Supreme Court Monthly Digest With Nominal and Subject/Statute Wise Index- March 2022

Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Importance of natural justice and an opportunity of hearing to be afforded to the affected party in any administrative or quasijudicial proceedings. (Para 28) Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 226 Amendment - If power to amend or modify or relax a notification and/or order exists, the notification and/or order may be amended and/or modified as many times, as may be necessary. A statement made by counsel in Court would not prevent the authority concerned from making amendments and/or modifications provided such amendments and/or modifications were as per the procedure prescribed by law. (Para 47) Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. Dastak NGO, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 318 Anticipatory Bail - SLP Against Madras HC Judgment dismissing anticipatory bail with some observations about requirement of custodial interrogation- Dismissed - High Court, after having found no case for grant of pre-arrest bail, has otherwise not given any such direction of mandatory nature - Observations are essentially of the reasons assigned by the High Court in declining the prayer of the petitioner for pre-arrest bail. S. Senthil Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 314 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Jurisdiction - When two or more Courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes arising out of an arbitration agreement, the parties might, by agreement, decide to refer all disputes to any one Court to the exclusion of all other Courts, which might otherwise have had jurisdiction to decide the disputes. The parties cannot, however, by consent, confer jurisdiction on a Court which inherently lacked jurisdiction. (Para 47) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Only if the agreement of the parties was construed to provide for seat/place of arbitration in India, would Part-I of the 1996 Act be applicable. If the seat/place were outside India, Part-I would not apply, even though the venue of a few sittings may have been in India, or the cause of action may have arisen in India. (Para 36) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Seat and Venue - Sittings at various places are relatable to venue. It cannot be equated with the seat of arbitration or place of arbitration, which has a different connotation. (Para 44, 45) Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Special leave petition against an order of the Calcutta High Court, allowing an Arbitration Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator - Allowed - Calcutta High Court inherently lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application. Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) and 2(1)(e) - An application under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act for appointment of an Arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal cannot be moved in any High Court in India, irrespective of its territorial jurisdiction. Section 11(6) of the A&C Act has to be harmoniously read with Section 2(1)(e) of the A&C Act and construed to mean, a High Court which exercises superintendence/supervisory jurisdiction over a Court within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of the A&C Act. It could never have been the intention of Section 11(6) of the A&C Act that arbitration proceedings should be initiated in any High Court in India, irrespective of whether the Respondent resided or carried on business within the jurisdiction of that High Court, and irrespective of whether any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of that Court, to put an opponent at a disadvantage and steal a march over the opponent. Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 42 - The Section has obviously been enacted to prevent the parties from being dragged into proceedings in different Courts, when more than one Court has jurisdiction. Where with respect to any arbitration agreement, any application under Part I of the A&C Act has been made in a Court, that Court alone would have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement, and the arbitral proceedings, would have to be made in that Court and in no other Court, unless, of course, the Court in which the first application had been instituted, inherently lacked jurisdiction to entertain that application. The Section which starts with a non obstante clause, is binding irrespective of any other law for the time being in force, and irrespective of any other provision in Part I of the A&C Act. (Para 31) Ravi Ranjan ...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest With Nominal and Subject/Statute Wise Index- March 2022

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags