Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

Principle Of ‘Moulding Of Relief’ Can’t Be Invoked At Interlocutory StageThe Supreme Court observed that principle of moulding of relief could at best be resorted to at the time of consideration of final relief in the main suit and not at an interlocutory stage.Appointment Of Surveyor By Insurer Per Se Isn’t Waiver Of Condition Relating To Delay In Intimation In an important judgment in the realm of insurance laws, the Supreme Court held that the insurer is not estopped from raising a plea of violation of the condition relating to delay in intimation warranting a repudiation of the claim, merely because it appointed a surveyor to assess the loss.No Appointment Of Arbitrator If There Is Violation Of Conditionality Clause In Arbitration AgreementWhile setting aside a Madras High Court judgment appointing an arbitrator ignoring the conditionality clause in an arbitration agreement, the Supreme Court observed that, even after the 2015 amendment insertion of sub-section 6A in Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the arbitration clause has to be interpreted strictly considering the conditionality clause. Oral Evidence In Application To Set Aside Arbitral Award Shouldn’t Be Allowed Unless Absolutely NecessaryThe Supreme Court held that an application for setting aside an arbitral award will not ordinarily require anything beyond the record that was before the arbitrator.Insolvency Process Can’t Be Admitted During Pendency Of Proceedings Challenging Arbitral AwardThe Supreme Court held that an insolvency process cannot be put into operation when there is a pending proceeding challenging against an arbitral award. A bench of Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Indu Malhotra (in K Kishan vs. Vijay Nirman Company Pvt Ltd) observed that filing of Section 34 (Arbitration) petition against an arbitral award shows a pre-existing dispute which culminates at the first stage of the proceedings in an award continues even after the award, at least till the final adjudicatory process under Sections 34 & 37 has taken place.‘NOTA’ Option In Rajya Sabha Elections Will Undermine Purity Of Democracy & Serve As “Satan Of Defection & Corruption”The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that NOTA (none of the above) option cannot be allowed in Rajya Sabha elections, opining that while the option may serve as an “elixir” in direct elections, it would “not only undermine the purity of democracy but also serve the Satan of defection and corruption” if allowed in elections to the Council of States. Tenant Can’t Be Evicted On The Ground Of Defaulting Rent Without Determination Of ‘Provisional Rent’ By CourtIn the context of rent control laws in Rajasthan, the Supreme Court held that, in a petition seeking eviction on the ground of defaulting rent, the provisional determination of the rent by the court is mandatory and without such determination of rent, no decree of eviction on the ground of default can be passed.Husband’s Kin Shouldn’t Be Roped In On The Basis Of Omnibus Allegations In Matrimonial Dispute CasesWhile quashing case against distant relatives of a ‘husband’ accused of kidnapping the child, the Supreme Court cautioned the courts while proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. Retirement Age Of CESTAT Members Is 62 Years: SC ClarifiesThe Supreme Court on Tuesday clarified that members of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) can continue to hold office until the age of 62 years. The order was issued by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY Chandrachud while disposing of an Intervention and Clarification Application filed by Rajesh Kumar Singh (Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Bengal). Mr. Singh was recently appointed as Member (Judicial) in CESTAT, New Delhi.Right To Retire Can’t Be Superior To Right To Life, SC Upholds UP Govt Decision Denying Voluntary Retirement To Doctors The Supreme Court held that denial of voluntary retirement is permissible under the rules applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh when services are required. The bench of Justice Arun Mishra and Justice S Abdul Nazeer observed that when there is a requirement of the services of an employee, the appointing authority may exercise its right not to accept the prayer for voluntary retirement.Every Acquittal In Criminal Case Has To Be Taken With Some Seriousness By Investigating And Prosecuting AuthoritiesEvery acquittal in a criminal case has to be taken with some seriousness by the investigating and prosecuting authorities, observed the Supreme Court bench in a criminal appeal. The bench of Justice NV Ramana and Justice Mohan M Shantanagaudar observed that motive has an important role as this case is based on circumstantial evidence.No Co-Coparcener Has Right To Challenge Sale Made By Karta To Meet Legal NecessityDismissing a suit filed in the year 1964 by a son against his father, the Supreme Court ...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

Ashok Kini

Tags