Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Subject /Statute Wise Index [March 18 to 24]

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 240 to 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 255Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; Section 78(5) – Arbitration clause – Two-Contract Case – When the parties enter into a contract, making a general reference to another contract, such general reference would not have the effect of incorporating the arbitration clause from the referred document into the contract between the parties. The arbitration clause from another contract can be incorporated into the contract only by a specific reference to arbitration clause. A reference to the document in the contract should be such that shows the intention to incorporate the arbitration clause from another document into the contract between the parties. The present case is a 'two-contract' case. Clause 7.0 of the L.O.I. which also forms part of the agreement specifically provides that the redressal of the dispute between the NBCC and the respondent shall 'only' be through civil courts having jurisdiction of Delhi alone. When there is a reference in the second contract to the terms and conditions of the first contract, the arbitration clause would not ipso facto be applicable to the second contract unless there is a specific mention/reference thereto. The present case is not a case of 'incorporation' but a case of 'reference' and a general reference would not have the effect of incorporating the arbitration clause. The learned single judge of the Delhi High Court has erred in allowing the appointed the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. (Para 10, 12, 13, 21 & 23) Nbcc (India) Ltd. v. Zillion Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 246Compensatory Jurisprudence Compensatory jurisprudence – Case of wrong medical diagnosis causing premature discharge from service –In case of premature discharge from service of armed forces, extreme caution and care in ensuring correct diagnoses was required. The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) failed to observe that there is no medical literature to show that the appellant was suffering from AIDS defining illness. In spite of being aware of the adverse and pernicious impact on the appellant, respondents acted grossly careless and negligent. The appellant had submitted four diagnostic reports, showing that his CD4 cell count was above 300 cells/mm3, as opposed to the respondents' 2003 Guidelines defining an AIDS illness to be one where the CD4 cell count is below 200 cells/mm3. The Medical Board, arbitrarily, wrongly and rejected the appellant's prayer on flimsy and wrong grounds by applying the 1992 Guidelines. Held, the appellant's reinstatement in service is not an available option now and also that direction for grant of pension, cannot be considered an equitable restitution of what the appellant has suffered by reason of psychological, financial and physical trauma, hence monetary compensation on account of wrongful termination of services is awarded to the appellant. (Para 6, 7, 8, 9 & 23) Satyanand Singh v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 247Constitution of India Constitution of India – Quashing of proceedings – Held, tested on the touchstone of the principles stated in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors., allowing continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR is gross abuse of process of law because the allegations as set out in the FIR do not disclose necessary ingredients of any cognizable offence. Hence, the impugned FIR and all proceedings sought to be taken against the appellant are quashed and set aside. (Para 33) Shiv Prasad Semwal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 251Constitution of India; Article 14 – Exemption of certain projects or activities from mandatory obtaining environment clearance – Unguided and blanket exemption, is, per se, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India – Item 6 grants exemption from the requirement of obtaining EC for “extraction or sourcing or borrowing of ordinary earth for linear projects, such as roads, pipelines, etc. Held, when an exception is sought to the requirement of obtaining EC, the exception must be specific. There is no specification about the quantum of ordinary earth, which can be extracted or the area which can be used to extract ordinary earth. “Linear projects” have not been defined making the term “linear projects” very vague. Even the amended item 6 continues to suffer from the same vice of arbitrariness, which Article 14 of the Constitution of India prohibits. The exemption granted without incorporating any safeguards is completely unguided and arbitrary and such blanket exemption completely defeats the very object of the EP Act. Hence, on account of the violation of Article 14, item 6 in the impugned notification, as well as the amended impugned notification, is struck down. (Para 25, 26 & 27) Noble M. Paikada v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 252Constitution of India; Article 22(4) and Act, 1986; Section 9, 10, 11 & 12 - Advisory...

Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Subject /Statute Wise Index [March 18 to 24]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags