Supreme Court Monthly Digest: June 2020

1. Electricity Dues, Where They Are Statutory In Character Under Electricity Act, Cannot Partake The Character Of Dues Of Purely Contractual Nature: SC Oder dated June 1, 2020 The Supreme Court clarified that electricity dues, where they are statutory in character under the Electricity Act and as per the terms & conditions of supply, cannot be waived in view of the provisions of the Act itself, more specifically u/s 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in pari materia with Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910), and cannot partake the character of dues of purely contractual nature. The bench comprised of Justice SK Kaul and Justice KM Joseph observed that where, as in cases of the E-auction notice in question, the existence of electricity dues, whether quantified or not, has been specifically mentioned as a liability of the purchaser and the sale is on "as is where is, whatever there is and without recourse basis", there can be no doubt that the liability to pay electricity dues exists on the Respondent-auctioneer. [Case: Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Co. Ltd v. M/S Srigdhaa Beverages] 2. Supreme Court Paved A Way For The Execution Of A Foreign Award Emanating From A Two-Tier Arbitration Mechanism Order dated June 2, 2020 The Supreme Court paved the way for the execution of a Foreign Arbitral Award in India arisen out of a two-tier arbitration mechanism by permitting the same between Centrotrade Minerals and Metals Inc. and Hindustan Copper Limited. Their arbitration clause provides— (i) dispute between the parties is to be settled by a Sole Arbitrator under the aegis of the Indian Council of Arbitration; (ii) parties would have a right to appeal to a Second Arbitration in London under the aegis of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). A bench comprising of Justice RF Nariman, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice V. Ramasubramaniam held that two-tier arbitration agreement is valid and legally permissible under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and the parties may opt for such a mechanism for resolving their disputes. [Case: M/S. Centrotrade Minerals & Metals Inc. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd.] 3. Unsafe To Convict An Accused Solely On The Basis Of Uncorroborated Testimony Of Accomplice: SC Order dated June 3, 2020 The Supreme Court has held that it would be unsafe to convict an accused solely based on uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. The bench comprising of Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman, KM Joseph & V. Ramasubramanian said that an accomplice, to be believed, he must be corroborated in material particulars of his testimony. The Court upheld the convictions for the abduction and murder of Tamil Nadu politician and Ex MLA, MK Balan in 2001. [Case: Somasundaram @ Somu v. The State Rep. By The Deputy Commissioner of Police] Also Read: When Abduction Is Followed By Murder, Court Can Presume That Abductor Is The Murderer : SC 4. Plea To Change 'India' As 'Bharat': SC Refuses Interference; Asks Centre To Treat Writ Petition As Representation Order dated June 3, 2020 The Supreme Court disposed of a PIL to change the name of the country as "Bharat" from "India" and asked the Central Government to treat the writ petition as a representation and to take a decision on the same. A bench comprising Chief Justice SA Bobde, AS Bopanna & Hrishikesh Roy observed that the Court cannot pass any directions to amend the Constitution for such name change. [Case: Namah v. Union of India] 5. [Article 113 Limitation Act] Limitation Period Begins To Run When The Right To Sue Accrues And Not When It 'First' Accrues Order dated June 5, 2020 The Supreme Court held that in cases governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation begins to run "when the right to sue accrues" and not when the right to sue "first" accrues. A bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Indira Banerjee and Dinesh Maheshwari said that the fact that the plaintiff had eventually sent a legal notice on 28.11.2003 and again on 7.1.2005 and then filed the suit on 23.2.2005 gave rise to a cause of action. The bench referred to two earlier decisions: Union of India & Ors. vs. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. & Anr (2004) 2 SCC 747 and Khatri Hotels Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Union of India (2011) 9 SCC 126. [Case: Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. v. The Central Bank of India & Anr.] 6. Rent Control Act: HC Cannot Interfere With Finding Of Fact In Revisional Jurisdiction Unless There Is Perversity Or Misappreciation of Evidence: SC Order dated June 8, 2020 The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction conferred by Section 20 of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, cannot interfere with the finding of fact by Appellate Authority, unless there is perversity or mis-appreciation of evidence by it. In the instant case, the bench comprising Justices...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest: June 2020

Akshita Saxena

Tags