Supreme Court Weekly Round Up, August 2 To August 8, 2021

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Emergency Arbitration Award Enforceable In Indian Law : Supreme Court Rules In Favour Of Amazon In Case Against Future RetailCase: Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC vs. Future Retail Limited ; CA 4492-4493 OF 2021Citation: LL 2021 SC 357The Supreme Court this week ruled in favour of e-commerce giant Amazon in its dispute with Future Retail Limited(FRL) over the latter's merger deal with Reliance group. The top court held that that Emergency Award passed by Singapore arbitrator stalling FRL-Reliance deal is enforceable in Indian law. The Court held that an award/order by an Emergency Arbitrator would be covered by Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and it can be enforced under the provisions of Section 17(2). It also held that no appeal lies under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act against an order of enforcement of an Emergency Arbitrator's order made under Section 17(2) of the Act.A bench comprising Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai had reserved judgment on July 29 after extensively hearing the arguments led by Senior Advocates Gopal Subramanium for Amazon and Harish Salve for FRL(Case Title : Amazon.Com NV Investment Holdings vs Future Retail Ltd and others) .Also Read: 'Party Autonomy One Of The Pillars Of Arbitration' : Key Takeaways From Amazon- Future Retail Judgment Of Supreme Court2. Article 136: Pure Question Of Law Can Be Raised For The First Time In SLP: Supreme CourtCase: Saurav Jain Vs. A. B. P. Design ; CA 4448 of 2021Citation: LL 2021 SC 354The Supreme Court observed that it can entertain new grounds raised for the first time in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution if it involves a question of law which does not require adducing additional evidence. The principle in Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure furthers the cause of justice by providing the party other than the 'aggrieved party' to raise any adverse findings against them and this Court can draw colour from it and permit objections to findings, the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed.3. Not Much Scope For Considering 'Territorial Jurisdiction' Issue In A Transfer Petition U/s 25 CPC: Supreme CourtCase: Naivedya Associates vs. Kriti Nutrients Ltd. ; Transfer Petition (Civil) 953/2021Citation: LL 2021 SC 356The Supreme Court observed that there is not much scope of going into the question of 'territorial jurisdiction' of a court in a Transfer Petition under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure.This point is required to be urged before the Court in which the suit is pending, Justice Aniruddha Bose observed while dismissing a transfer petition.In this case, the petitioner is a defendant in a suit instituted in the Court of District Judge, Shahdara, Karkardooma Court, New Delhi alleging infringement of trade mark and copyright. In the transfer petition filed before the Apex Court, his only contention was that both the parties hail from the State of Madhya Pradesh and no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the District Court of Shahdara.4. Order XLI Rule 22 CPC- Cross Objection Not Necessary To Challenge Adverse Findings: Supreme CourtCase: Saurav Jain Vs. A. B. P. Design ; CA 4448 of 2021Citation: LL 2021 SC 354The Supreme Court observed that a party in whose favour a court has decreed the suit can challenge an adverse finding before the appellate court without a cross objection.It is not necessary that a challenge to the adverse findings of the lower court needs to be made in the form of a memorandum of cross-objection, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed.The Court also observed that it can entertain new grounds raised for the first time in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution if it involves a question of law which does not require adducing additional evidence.5. Magistrate Not Required To Record Statement Of Public Servant Who Filed Complaint Before Summoning Accused: Supreme CourtCase: Cheminova India Limited vs. State of Punjab ; CrA 750 OF 2021 Citation: LL 2021 SC 355The Supreme Court observed that a Magistrate is not required to record statement of a public servant who filed the complaint in discharge of his official duty before issuing summons to the accused resides outside the territorial jurisdiction.In this case, the Inspecting Officer filed complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, against a company, its managing director and others alleging offence of 'misbranding' under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 33, 29 of the Insecticides Act. One of the contentions raised by the appellant-accused was that the the Magistrate has taken cognizance without conducting inquiry and ordering investigation and thus not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.6. If Last Seen Theory Is Established, Accused Should Explain Circumstances In Which He Departed Company Of Deceased: Supreme CourtCase: Surajdeo Mahto vs. State of Bihar ; CrA 1677 of 2011Citation: LL...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up, August 2 To August 8, 2021

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags