Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Subject /Statute Wise Index [March 25 to 31]

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 256 to 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 268Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 48 – Enforcement of foreign award in India challenged on grounds of arbitral bias – In India, courts must adopt an internationally recognized narrow standard of public policy, when dealing with the aspect of bias. Refusal of enforcement of foreign award should only be in a rare case where, non- adherence to International Standards is clearly demonstrable. Held, cannot infer bias or likelihood of bias of the Presiding Arbitrator, hence there is no violation of the public policy, which would render the foreign award unenforceable in India. The award debtors have failed to substantiate their allegation of bias, conflict of interest or the failure by the Presiding Arbitrator to render disclosure to the parties, as an objection to the enforcement of the award. Courts across the world have applied a higher threshold of bias to prevent enforcement of an Award than the standards set for ordinary judicial review. The award debtors have failed to meet the high threshold for refusal of enforcement of a foreign award under Section 48 of the Indian Arbitration Act. The decision given by the High Court for enforcement/execution of the foreign award stands approved. (Para 22, 25, 36, 42 & 43) Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. v. Hsbc Pi Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 267Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 48 – Challenge of Arbitral bias raised at the enforcement stage – Held, challenge of arbitral bias is raised at the enforcement stage, must be discouraged by Courts to send out a clear message that Indian Courts would ensure enforcement of a foreign Award unless it is demonstrable that there is a clear violation of morality and justice. No setting aside challenge based on bias was raised before the Singapore Courts by the appellants within the limitation period. Since the objection of bias was not raised in appropriate proceedings it could not be raised at the post-award Stage. Held, the Award Debtors should have applied for setting aside of the Award before the Singapore Courts at the earliest point of time. (Para 27, 29 & 42) Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. v. Hsbc Pi Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 267Bail Bail condition restraining political activities violates fundamental rights, can't be imposed. Siba Shankar Das v. State of Odisha, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 259Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 242(3) and Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 138 – The general rule is that witnesses shall be examined in the order laid down in Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. An exception to this rule is Section 242(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 under which, in a warrant case, the learned Magistrate, by recording reasons, can permit cross-examination of a witness to be postponed till a particular witness or witnesses are examined. Held, recording only the examination-in-chief of 12 prosecution witnesses without recording cross-examination is contrary to the law. (Para 6 & 7) Ekene Godwin v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 261Constitution of India Constitution of India – Right to legal aid – When the examination-in-chief of a prosecution witness is being recorded, the presence of the Advocate for the accused is required, as the advocate has a right to object to a leading or irrelevant question being asked to the witness. The report of trial court records that the evidence of prosecution witnesses was recorded in the presence of the appellants, but their Advocate was not present as they had not engaged any Advocate. Held, after finding that the appellants-accused had not engaged any Advocate, the Trial Court ought to have provided a legal aid Advocate to the appellants accused so that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses could have been recorded in the presence of the Advocate representing the appellants-accused. Recording of evidence in this fashion is not justified even if the High Court had fixed a time-bound schedule for disposal of the case. The trial court could have always sought an extension of time from the High Court. (Para 5 & 6) Ekene Godwin v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 261Criminal Law Criminal Law – Quashing of Charge – Appellants have not made out a case for interference with the order on charge and the order of framing charge. The Court is only required to consider judicially whether the material warrants the framing of charge without blindly accepting the decision of the prosecution. (Para 43) Puneet Sabharwal v. CBI, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 260Criminal law – Framing of charge – Even a strong suspicion founded on material on record which is ground for presuming the existence of factual ingredients of an offence would justify the framing of charge against an accused person. (Para 43) Puneet Sabharwal v. CBI, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 260Criminal Law – Power of constitutional courts to transfer case ...

Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Subject /Statute Wise Index [March 25 to 31]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags