Supreme Court Monthly Digest- April 2022 With Nominal And Statute/Subject Wise Index

Administrative Law - Appeal challenging adverse Remarks made in the Allahabad HC judgment regarding a Statutory authority - Allowed - Even if the High Court found that the impugned actions of the authorities concerned, particularly of the appellant, had not been strictly in conformity with law or were irregular or were illegal or even perverse, such findings, by themselves, were not leading to an inference as corollary that there had been any deliberate action or omission on the part of the Assessing Authority or the Registering Authority; or that any 'tactics' were adopted. Chandra Prakash Mishra v. Flipkart, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 359 Administrative Law - CBDT Departmental Examination - Grace mark policy - The benefit of the grace marks was not to allow the reserved category candidate to switch over to general category - Only in a case where any candidate belonging to any category is marginally failing to pass the examination, he is/was to be allowed the grace marks so as to allow him to obtain the minimum passing marks required and that too by allowing upto five grace marks - It was never meant for a person, who has passed in his own category. Union of India v. Mukesh Kumar Meena, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 420 Administrative Law - Every erroneous, illegal or even perverse order/action by a Statutory authority, by itself, cannot be termed as wanting in good faith or suffering from malafide - For imputing motives and drawing inference about want of good faith in any person, particularly a statutory authority, something more than mere error or fault ought to exist. (Para 13, 16) Chandra Prakash Mishra v. Flipkart, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 359 Administrative Law - For holding the action of the Executive to be arbitrary, there must be a factual basis. (Para 13) State of Maharashtra v. Shaikh Mahemud, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 363 Administrative Law - The requirement to give reasons is satisfied if the concerned authority has provided relevant reasons. Mechanical reasons are not considered adequate. (Para 23) Ram Chander v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 401 Administrative Tribunal Act, 1986 - Appeal against Jammu and Kashmir High Court judgment setting aside the Full bench judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal - Dismissed - We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court on the procedure which was adopted by the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Daljit Singh v. Arvind Samyal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 364 Administrative Tribunal Act, 1986; Section 26 - Once there is a difference of opinion between the Judicial Member and the Administrative Member of the Tribunal, the matter is required to be referred to the third Member/Chairman and the third Member/Chairman was required to give his own decision upon such a reference. However, the matter is not required to be referred to the Full Bench. Daljit Singh v. Arvind Samyal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 364 Amendment - Whenever the challenge is to the amended provisions, the scope of enquiry, inter alia, ought to be as to whether the same is in consonance with the Principal Act, achieve the object and purpose of the Principal Act and are otherwise just, rational and reasonable. (Para 21) Noel Harper v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 355 Anganwadi workers (AWW) and Anganwadi helpers (AWH) - It is high time that the Central Government and State Governments take serious note of the plight of AWWs and AWHs who are expected to render such important services to the society - They are being paid very meagre remuneration and paltry benefits under an insurance scheme of the Central Government. (Para 20) Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya v. District Development Officer Dahod, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 408 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Appeal against Bombay HC judgment which dismissed appeal against interim award of the Arbitral tribunal holding that JDIL was not a party to the arbitration agreement and must be deleted from the array of parties - Allowed - The interim award of the Arbitral Tribunal stands vitiated because of: (i) The failure of the arbitral tribunal to decide upon the application for discovery and inspection filed by ONGC; (ii) The failure of the arbitral tribunal to determine the legal foundation for the application of the group of companies doctrine; and (iii) The decision of the arbitral tribunal that it would decide upon the applications filed by ONGC only after the plea of jurisdiction was disposed of. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation v. Discovery Enterprises, 2022 LiveLaw SC 416 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ; Section 16, 34, 37 - An appeal lies to the Court from the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal that it lacks jurisdiction - Parliament has not specifically constricted the powers of the court while considering an appeal under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 37 by the grounds on which an award can be challenged under Section 34 - In...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest- April 2022 With Nominal And Statute/Subject Wise Index

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags