Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Subject /Statute Wise Index [April 14 to 20]

SUPREME COURT WEEKLY DIGEST APRIL 2024 PART 2Citations 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 291 to 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 310Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996Section 34 & 37- Scope of interference of courts with arbitral awards – A judgment setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 is appealable under Section 37. The jurisdiction under Section 37 is akin to the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 34 and restricted to the same grounds of challenge as Section 34. As per section 37(3) of Arbitration Act, a recourse to Section 37 is the only appellate remedy available against a decision under Section 34 and no second appeal shall lie from an order passed under Section 37. Held, nothing in the section 37(3) takes away the constitutional right under Article 136 to grant Special Leave to Appeal against a decision rendered in appeal under Section 37. This is the discretionary and exceptional jurisdiction of this Court to grant Special Leave to Appeal and it is a third stage at which this court tests the exercise of jurisdiction by the courts acting under Section 34 and Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. (Para 41, 42) Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 291Section 34 (2-A) – Grounds for setting aside an arbitral award – A domestic award may be set aside if the Court finds that it vitiated by 'patent illegality' appearing on the face of the award. It is patent illegality, if the decision of the arbitrator is found to be perverse, or so irrational that no reasonable person would have arrived at it; or the construction of the contract is such that no fair or reasonable person would take; or, that the view of the arbitrator is not even a possible view. A 'finding' based on no evidence at all or an award which ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision would be perverse and liable to be set aside under the head of 'patent illegality'. An award without reasons would suffer from patent illegality. The arbitrator commits a patent illegality by deciding a matter not within his jurisdiction or violating a fundamental principle of natural justice. (Para 40) Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 291Central Goods and Services Act, 2017Section 157 – Defense of 'Good faith' of statutory functionary– A good faith clause, is a provision of immunity to a statutory functionary against prosecution or legal proceedings. This immunity is limited and confined to acts done honestly and in furtherance of achieving the statutory purpose and objective. It is for the court or a judicial body to consider, adjudicate, and determine whether the claim that the action was done in good faith is made out or not depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. Held, observations made by High Court on the principle of good faith, is in the nature of advance rulings. Such tentative opinion of High court, even before the initiation of a suit, prosecution or legal proceeding, will affect the integrity and independence of that adjudication, compromising the prosecution and the defence equally. (Para 8, 9, 10 & 11) State of Gujarat v. Paresh Nathalal Chauhan, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 295Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Whether prior sanction is mandatory for a Magistrate to forward a complaint against a public servant for investigation as per Section 156(3) CrPC. This issue was referred to a larger bench in 2018 in the case Manju Surana v. Sunil Arora. The issue was of wide relevance and was arising in several matters frequently, an earlier decision on the question referred is solicited. Shamim Khan v. Debashish Chakraborty, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 305Constitution of IndiaArticle 20(3) and Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 42(1) – Power of search and seizure under Section 41(2) of the NDPS Act 1985, is inherently limited by the recognition of fundamental rights by the Constitution as well as statutory limitations. Article 20(3) of the Constitution would not be affected by the provisions of search and seizure. The statutory provisions conferring authorities with the power to search and seize are a mere temporary interference with the right of the accused as they stand well regulated by reasonable restrictions emanating from the statutory provisions itself. (Para 41) Najmunisha v. State of Gujarat, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 298Article 21 – Right to just and fair trial – Actions of the authorities concerned within the meaning of the NDPS Act 1985 must be towards ensuring of upholding the rights of the accused in order to allow the accused to have a fair trial. (Para 24) Najmunisha v. State of Gujarat, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 298Article 136 – Interference not warranted – The Technical Assistants are not claiming against the 75% posts available for direct recruits. Their claim is only towards 25% posts which are required to be filled in from Junior Draughting Officers, Overseers and Technical Assistants who have put ...

Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Subject /Statute Wise Index [April 14 to 20]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags