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

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 435 to 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 537Advocate All miscellaneous amounts charged by Bar Councils for enrolment are 'enrolment fees'. Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 519Bar Councils can't collect any amount exceeding fee specified under Section 24 of advocates act for enrolment. Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 519Every advocate is expected to come to the Court in proper attire as per the Rules and behave in the Court. (Para 7) Bijon Kumar Mahajan v. State of Assam, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 449Exorbitant enrolment fees charged by state bar councils violate the right to profession, dignity and equality. Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 519Social capital and networks play an important role in legal career; lawyers from marginalised sections face difficulties. Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 519All India Tourist Vehicles (Permit) Rules, 2023Object – The 2023 Rules have primarily two objects: Firstly, to make the movement of such tourist vehicles across the country through different States seamless and smooth; and secondly, the revenue to be generated by the Centre to be proportionately shared with the State Governments, also taking into account their previous revenue generation, and also, keeping in mind that their earlier revenue income was not reduced in any manner. The Rules, 2023 superseded the All-India Tourists Vehicles (Authorization/Permit) Rules, 2021. After the coming into of the Rules, 2023, the power of levying/collecting Border Tax/Authorization Fee by the State Governments at various border check posts from vehicles carrying All India Tourists Permit was to be done away with. (Para 4) Muthyala Sunil Kumar v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 450Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996Dispute regarding full and final settlement of contract is arbitrable. (Para 59) SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 489Judge hearing Section 34 application must apply mind to grounds of challenge. Kalanithi Maran v. Ajay Singh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 520Section 11(6) - While deciding a Section 11(6) petition for an appointment of an arbitrator, the referral courts must not conduct an intricate evidentiary enquiry into the question of whether the claims raised by the applicant are time-barred and should leave that question for determination by the arbitrator. The referral court should limit its enquiry to examining whether the Section 11(6) application has been filed within the period of limitation of three years or not. (Para 131) SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 489Section 19(1) – Applicability of Civil procedure Code, 1908 in arbitral proceedings – The legislature's intention is reflected in Section 19(1) of the Arbitration Act, which provides that an Arbitral Tribunal is not bound by the provision of the CPC. Hence, the provisions of the CPC have not been made applicable to the proceedings under Sections 34 and 37(1)(c). (Para 18) Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation v. Samir Narain Bhojwani, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 445Section 34(3) and Limitation Act of 1963; Section 2(j) & 4 – Bar of limitation – Three months from the date of receiving the arbitral award – Held, the prescribed period of limitation started from 1st July, 2022 and ended on 30th September. The three months provided by way of limitation expired a day before the commencement of the pooja vacation, which commenced on 1st October 2022. Therefore, the appellants were not entitled to take benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act which states that if the 'prescribed period' of limitation expires on the day court is closed, the limitation period can be extended to the day the court re-opens. Further, as per Section 34(3), the period of limitation was extended by a maximum period of 30 days which expired on 30th October, 2022 on which date the court was closed. The benefit of section 4 of Limitation Act is only applicable on the 'prescribed period' and not applicable on the extended 30 days. Section 2(j) of the Limitation Act makes it amply clear that the 'prescribed period' for making an application for setting aside an arbitral award is three months. Hence, even when the period of extended limitation expired on 30th October when the court was closed, the benefit of Section 4 for the extension of limitation to the day the court re-opens is not applicable. Held, as the petition was filed on 31st October 2022, the High Court was right in holding that the petition filed was beyond the period specified under Section 34(3). Hence, there is no merit in the appeal, and it is, accordingly, dismissed. (Para 10 & 11) State of West Bengal v. Rajpath Contractors and Engineers Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 454Section 34 & 37 – Jurisdiction of the Appellate Court dealing with an appeal under Section 37 – Jurisdiction during appeal under Section 37 against the judgment in a petition under Section 34 is more constrained than the jurisdiction ...

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

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

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

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers