Supreme Court Half Yearly Round-Up -[January To June]

1. Employee Who Refuses Promotion Offer Not Entitled To Financial Upgradation Merely Because She Suffered Stagnation : Supreme Court Case Title: Union of India v. Manju Arora Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1 The Supreme Court observed that if a regular promotion is offered but is refused by the employee before becoming entitled to a financial upgradation, she/he shall not be entitled to financial upgradation only because he/she has suffered stagnation. The court said that Central Government employees who have refused the offer of regular promotion are disentitled to the financial upgradation benefits envisaged under the O.M. dated 9.8.1999 When an employee refuses the offered promotion, difficulties in manning the higher position might arise which give rise to administrative difficulties as the concerned employee very often refuse promotion in order to continue in his/her own place of posting, the bench comprising Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy observed. 2. Not Always Obligatory To Remit Matter To Arbitration Tribunal Merely Because A Party Filed Application U/s 34(4) Arbitration Act: Supreme Court Case Title: I-Pay Clearing Services Private Limited v. ICICI Bank Limited Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 2 The Supreme Court observed that merely because an application is filed under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by a party, it is not always obligatory on the part of the Court to remit the matter to Arbitral Tribunal. "When it prima facie appears that there is a patent illegality in the award itself, by not recording a finding on a contentious issue, in such cases, Court may not accede to the request of a party for giving an opportunity to the Arbitral Tribunal to resume the arbitral proceedings.", the bench comprising Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy observed. 3. Acquittal In A Criminal Trial Has No Bearing Or Relevance On The Disciplinary Proceedings: Supreme Court Case Tite: Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Dilip Uttam Jayabhay Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 3 The Supreme Court observed that an acquittal in a criminal trial has no bearing or relevance on the disciplinary proceedings. The standard of proof in both the cases are different and the proceedings operate in different fields and with different objectives, the bench comprising Justices M R Shah and BV Nagarathna observed while setting aside an order passed by Industrial Court which directed Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation to reinstate a driver whose services were terminated by it after holding a disciplinary enquiry. "Therefore, at best even if it is assumed that even the driver of the jeep was also negligent, it can be said to be a case of contributory negligence. That does not mean that the respondent – workman was not at all negligent. Hence, it does not absolve him of the misconduct.", the court said. 4. Income Deduction For State Govt Undertakings - 'Exclusivity' Under S. 40(a)(iib) of Income Tax Act Not Based On Number Of Undertakings : Supreme Court Case Title: Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing and Marketing Corporation Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 4 The Supreme Court has rejected the argument raised by the Kerala State Beverages Corporation that it is entitled to deduct the levies made by the state government on it from income. The Beverages Corporation's claim was on the premise that the license given to by the State Government to trade in liquor was not 'exclusive'. Section 40(a)(iib) of the Income Tax Act, which refers to charges paid to the government that are not deductible from income, uses the word "exclusively". The Supreme Court held that this term "exclusively" is not to be understood on the basis of the number of undertakings involved. A bench comprising Justice Subhash Reddy and Justice Hrishikesh Roy observed that, "The aspect of exclusivity under Section 40(a)(iib) is not to be considered with a narrow interpretation, which will defeat the very intention of Legislature. The aspect of 'exclusivity' under S. 40(a)(iib) has to be viewed from the nature of undertaking on which levy is imposed and not on the number of undertakings on which the levy is imposed." 5. Section 5 Limitation Act Cannot Be Invoked To Condone Delay Beyond Period Prescribed U/Sec 34(3) Arbitration Act: Supreme Court Case Title: Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. v. Maheshbhai Tinabhai Rathod Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 5 The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered last month (16th December 2021), held that Section 5 of Limitation Act cannot be applied to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed under Section 34(3) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In this case, petition under Section 34 was filed before the High Court with a delay of 185 days beyond the time period allowed under Section 34 (3) of the...

Supreme Court Half Yearly Round-Up -[January To June]

LiveLaw News Nwtwork

Tags