Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

State Cannot Alienate Water Bodies For Industrial Activities Under The Guise Of Providing Alternatives [Jitendra Singh V. Ministry of Environment] The Supreme Court held that it is not permissible for the State to alienate common water bodies for industrial activities, under the guise of providing alternatives. The bench of Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Surya Kant was considering an appeal filed by Jitendra Singh against an order of National Green Tribunal which had dismissed summarily his petition raising grievance against allotment of local ponds to private industrialists, on the basis of an affidavit filed by Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority claiming that it was developing bigger alternative water-bodies. Disputes About Properties Which Are Not Subject Matter Of Litigation Can Be Settled In Mediation [Kaushaliya vs. Jodha Ram] The Supreme Court observed that Settlement Agreement which has become part of a Court's order is executable irrespective of the fact whether the Agreement is with respect to the properties which was/were the subject matter of the proceedings before the Court or not. The bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice MR Shah observed that, in the Mediation proceedings, it is always open for the parties to explore the possibility of an overall amicable settlement including the disputes which are not the subject matter of the proceedings before the Court. Maradu Flats : SC Directs Builders To Deposit Rs 61.50 Crores With Kerala Govt To Compensate Owners [The Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority V. Maradu Municipality] The Supreme Court directed the four builders of apartments in Maradu, Kochi - which have been ordered to be demolished for CRZ violations - to deposit a sum of Rs 61.50 crores with the Government of Kerala for disbursement of compensation to the owners of flats. A bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra and Indira Banerjee passed this order on November 22 based on an affidavit of Chief Secretary of Kerala Government, which stated that a direction to the builders to deposit a sum of Rs 61.50 crores was necessary for grant of compensation to flat owners. Assignment Of Interest Is Not Valid Merely Because It Was Not Expressly Prohibited In Contract [Kapilaben vs. Ashok Kumar Jayantilal Sheth] The Supreme Court observed that assignment of contractual interest cannot be held to be valid merely because there is no express bar against assignability stipulated in the contract. The bench comprising Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Aniruddha Bose observed that to examine whether an interest is assignable, it has to be seen whether the terms of the contract, and the circumstances in which the contract was entered into, lead to an inference that the parties did not intend to make their interest therein assignable Person Interested In Outcome Of Decision Of The Dispute Must Not Have Power To Appoint Sole Arbitrator [Perkins Eastman Architects DPC vs. HSCC (India) Ltd.] A person who has an interest in the outcome or decision of the dispute must not have the power to appoint a sole arbitrator, the Supreme Court has reiterated in a judgment. The bench of Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra noted that in TRF Limited vs.Energo Engineering Projects Limited, the Court had examined a Clause which nominated the Managing Director himself to be the sole arbitrator and also empowered said Managing Director to nominate another person to act. No Party Should Suffer Due To The Act Of Court [Odisha Forest Development Corporation Ltd. V. M/s Anupam Traders] The Supreme Court recently reiterated the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, namely, no party should suffer due to the act of Court. The bench comprising of Justice R. Banumathi, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hrishikesh Roy was considering an appeal filed by Odisha Forest Development Corporation Ltd. Order Convening General Court Martial Can Be Challenged Before AFT [Union of India vs. PS Gill] The Supreme Court held that an order convening a General Court Martial can be challenged before an Armed Forces Tribunal. Assailing an order of the Tribunal, the Union of India had approached the Apex Court contending that an order by which the General Court Martial was convened cannot be the subject matter of an appeal before the Tribunal. It was urged that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is only for adjudication of complaints and disputes regarding service matters and appeals arising out of the verdicts of the Court Martial. No Automatic Conviction U/s 306 IPC For Abetment Of Suicide Merely Because Accused Was Found Guilty U/s 498A IPC [Gurjit Singh vs. State of Punjab] The Supreme Court observed that, merely because an accused is found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and the death of the wife...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags