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

Adverse PossessionThe dispute involved the ownership and possession of land claimed by the respondents (plaintiffs) based on revenue records and challenged by the appellants (State of Haryana and PWD) on the grounds of adverse possession. The Supreme Court upheld the title of the plaintiffs, based on jamabandi entries, registered sale deeds, and mutation records, which carried a presumption of correctness under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The appellants' failure to deny the plaintiffs' title specifically amounted to an implied admission under Order VIII Rule 5 of the CPC. The Court reiterated that the State, being a welfare entity, cannot claim title over citizens' property through adverse possession and emphasizing the principle that such claims undermine constitutional rights. The appellants' acts of temporary occupation, such as storage of materials, lacked the elements of hostility, continuity, and requisite duration to substantiate adverse possession. The High Court was within its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC to address substantial questions of law, including whether the plea of adverse possession implied an admission of the plaintiffs' title and whether findings of the First Appellate Court were perverse. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment that restored the Trial Court's decree in favor of the plaintiffs, recognizing their ownership and granting possession. The plea of adverse possession by the State was rejected as being untenable in law. State of Haryana v. Amin Lal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 900Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996Appointment of Arbitrators - Principles of Equal Treatment - The principle of equal treatment of parties applies at all stages of arbitration proceedings, including the appointment of arbitrators. The Arbitration Act permits Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) to maintain empanelled arbitrators, but arbitration clauses cannot compel the other party to select arbitrators exclusively from such panels. Clauses allowing unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator raise justifiable doubts about the arbitrator's independence and impartiality and hinder equal participation in the appointment process. In three-member tribunals, requiring one party to select its arbitrator from a PSU-curated panel violates the principle of equal treatment, as it creates an imbalance in the appointment process. Unilateral appointment clauses in public-private contracts contravene Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The express waiver under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act permits parties to waive claims of bias against unilaterally appointed arbitrators after disputes arise, enabling them to consider the necessity of waiving the nemo judex rule. The judgment applies prospectively to arbitrator appointments made after its pronouncement, including appointments in three-member tribunals. Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. Eci Spic Smo Mcml (Jv), 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 874Section 11 - Applicability of Part I – Determination of the Seat of Arbitration – Jurisdiction of Indian Courts - Principles - Exclusion of Part I for Pre-2012 Agreements - Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Seat - Determination of the Seat - Role of Party Autonomy - Forum Non Conveniens - Residual Application of Closest Connection Test - Part I of the Act applies only to arbitrations where the seat is in India or the arbitration agreement is governed by Indian law. Agreements executed post-06.09.2012 with a foreign seat are outside the jurisdiction of Indian courts. For agreements executed prior to 06.09.2012, Part I is excluded if the parties explicitly designate a foreign seat or implicitly adopt foreign law as the governing law. Once the seat of arbitration is determined, it operates as an exclusive jurisdiction clause, rejecting concurrent jurisdiction. The "Closest Connection Test" is no longer applicable. Instead, if an arbitration agreement expressly designates a location as the seat (even if termed as "venue") or aligns with the curial law stipulated, such designation prevails unless contrary indicia exist. Courts must honor the parties' express and implied choices in the arbitration agreement and not impute inadvertence in their stipulations. Where multiple potential seats are designated, the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens may be applied to determine the most appropriate seat. Residual Application of Closest Connection Test is limited to cases where the arbitration agreement lacks express or implied designation of a seat or curial law. The petition under Section 11 of the Act was dismissed as the seat of arbitration was outside India, and the agreement was not governed by Indian law. Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Micromax Informatics Fze, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 871Section 11 - Scope of inquiry - Prima facie determination of the existence of arbitrable disputes. Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the application for appointment of an...

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

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags