Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC: Plaint Can Either Be Rejected As A Whole Or Not At All [Madhav Prasad Aggarwal vs. Axis Bank] Plaint can either be rejected as a whole or not at all, remarked the Supreme Court while reiterating that it is not permissible to reject plaint qua any particular portion of a plaint including against some of the defendant(s) and continue the same against the others. SC Declines To Apply 'Group Of Companies' Doctrine To Implead Foreign Company In Arbitration With Its Indian Affiliate [Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited V. Reynders Label Printing India Private Limited and Anr.] The Supreme Court refused to invoke the 'group of companies' doctrine to implead a foreign company in an application for appointment of arbitrator for a dispute arising out an agreement with its Indian affiliate. No Prohibition Against Adoption In Christian Law Even If Couple Have Natural Born Child [Pharez John Abraham (Dead) vs. Arul JothiSivasubramaniam K] The Supreme Court held that there is no prohibition against adoption in the Christian law.Unlike in the Hindu Law, there is no law prohibiting the Christian couple to adopt male or female child, although they may have natural born male or female child, the bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice MR Shah observed. PFI Leader's Plea Seeking Discharge In RSS Worker Murder Case Dismissed [AsimShariff V. National Investigation Agency] The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by a Popular Front of India leader accused in the murder of a RSS worker Rudresh in Karnataka. The bench comprising Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice Ajay Rastogi reiterated that while examining the discharge application filed under Section 227 CrPC, it is expected from the trial Judge to exercise its judicial mind to determine as to whether a case for trial has been made out or not. Consuming Liquor In A Private Vehicle In A Place Accessible To Public Is Punishable Under Bihar Excise Act [Satvinder Singh @ Satvinder Singh Saluja& Ors. V. The State Of Bihar] The Supreme Court held that a private vehicle is not exempted from the definition of 'public place' under the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act 2016. The ruling was given by a bench of Justices Ashok Bhuhsan and K M Joseph in the case Satvinder Singh v State of Bihar while dismissing an appeal filed against the refusal of the Patna High Court to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the charge-sheet filed against the appellants. Judicial Review: Only Palpably Arbitrary Decisions Of Executive In Economic Matters Can Be Interfered With [Vasavi Engineering College Parents Association V. State Of Telangana And Others] The Supreme Court, observed that while adjudging the validity of an executive decision in economic matters by exercising power of judicial review, it is not errors, but only palpably arbitrary decisions alone can be interfered with by the High Courts. Principle Of 'Pay And Recover' Can Be Ordered If Driver Of Offending Vehicle Does Not Possess A Valid Driving License [Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.] The Supreme Court reiterated that, if the driver of the offending vehicle does not possess a valid driving license, the principle of 'pay and recover' can be ordered to direct the insurance company to the pay the victim, and then recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. Courts Can Imply A Term In Contract Only If Literal Interpretation Fails To Give The Result Intended By Parties [M/S Adani Power (Mundra) Ltd. V. Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission And Ors.] The Court should give effect to "plain, literal and grammatical" meaning of the clauses used in a contract, reiterated the Supreme Court while upholding Adani Power's termination of the Power Purchase Agreement with Gujarat UrjaVikas Ltd(GUVL).The bench of Justices Arun Mishra, B R Gavai and Surya Kant held that the Court can read a term into the agreement on the basis of 'business efficacy doctrine' only if it is not possible otherwise to give effect to the intention of the parties. Land Owners Not Entitled To An Alternative Site Or Flat In All Cases Of Acquisition [State of Tamil Nadu vs. Dr. VasanthiVeerasekaran] The Supreme Court observed that there is no rule that in all cases of acquisition of the land that the owner must be given an alternative site or flat. The contention of the state in appeal [State of Tamil Nadu vs. Dr. VasanthiVeerasekaran] was that the High Court order is in the nature of granting an extra-legal concession by way of allotment of an alternative site in lieu of acquired lands sans any such legal obligation on the State under the 1894 Act or any policy in force pertaining to the project of MRTS (Railways) to be implemented by the Ministry of Railway, Government of India. ...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Ashok Kini

Tags