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

AdvocateSupreme Court deprecates practice of litigant engaging new lawyer to reargue case after court expressed dissatisfaction on merits. Pintu Madanmohan Mondal v. State of West Bengal, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 850Airport Economic Regulatory Authority of India Act 2008The Supreme Court upheld the maintainability of appeals filed by Airports Economic Regulatory Authority (AERA) assailing orders of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) under the AERA Act 2008 relating to tariff imposition on certain services. Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India v. Delhi International Airport, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 812Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996Section 11 - Arbitration Clause in Public Premises Disputes – Applicability of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 vis-à-vis the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Jurisdiction of the High Court - Held, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by Central Warehousing Corporation, upholding the High Court's decision to refer the dispute to arbitration. The Court rejected the appellant's contention that the Public Premises Act, 1971, overrides the Arbitration Act, holding that the dispute arose from the terms of the agreement, including the right of renewal and the revision of storage charges, thus falling squarely within the arbitration clause of the contract. Central Warehousing Corporation v. Sidhartha Tiles and Sanitary, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 822Section 11 - Whether the Public Premises Act, 1971, overrides the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Whether the High Court erred in appointing an arbitrator - The Court noted that the dispute concerned contractual obligations under an arbitration clause in the lease agreement dated 26.09.2012, valid until 11.09.2015, with issues arising prior to the lease's expiration. The Public Premises Act, 1971, pertains to eviction of unauthorised occupants and does not preclude arbitration for contractual disputes during the lease period. Relying on SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 489, the Court reaffirmed that the referral court's inquiry under Section 11(6-A) is limited to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement. Appeal dismissed with costs of ₹50,000. Arbitration proceedings to resume, and award to be delivered expeditiously. Central Warehousing Corporation v. Sidhartha Tiles and Sanitary, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 822Section 31(7)(b) - Post-award interest - Legal Principles: (i) Section 31(7)(a) allows party autonomy regarding pre-award interest. (ii) Section 31(7)(b) mandates post-award interest unless expressly varied by the award, not by contract. (iii) Contractual clauses restricting interest do not apply to post-award interest under statutory provisions. R.P. Garg v. Chief General Manager, Telecom Department, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 794Section 31(7)(b) - Post-award interest - Validity of a contractual clause prohibiting interest in light of statutory provisions - The appellant entered into a contract with the Telecom Department for trenching and laying underground cables. Disputes over non-payment of bills led to arbitration. The Arbitrator awarded the claim but denied post-award interest citing a contractual clause. The District Court granted 18% post-award interest, but the High Court reversed this decision based on the contract clause. Held, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that under Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, post-award interest is a statutory right that cannot be overridden by a contract. The clause in the contract prohibiting interest was inapplicable to the post-award period. The Court restored the District Court's decision granting 18% interest from the award date until realization. Appeal allowed. R.P. Garg v. Chief General Manager, Telecom Department, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 794ArrestThe Supreme Court has directed the police to follow guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2014 INSC 463 and Amanatullah Khan v. The Commissioner of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 351 to ensure that members of Denotified Tribes are not subjected to arbitrary arrest. Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 771BailBail condition that accused shall furnish bail bonds 6 months after passing of order can't be imposed. Nanhak Manjhi v. State of Bihar, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 845Delay in Trial — Absence of Criminal Antecedents — Judicial Directions on Expedited Trials - The appellants sought bail after being incarcerated for 2 years and 9 months with significant delays in the trial. Of the 72 originally listed witnesses, only 3 had been examined, and the list was subsequently reduced to 22-24 witnesses. The High Court denied bail, emphasizing the need for expedited trial disposal. The trend of High Courts directing trial courts to conclude trial within a set time frame instead of granting bail, without considering the trial courts' case backlogs is...

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

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags