Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise Index (Citation 815 - 828) [October 1 –9, 2022]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Interest - Party not entitled to interest for the period during which the proceedings were deliberately delayed-A party cannot be permitted to derive benefits from its own lapses. [Para 12 to 14] Executive Engineer (R and B) v. Gokul Chandra Kanungo, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 824 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11 - Court can undertake preliminary inquiry to ascertain if the dispute is arbitrable or falls under the excepted category in the agreement. (Para 7) Emaar India Ltd. v. Tarun Aggarwal Projects LLP, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 823 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 31(7)(a) - the section itself requires interest to be at such rate as the arbitral tribunal deems reasonable. When a discretion is vested to an arbitral tribunal to award interest at a rate which it deems reasonable, then a duty would be cast upon the arbitral tribunal to give reasons as to how it deems the rate of interest to be reasonable - When the arbitral tribunal is empowered with such a discretion, the arbitral tribunal would be required to apply its mind to the facts of the case and decide as to whether the interest is payable on whole or any part of the money and also as to whether it is to be awarded to the whole or any part of the period between the date on which the cause of action arose and the date on which the award is made. Executive Engineer (R and B) v. Gokul Chandra Kanungo, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 824 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 309 - Examination-in-chief followed with cross-examination is to be recorded either on the same day or on the day following. In other words, there should not be any ground for adjournment in recording the examination-in-chief/cross-examination of the prosecution witness, as the case may be. Mukesh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 826 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Petitions seeking relief of pre arrest bail are not money recovery proceedings - Supreme Court sets aside condition imposed by the Jharkhand High Court of depositing 7.5 Lakhs as "victim compensation" while granting pre-arrest bail. Udho Thakur v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 815 Compassionate Appointment - After a period of 24 years from the death of the deceased employee, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. If such an appointment is made now and/or after a period of 14/24 years, the same shall be against the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided - The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased. [Para 9.1, 9.2] Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. v. Anusree K.B., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 819 Compassionate Appointment - Married daughter can't be held to be dependent of mother for the purpose of compassionate appointment- The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased. (Para 7, 7.1) State of Maharashtra v. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 820 Constitution of India, 1950; Article 142 - Powers under Article 142 can be exercised to reduce the amount of interest awarded. [Para 18] Executive Engineer (R and B) v. Gokul Chandra Kanungo, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 824 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - Supreme Court holds that there is no ground to review the the judgment in Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Limited, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587 which held that the National Company Law Tribunal has discretion to not admit the insolvency application filed by a financial creditor even if the corporate debtor is in default. Axis Bank Ltd v. Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 817 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016; Section 7(5) - No ground to review judgment in Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Limited which held that adjudicating authority has discretion under Section 7(5) - Apprehension that the judgment will undermine the objectives of IBC is misconceived - Observations were made in the context of the case at hand. Axis Bank Ltd v. Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 817 Judgments - It is well settled that judgments and observations in judgments are not to be read as provisions of statute. Judicial utterances and/or pronouncements are in the setting of the facts of a particular case - To interpret words and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for the Judges to embark upon lengthy discussions. The words of Judges interpreting statutes are not to be interpreted as statutes. Axis Bank Ltd v. Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 817 Labour Law - Industrial Disputes Act 1947 - Once the order of ...

Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise Index (Citation 815 - 828) [October 1 –9, 2022]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise Index (Citation 815 - 828) [October 1 –9, 2022]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers