Under the circumstances, the High Court has committed a very serious error in ordering regularization.
It was opined that merely because it took a long time to complete the tender process and the respondent continued for a long time on a contractual basis, the respondent has not acquired any right to get his services regularized.
SC Rules: Court believing in Prosecutrix’s version sufficient to establish offence under Section 376 IPC
The Apex Court observed that the statements of the Prosecutrix are consistent with the FIR and whatever contradictions, or omissions are present are insignificant and has no bearing on the case.
The Bench noted that there was nothing on record to discredit the version of the Prosecutrix. It was opined that to establish the offence of Section 376 IPC, it is sufficient that the Court believes the version of Prosecutrix and hence, if the police did not send seized articles to FSL for analysis, the same would not affect the case in a significant manner.
SC propounds: Deduction u/s 80-IB of Income Tax Act for polyurethane foam seats ultimately used as automobile seats, not allowed
The Top Court observed that the assessee is manufacturing polyurethane foam and supplying the same in different sizes/designs to the assembly operator, which ultimately is being used for car seats. The assessee is not undertaking any further process for the end product, namely, car seats. The polyurethane foam which is supplied in different designs/sizes is being used as an ingredient by others, namely, assembly operators for car seats.
Merely because the assessee is using the chemicals and ultimately what is manufactured is polyurethane foam and the same is used by assembly operators after the process of moulding as car seats, it cannot be said that the end product manufactured by the assessee is car seats/automobile seats. There must be a further process to be undertaken by the very assessee in manufacturing the car seats.
It was held that the appellant shall not be entitled to the benefit under Section 80-IB of the IT Act.
SC Decides: Whether Contractual Clause enabling Corporation to recover ‘charges’ includes recovery of demurrages?
The Apex Court based on the interpretation of the expression “charges” in the contractual context, opined that it did not include liability on account of demurrages. Consequently, the Corporation cannot impose and collect demurrages from the contractors. Further, it was held that the interpretation of the expression “charges”, as exclusive of liability for demurrages, stands confirmed.
- SC opines: Pendency of case before NCLT, not a ground to dismiss Sec 11 A&C Act Application
The Supreme Court opined that when the issue of arbitrability requires deep consideration, the same should be adjudicated upon by the Arbitrator.
The Court further expounded that the case pending before the NCLT is not a ground to dismiss the application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 especially when both proceedings deal with different issues altogether.
- SC rules: No relevance of Plea of Custodial Investigation while deciding Application under Sec.439 Cr. P.C
Even the observation that there is no need for further custodial trial is also not a relevant aspect while considering the bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The same may have some relevance while considering the application for anticipatory bail."
- SC opines: The period referred to in Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 not Sacrosanct and may be extended if there is a Written Agreement b/w parties
The Apex Court observed that although there was no written consent by all the three partners, namely, secured creditors, borrowers and auction purchaser, the four days’ delay which was caused in terms of the original auction notice, in no manner, would frustrate or annul the auction proceedings and the Debts Recovery Tribunal has rightly held that because in such state of flux, particularly when the bank requested the auction purchaser to wait for some time because the borrowers are negotiating with the bank in the light of interim order dated 26th March, 2015 of the Tribunal, delay in depositing 75% of the bid amount by four days in no manner would frustrate the rights of the parties inter se, more so, when the conduct of the borrowers in getting extension orders on two different occasions and still not depositing Rs.6 lakhs in terms of the order of the Tribunal would clearly reflect that the intention of the borrowers was only to frustrate the auction sale by one reason or the other, which they could not succeed.
The finding returned by the Tribunal was well reasoned and duly supported by the material on record and the interference made by the HC under the impugned judgment while recording a finding that it was in breach of Rule 9(4) of the Rules, 2002 is not legally sustainable in law.
- 2018 Kathua Rape-Murder Case: SC orders accused to be tried as an Adult, not Juvenile relying on Medical Report
The Supreme Court in the matter of the heinous Rape and Murder of a minor girl in the Kathua region of Jammu & Kashmir in 2018, has allowed the appeal of the State and rejected the juvenility claim of the accused on the ground of a Medical Report.
The Division Bench observed that if there is no cogent and convincing documentary evidence on the record as regards the date of birth or age of the respondent accused on the date of the alleged crime then there is no good reason for us not to look into or ignore the medical report prepared by the Special Medical Board which is on record.
The Court concluded that the Medical Report shall be taken as conclusive evidence of the age of the accused.
- SC expounds: Airlines are liable to deduct TDS on supplementary commissions earned by the travel agents
The Supreme Court while upholding the principal-agent relationship between the airlines and agents, has unequivocally held that the airlines are liable to deduct TDS on the supplementary commissions that are earned by the agents. It has been opined that if the agents have already paid income tax on such income, then the airlines cannot be held liable for TDS, but the Revenue can charge interest for the period from the date of default to the date of payment of tax by the agents.
- SC rules: Can't make Director vicariously liable under Sec-138 NI Act if his role and Company's name not mentioned in complaint
The Supreme Court has opined that if the Complainant fails to mention the name of the Company as Accused and that the Accused Person was handling the affairs of the Company at the time of the alleged offence under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, then the Complainant cannot apply general rules of criminal jurisprudence to make the Accused Person vicariously liable under Section 141 NIA.
- SC expounds: Admissibility of an Under-Stamped document can't be questioned once Exhibited
The Supreme Court has ruled that once a document has been admitted in evidence, such admission cannot be called into question at any stage of the suit or proceedings on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped.
The Division Bench observed that objection as to the admissibility of a document on the ground of sufficiency of a stamp has to be raised when the document is tendered in evidence.
- SC propounds: Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 'Requisite Intent' to be at the core always before the amount is handed over
The Hon’ble Apex Court held that it is true that so long as the amount is in the hands of a bribe giver, and till it does not get impressed with the requisite intent and is handed over as a bribe, it would be untainted money. If the money is handed over without such intent, it would be a mere entrustment. If it is thereafter appropriated by the public servant, the offence would be of misappropriation or species thereof but certainly not of bribe. The crucial part, therefore, is the requisite intent to hand over the amount as a bribe and normally such intent must necessarily be antecedent or before the moment the amount is handed over.
Thus, the requisite intent would always be at the core before the amount is handed over.
- SC rules: The purpose for Land Acquisition must be taken into consideration while deciding its market value
18, SC expounds: Proceedings of Minority Shareholder pending before NCLT for oppression and mismanagement, not a ground to dismiss Application u/s 11(6)
The Supreme Court in a Division Bench observed that the proceedings at the instance of the respondent as a minority shareholder for oppression and mismanagement are pending before the NCLT is concerned, on the pendency of such proceedings the application under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 cannot be dismissed
19. SC Opines: Order 8 Rule 1 merely directory and applicable to Civil Courts
The Bench has clarified that the Order VIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is only directory and applicable to the Civil Courts. It was observed that when the suit is transferred from the Civil Court to the Commercial Court after the expiry of 120 days then the time cannot be made mandatory.
20. SC rules: Mere Prime Facie Evidence is not sufficient to summon Additional Accused
The Supreme Court in a Division Bench observed that power u/s 319 Cr. P.C is Discretionary and Extraordinary which should be exercised sparingly where the circumstances of the case so warrant and the crucial test has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence if goes unrebutted, would lead to a conviction.
21, SC opines: Accused is guilty under the NDPS Act if 'Poppy Straw’ tests positive for ‘Morphine’ and ‘Meconic Acid’
The division judge bench of the Apex Court held that once it is established that the seized ‘poppy straw’ tests positive for the contents of ‘morphine’ and ‘meconic acid’, no other test would be necessary for bringing home the guilt of the accused under the provisions of Section 15 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 Act.
22, SC expounds: A person conducting a Two-Finger Test or Per Vaginum Examination will be held guilty of Misconduct
The Apex Court observed that while examining the victim, the Medical Board conducted what is known as the “two-finger test” to determine whether she was habituated to sexual intercourse. The so-called test is based on the incorrect assumption that a sexually active woman cannot be raped. The probative value of a woman’s testimony does not depend upon her sexual history.
It is patriarchal and sexist to suggest that a woman cannot be believed when she states that she was raped, merely for the reason that she is sexually active. The legislature explicitly recognized this fact when it enacted the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013 which inter alia amended the Evidence Act to insert Section 53A. In terms of Section 53A of the Evidence Act, evidence of a victim’s character or her previous sexual experience with any person shall not be relevant to the issue of consent or the quality of consent, in prosecutions of sexual offences.
- SC rules: No legal Impediment to the enforceability of the Arbitration Agreement, pending payment of stamp duty
The Supreme Court in a Division bench observed that there is no legal impediment to the enforceability of the arbitration agreement pending payment of stamp duty on the substantive contract and the matters which are still pending at a pre-appointment stage, cannot be left hanging until the larger Bench settled the issue.
- Requirement of Section 17(3A) mandatory even if special powers are invoked by Govt: SC clarifies on Rights of landowners
On the question of whether the requirement of Section 17(3A) is mandatory, the Apex Court opined that firstly Section 17(3A) uses the word “shall” and that the compensation is to be paid “before taking possession”, therefore, there is no scope for any discretion with the acquiring authority. Secondly, the last word of Section 17(1) is “thereupon” which is used in reference to vesting and correlation with payment and possession as given in Section 17(3A).
Hence 17(3A) is a sine qua non for taking possession. Since under urgency matters, requirements under Section 5A are dispensed with and possession is permitted even before passing of an award under Section 11, Section 17(3A) is a prerequisite condition and it is mandatory even if special powers are invoked during urgency.
- SC propounds: Commercial Courts should not exercise their powers under S. 9 of the Arbitration Act, until and unless the conditions under O. XXXVIII R. 5 of the CPC are satisfied
The division judge bench of the Apex Court held that until the preconditions under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC are satisfied and unless there are specific allegations with cogent material and unless prima facie the Court is satisfied that the appellant is likely to defeat the decree/award that may be passed by the arbitrator by disposing of the properties and/or in any other manner, the Commercial Court could not have passed such an order in exercise of powers under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1996.
- SC opines: If the Order of Termination is approved by the Industrial Tribunal; then it will be binding between the parties
The division judge bench of the Supreme Court of India held that once the order of termination was approved by the Industrial Tribunal and the management was permitted to lead the evidence and prove the misconduct before the Court and thereafter on appreciation of evidence the order of termination was approved, thereafter the fresh reference under Section 10 of the I.D. Act challenging the order of termination was not permissible
- SC rules: There is no bar on withdrawal of an admitted CIRP application before the constitution of the Committee of Creditors
The Apex Court observed that the settlement cannot be stifled before the constitution of the Committee of Creditors in anticipation of claims against the Corporate Debtor from third persons. The withdrawal of an application for CIRP by the applicant would not prevent any other financial creditor from taking recourse to a proceeding under IBC. The urgency to abide by the timelines for the completion of the resolution process is not a reason to stifle the settlement.
- SC expounds: Once the claim of the financial creditor is discharged, there can be no question of recovery of the claim twice over
The division judge bench of the Supreme Court of India held that if there are two borrowers or if two corporate bodies fall within the ambit of corporate debtors, there is no reason why proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC cannot be initiated against both the Corporate Debtors. Needless to mention, the same amount cannot be realised from both the Corporate Debtors.
- SC opines: Sexual Assault by a husband can take the form of Rape, and all women are entitled to abortion irrespective of Marital Status
In a major ruling, the Supreme Court has observed that an unmarried woman can undergo abortion up to 24 weeks on par with that of married women under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.
The three-Judge Bench also observed sexual assault by husbands can take the form of rape and the meaning of rape must include the meaning of marital rape under the MTP Act and Rules for abortion.
- SC expounds: Cheque case against a firm director or partner can be quashed only if it is unimpeachable and inconvertible evidence
The division judge bench of the Apex Court held that if any Director or Partner wants the process to be quashed by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code on the ground that only a bald averment is made in the complaint and that he is not concerned with the issuance of the cheque, he must to persuade the High Court to quash the process either furnish some sterling incontrovertible material or acceptable circumstances to substantiate his contention.
- SC rules: The Right to appeal is not an automatic right it is conferred by the statute
The division judge bench of the Supreme Court of India held that right of appeal is not automatic. The right of appeal is conferred by statute. When statute confers a limited right of appeal restricted only to cases that involve substantial questions of law, it is not open to this Court to sit in appeal over the factual findings arrived at by the First Appellate Court.
- SC expounds: Ex-Parte Order can be challenged in Regular Appeal without availing Remedy under Rule 13 of Order IX of CPC
The Top Court has held that an appeal under Section 96 of CPC against ex parte decree, an application under Rule 13 of Order IX of CPC will not be maintainable. However, When it is shown that the Ex-Parte decree is not valid then the appellant can challenge the same without even availing the remedy under Rule 13 of Order 1X of CPC.
- SC propounds: To raise the Presumption u/S. 54 of the NDPS Act, it must be first established that recovery was made from the Accused
The division judge bench of the Apex Court held that section 54 of the Act creates a presumption, and the accused is required to explain how he came into possession of the contraband. However, to invoke the assumption under Section 54 of the Act, it must first be proven that recovery was achieved from the accused.
- SC Rules: Arbitrators can't unilaterally fix fees without the consent of parties
In a notable ruling, the Supreme Court has held that Arbitrators do not have the power to unilaterally fix their fees without due consultation with the parties.
The judgment reserved by a Division Bench ruled that unilateral determination of fees violates party autonomy and the doctrine of 'arbitrators cannot be judges of their own private claims regarding the remuneration against parties'
The Court ruled that the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 is not mandatory and therefore Arbitrators cannot unilaterally issue binding orders governing their fees.
- SC expounds: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 will prevail over the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962
The Supreme Court has passed a landmark decision today and held that the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 will prevail over the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and consequently set aside the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
- SC rules: IBC does not want NCLTs to be Debt collection agencies, Disputed Debts can't be raised
The Supreme Court while remarking that NCLTs are not supposed to function like Debt Recovery Tribunals, observed that if the debt is disputed, the application of the Operational Creditor for initiation of CIRP must be dismissed.
The Division Bench in this view noted that it is not the object of the IBC that CIRP should be initiated to penalize solvent companies for non-payment of disputed dues claimed by an operational creditor.
- SC expounds: IBC overrides SARFAESI Act, thereby prohibiting any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the Corporate Debtor
A Division Bench of the Top Court observed that once the CIRP is commenced, there is a complete prohibition for any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the Corporate Debtor in respect of its property, dismissed the appeal instituted by the appellant- bank assailing order of NCLAT wherein the order passed by the NCLT was upheld and the sale of assets of the Corporate Debtor was set aside.
- SC expounds: HC is a final court of appeal and SC Court is only a court of special jurisdiction
The Supreme Court stated that Article 136 of the Constitution of India is an extraordinary jurisdiction that this Court exercises when it entertains an appeal by special leave and this jurisdiction, by its very nature, is exercisable only when this court is satisfied that it is necessary to interfere to prevent grave or serious miscarriage of justice.
It was observed that it is well settled by a judicial pronouncement that Article 136 is worded inside terms and powers conferred under the said Article are not hedged by any technical hurdles. This overriding and exceptional power is, however, to be exercised sparingly and only in furtherance of the cause of justice. Thus, when the judgment under appeal has resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice by some misapprehension or misreading of evidence or by ignoring material evidence then this Court is not only empowered but is well expected to interfere to promote the cause of justice.
- SC opines: Only the ‘decree holder’ can make an application under Order XXI Rule 97 where he is offered resistance or obstruction by any person
The Apex Court stated that Order XXI Rule 97 deals with the resistance or obstruction of possession of immovable property by ‘any person obtaining possession of the property against the decree-holder. It empowers the ‘decree holder’ to make an application complaining about such resistance or obstruction.
It was further stated that Order XXI deals with the right of ‘any person other than the judgment debtor who is dispossessed by the holder of a decree for possession of such property or in the case where such property is sold in furtherance of the execution of a decree. The said provision invests‘ any person with a right to make an application complaining about such dispossession of immovable property in the manner prescribed above.
- SC rules: Sec 31 Cr. P.C leaves full discretion with the court to order sentences for two or more offences at one trial to run concurrently
The Top Court held that under Section 31 Cr. P.C. it is left to the full discretion of the court to order the sentences to run concurrently in case of conviction for two or more offences. It is difficult to lay down any straitjacket approach in the matter of exercise of such discretion by the courts.
By and large, trial courts and appellate courts have invoked and exercised their discretion to issue directions for concurrent running of sentences, favouring the benefit to be given to the accused. Whether a direction for concurrent running of sentences ought to be issued in a given case would depend upon the nature of the offence or offences committed and the facts and circumstances of the case. The discretion has to be exercised along the judicial lines and not mechanically.”
- SC opines: Dispute regarding termination of the mandate of Arbitrator can't be decided in an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act
The Apex Court opined that there is a difference and distinction between section 11(5) and section 11(6) of the Act, 1996. In a case where there is no written agreement between the parties on the procedure for appointing an arbitrator or arbitrators, parties are free to agree on a procedure by mutual consent and/or agreement and the dispute can be referred to a sole arbitrator/arbitrators who can be appointed by mutual consent and failing any agreement referred to section 11(2), section 11(5) of the Act shall be attracted and in such a situation, the application for appointment of arbitrator or arbitrators shall be maintainable under section 11(5) of the Act and not under section 11(6) of the Act.”
It was also observed that it is even a settled proposition of law that once the arbitrator was appointed by mutual consent the dispute whether the mandate of the arbitrator has been terminated on the grounds set out in section 14(1)(a) of the Act, shall not have to be decided in an application under section 11(6) of the Act, 1996.
- SC rules: If a man and a woman live together for long years, there would be a presumption in favour of wedlock
The question for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the long cohabitation to establish the relationship of husband and wife between Damodaran and Chiruthakutty.
The Apex Court stated that, if a man and a woman live together for long years as husband and wife, there would be a presumption in favour of wedlock. Such a presumption could be drawn under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. Although the presumption is rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on him who seeks to deprive the relationship of legal origin to prove that no marriage took place.
- SC expounds Direct appeal to SC u/S 22 of the NGT Act is intra vires the Constitution of India
The Apex Court stated that nothing contained in the NGT Act either impliedly or explicitly, ousts the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 and the power of judicial review remains intact and unaffected by the NGT Act. The prerogative of writ jurisdiction of High Courts is neither taken away nor it can be ousted, as, without any doubt, it is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
While answering the third issue the Supreme Court stated that it cannot also be overlooked that it is the Supreme Court itself that had recommended the setting up of an environmental court with direct appeals to the Supreme Court. This would also support the proposition on the constitutional validity of Section 22 of the NGT Act and that it is not ultra vires to the Constitution.
- SC rules: ‘The seat’ once fixed by the arbitral tribunal should remain static and fixed, whereas the ‘venue’ of arbitration can change to a new location
The Top Court held that “once the jurisdictional ‘seat’ of arbitration is fixed in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, then, without the express mutual consent of the parties to the arbitration, ‘the seat’ cannot be changed. Therefore, the appointment of a new arbitrator who holds the arbitration proceedings at a different location would not change the jurisdictional ‘seat’ already fixed by the earlier or first arbitrator. The place of arbitration in such an event should be treated as a venue where arbitration proceedings are held.”
- SC expounds: Offence u/S. 63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable and non-bailable offence
The Supreme Court held that “offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable and non-bailable offence. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court taking a contrary view is hereby quashed and set aside and the criminal proceedings against respondent no.2 for the offence under Sections 63 & 64 of the Copyright Act now shall be proceeded further following the law and on its own merits treating the same as a cognizable and non-bailable offence.
- SC opines: Unless Entrustment is established Offence of Criminal Breach of Trust Sec.406 IPC can't be invoked
The Supreme Court has held that unless entrustment of the property with the accused is established, the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 405 IPC will not be attracted.
The Bench observed that sine qua non for attracting Section 405 IPC was the entrustment of the property with the accused persons.
- SC rules: Vicarious criminal liability to officers associated with the company arises only when the company commits the offence as the primary offender
The Supreme Court stated that Section 141 of the NI Act extends vicarious criminal liability to officers associated with the company or firm when one of the twin requirements of Section 141 has been satisfied, which person(s) then, by deeming fiction, is made vicariously liable and punished. However, such vicarious liability arises only when the company or firm commits the offence as the primary offender.
- Can HC invoke Section 11 to adjudicate upon dispute under Sec.14 of the Arbitration Act? SC replies
The Supreme Court expounded that whenever there is a dispute and/or controversy that the mandate of the arbitrator is to be terminated on the grounds mentioned in section 14(1)(a), such a controversy/dispute has to be raised before the concerned “court” only and after the decision by the concerned “court” as defined under section 2(e) of the Act, 1996 and ultimately it is held that the mandate of the arbitrator is terminated, thereafter, the arbitrator is to be substituted accordingly, that too, according to the rules that applied to the initial appointment of the arbitrator.
The Apex Court further held that since the parties themselves agreed on a procedure for the appointment of the arbitrator and appointed an arbitrator by mutual consent, the application under section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 was not maintainable at all. The dispute whether the mandate of the arbitrator has been terminated under section 14(1)(a) of the Act, cannot be decided in an application under section 11(6) of the Act, 1996.
- SC expounds: Concurrent remedies available to a consumer under Consumer Protection Act and RERA Act
The Full-Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has delivered a landmark judgment wherein it held that Consumer Protection Act and the RERA Act neither exclude nor contradict each other and are concurrent remedies operating independently and without primacy.
The Court further observed that when Statutes provisioning judicial remedies fall for construction, the choice of the interpretative outcomes should also depend on the constitutional duty to create effective judicial remedies in furtherance of access to justice. The present case analysis aims to probe various modalities of the judgments and bring to the fore the key facets of the facts, issues, and ruling.
- Unless there is real Danger to Life there can't be any Dying Declaration? SC settles
The Supreme Court has held that there is no absolute proposition of law that in a case when at the time when the Dying Declaration was recorded, there was no emergency and/or any danger to the life, the Dying Declaration should be discarded as a whole.
- Can Relief of Permanent Injunction be given against the True Owner of the Property with proven Title? No says SC
The Apex Court expounded that once the dispute concerning title is settled against the plaintiff, a suit for a permanent injunction isn’t maintainable against the true owner of the property.
The division bench stated that when the suit is held to be barred by limitation, the prayer for a consequential relief like permanent injunction shall also be barred by limitation.
- Can a Magistrate Summon an Additional Accused even if not named in FIR or Chargesheet? SC answers
The Supreme Court has held that it is well within the powers of the Magistrate to summon an additional accused who has not been named in the FIR or Chargesheet if a prima-facie case is made out against him/her.
The single-judge Bench while adjudicating upon an appeal has reaffirmed the affirmative stance of the High Court in question whether a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence based on a police report in terms of Section 190(1)(b) of Cr. P.C. can issue summons to any person not arraigned as an accused in the police report and whose name also does not feature in column (2) of such report.
- SC opines No need for consent of both parties to grant a Divorce Decree under Art. 142
The Supreme Court in one significant observation has held that consent of parties is not required in the dissolution of marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown under Article 142 of the Constitution.
The Division Bench in an appeal filed assailing the High Court order reversing the decree of dissolution of the marriage between the appellant and the respondent under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 noted that Article 142 of the Constitution undoubtedly clothes the Court with a reservoir of power to pass orders as would reach complete justice to the parties.
- SC settles: Whether RERA is supreme or SARFAESI Act shall prevail over it
The Supreme Court has settled the question as to which of the two Acts prevails over the other. RERA or SARFAESI?
The Bench has held that RERA prevails over the SARFAESI and that Homebuyers can move RERA Authority against the bank which took possession of a real estate project as a secured creditor.
- SC opines: Daughters are entitled to inherit Father's Estate even before the promulgation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
In one significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that daughters have the undisputed right to inherit the self-acquired property or share received in the partition of a coparcenary property of their deceased father who died intestate under Hindu Law.
The Bench analysed into detail, customary Hindu Law and judicial pronouncements, and observed that the right of a widow or daughter to inherit the self-acquired property or share received in the partition of a coparcenary property of a Hindu male dying intestate is well recognized in both.
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments