Supreme Court Monthly Digest April 2024

Citations 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 269 to 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 339 Abuse of Process of Law Abuse of process of law – Collusion between parties in tender process – Held, respondent no. 1 in collusion with respondent no. 2, had misused the process of law for covering up the irregularities and illegalities committed in the tender process. The division bench of High Court failed to notice the ill-intention of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and via the impugned order, permitted respondent no. 2 to execute the project even though the tender was already withdrawn by the respondent no.1 (HIMUDA) in view of the report made by the independent Committee (constituted by the High Court) confirming gross irregularities and illegalities committed by the officers of respondent no. 1. Held, the impugned order having been passed without proper application of mind and without assigning any cogent reason for brushing aside the findings of Independent Committee and observations of Single Bench, deserves to be quashed and set aside. Respondent no.1 shall be at liberty to initiate a fresh tender process in accordance with law and after following the due process of law. (Para 12 & 13) Level 9 Biz Pvt. Ltd. v. Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 275 Administrative Law Supreme Court delivers split verdict on appointment of Shiksha Karmi's in Madhya Pradesh. Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 279 Advocate After the change of power from one political party to another, the States/Union Territories are changing their panel of Advocates appearing in this Court. Therefore, this Court is required to grant adjournments from time to time on the ground of change. It is true that the States/Union Territories have power to change their empanelled Advocates, but while doing so, they must ensure that the Court's functioning is not adversely affected. Therefore, it will be appropriate if the States/Union Territories while changing the panel of Advocates continue the old panel for at least 06 weeks so that the Courts are not forced to grant adjournments. Sachin Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 270 Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996 Section 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) 291 Section 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) 291 Bail Cancellation of Bail – Grounds – Misuse of liberty – Participation in protest and expression of strong views – Non-violation of bail conditions. A. Duraimurugan Pandiyan Sattai @ Duraimurugan v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 313 Criminal Law – Bail application – No specific prayer for bail in appeal petition – Held, the plea for bail in the context of the present appeal is implicit. Since the appeal, in substance, is against the judgment by which prayer for bail was refused, merely based on the manner of framing of reliefs or prayers in the subject-petition, the actual ...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest April 2024

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags