Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Nominal And Subject Wise And Statute Wise Index- April 4 to 10

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 - 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 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 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11 - Arbitration application decided and disposed of after a period of four years by Telangana High Court - Very sorry state of affairs - Registrar General of the High Court directed to submit a detailed report/statement pointing out how many Section 11 applications are pending before the High Court and from which year. Shree Vishnu Constructions v. Engineer in Chief Military Engineering Service, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 345 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11 - The arbitration applications for appointment of an Arbitrator are required to be decided and disposed of at the earliest, otherwise the object and purpose of the Arbitration Act shall be frustrated. (Para 2) Shree Vishnu Constructions v. Engineer in Chief Military Engineering Service, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 345 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - Arbitral award can be set aside by the court if the court finds the award is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the award - The award shall not be set aside merely on the ground of erroneous application of law or by misappreciation of evidence. (Para 15) Haryana Urban Development Authority, Karnal v. M/s. Mehta Construction Company, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 348 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - The court may condone delay of a period up to thirty days in filing of the objections if it is satisfied that the applicant is prevented by sufficient cause from making an application under Section 34(1) of the Act. (Para 10) Haryana Urban Development Authority, Karnal v. M/s. Mehta Construction Company, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 348 Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007; Section 15 - AFT would be justified in interfering with the finding of the court martial where its finding is legally not sustainable due to any reason whatsoever. It would be permissible to interfere with such a finding when it involves a wrong decision on a question of law - AFT would be justified in allowing an appeal against conviction by a courtmartial when there was a material irregularity in the course of the trial resulting in miscarriage of justice. (Para 27) Union of India v. Major R. Metri No. 08585N, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 343 Bail - Appeal against Allahabad HC granting bail to an accused - Allowed - Order of High Court granting bail to co-accused was earlier set aside - Reasons which have weighed with this Court in cancelling the bail which was granted to the co-accused would equally apply to the case of the first respondent which also arises out of the same first information report and incident. Rishipal @ Rishipal Singh Solanki v. Raju, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 344 Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973; Section 3 - What was transferred to and vested in the Central Government were the coal mines - The ownership of the land was immaterial. If the land fell within the definition of the expression "mine" under the Nationalisation Act, the same stood transferred to and vested in the Central Government under Section 3(1). (Para 13) Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Mahendra Pal Bhatia, 2022 LiveLaw(SC) 350 Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973; Sections 2(h) and 3(1) - Focus is on the property and not on who the owner of the property is - Even the lands and buildings used solely for the location of the management, sale or liaison offices or for the residence of officers and staff were also included in the definition of the word "mine". (Para 15) Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Mahendra Pal...

Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Nominal And Subject Wise And Statute Wise Index- April 4 to 10

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags