Supreme Court Monthly Digest November 2022 (Citation 893 - 998)

Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (for Professional Courses offered in Private UnAided Professional Institutions) Rules, 2006 (Andhra Pradesh); Rule 4 - The education is not the business to earn profit. The tuition fee shall always be affordable. Determination of fee/review of fee shall be within the parameters of the fixation rules and shall have direct nexus on the factors mentioned in Rule 4 of the Rules, 2006, namely, (a) the location of the professional institution; (b) the nature of the professional course; (c) the cost of available infrastructure; (d) the expenditure on administration and maintenance; (e) a reasonable surplus required for growth and development of the professional Institution; (f) the revenue foregone on account of waiver of fee, if any, in respect of students belonging to the reserved category and other Economically Weaker Sections of the society. All the aforesaid factors are required to be considered by the AFRC while determining/reviewing the tuition fees. (Para 5) Narayana Medical College v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 929 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) - The court at the referral stage can interfere only when it is manifest that the claims are ex facie timebarred and dead, or there is no subsisting dispute. In the context of issue of limitation period, it should be referred to the Arbitral Tribunal for decision on merits. Similar would be the position in case of disputed "no-claim certificate" or defence on the plea of novation and "accord and satisfaction". Meenakshi Solar Power Pvt. Ltd. v. Abhyudaya Green Economic Zones Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 988 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11(6) - Unless on the facet it is found that the dispute is not arbitrable and if it requires further/deeper consideration, the dispute with respect to the arbitrability should be left to the arbitrator. (Para 5.3) VGP Marine Kingdom Pvt. Ltd. v. Kay Ellen Arnold, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 914 Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996; Section 2(e), 34 - In the absence of the High Court of Orissa having original jurisdiction, the concerned District Court can be said to be `Court' - The proceedings under Section 34 against the award passed by the Arbitrator shall lie before the concerned District Court, as defined under Section 2(e). Yashpal Chopra v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 900 Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) dismissed applications challenging the denial of Permanent Commission (PC) in the Indian Navy observing that there was no gender bias or mala fides in the grant of PC - Whether the AFT could have adjudicated on the validity of the selection proceedings when relevant material was disclosed only to the AFT in a sealed cover? The failure to disclose relevant material has caused substantial prejudice to the appellants. This case exposes the danger of following a sealed cover procedure - AFT to reconsider the entire matter afresh. Cdr Amit Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 951 Army Act, 1950; Section 122 - For the purpose of Section 122, the two dates will be relevant i.e., the date when the alleged offence comes to the knowledge of the person aggrieved and the date on which the authority competent to initiate action comes to know about the alleged offence - In this case, a letter dated 13.08.2015 written by the aggrieved person to the concerned authority which showed that he was aware of the alleged offence - The date 13.08.2015 would be the crucial date on which the aggrieved person had the knowledge about the commission of the alleged offence. Therefore the time had started running from the said date for the purpose of Section 122 - The contention that the date of aggrieved person's knowledge about the commission of the alleged offence should be construed as the date when the authority prima facie concluded after the Court of Inquiry that the offence was committed, cannot be accepted - The Convening Authority having directed the trial by General Court Martial vide order dated 22.11.2018, the same was clearly beyond three years and therefore barred under Section 122 of the Act. Col. Anil Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 931 Basic Structure Doctrine - It is therefore, inaccurate to say that provisions that enable, exercise of power, would not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. The enabling provision in question's basic premise, its potential to overbear the constitutional ethos, or overcome a particular value, would be in issue. The court's inquiry therefore, cannot stop at the threshold, when an enabling provision is enacted. Its potential for violating the basic structure of the Constitution is precisely the power it confers, on the legislature, or the executive. (Para 157) Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 922 Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (Andhra Pradesh); Section ...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest November 2022 (Citation 893 - 998)

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags