Supreme Court Monthly Digest- August 2024 With Statute And Subject Wise Index

Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958Monument of national importance - Protection of a structure known as the Gumti - The petitioner challenged the dismissal of his writ petition by the Delhi High Court, which followed the Archaeological Survey of India's (ASI) report that changes made by the Defence Colony Welfare Association (DCWA) to the Gumti resulted in its loss of originality, thereby negating its protected status. The Court expressed concerns regarding the decision-making process of the ASI and the Central Government in initially recommending the Gumti's protection and later opposing it based on modifications made by the DCWA. In light of these findings, the Court ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a preliminary inquiry into various aspects related to the Gumti's status, including the circumstances surrounding its occupation by the DCWA, the authority behind the alterations made, and the lack of preventive measures against unauthorized changes. The CBI was directed to report back within two months, while the Court prohibited any changes to the Gumti until further orders, underscoring the need for protecting heritage sites. Rajeev Suri v. Archaeological Survey of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 627Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996Arbitral Tribunal is not empowered to grant interest upon interest while passing an arbitral award as the Arbitration Act, 1940 does not specifically provide for the grant of interest on interest. D. Khosla and Company v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 558Courts and arbitral tribunals have the duty to examine the contract clauses in proceedings concerning arbitration. Pam Developments v. State of West Bengal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 613How to determine conversion of arbitral award in foreign currency to indian currency - Explained. DLF Ltd. v. Koncar Generators and Motors Ltd, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 565Section 34 and 37 - Loss due to idle labor, machinery, etc. - Arbitrator awarded Rs. 5,80,500 to the appellant, relying on the Hudson's formula for on-site establishment expenses. The District Court, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, upheld the award, stating that the Arbitrator's findings were not irrational or in conflict with public policy. However, the High Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Section 37, examined the contractual provisions and found that the claim was impermissible under the "Special Terms and Conditions" of the contract, which explicitly prohibited claims for idle labor or machinery. The High Court overruled the Arbitrator's decision, stating that the contract terms should have been properly considered, and its conclusions were upheld by the higher court. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's decision, affirming that the contract terms must guide the award and that no amount can be granted for idle labor or machinery in violation of the contract. (Para 7) Pam Developments v. State of West Bengal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 613Section 37 - Interest on delayed payments of running account (RA) bills - Arbitrator awarded Rs. 54,84,024 with an interest rate of 12% p.a. to the appellant, holding that the delay in payments led to "blocked capital," entitling the claimant to compensation. The District Court upheld the Award. However, the High Court, under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, set aside the Award, questioning the Arbitrator's analysis of the payment timelines and contract terms. The High Court held that the Arbitrator failed to address key issues such as the timing of bill preparation and entitlement to interest. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court restored the Arbitrator's Award, finding no fault in the Arbitrator's reasoning and ruling that the High Court's interference was unwarranted. The Court reiterated that the scope of interference under Section 37 is limited and found that the Award was neither perverse nor in conflict with public policy. (Para 8) Pam Developments v. State of West Bengal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 613Section 31(7) and 34 - Award of interest - Arbitrator awarded pre-reference interest at 12% per annum from the date of breach to the date of the Award), and post-award interest at 9.25% per annum. The District Judge upheld this decision under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. However, the High Court modified the Award, disallowing pre-reference interest based on its interpretation that the contract prohibited it, and allowed interest only for the pendente lite and post-award periods. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court reinstated the Arbitrator's award of pre-reference interest, holding that the Arbitrator had the discretion to award interest under Section 31(7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and that the contract between the parties did not explicitly prohibit such an award. Interference with an arbitrator's decision on interest is unwarranted unless there is a clear violation of the contract or statutory provisions. (Para 9) ...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest- August 2024 With Statute And Subject Wise Index

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Supreme Court Monthly Digest- August 2024 With Statute And Subject Wise Index

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers