Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: October 3 To October 9, 2022

JUDGMENTS Terms Of Invitation To Tender Are Not Open To Judicial Scrutiny Unless They Are Arbitrary, Discriminatory Or Mala Fide : Supreme Court Observing that the terms of invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny, the Supreme Court set aside a Delhi High Court's order which had quashed the Airport Authority of India's tender conditions for selecting Ground Handling Agencies(GHA) agencies at Group D Airports. A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari observed that the Delhi High Court committed a "serious error" by entertaining a writ petition at the instance of a third party- an advocacy group called Centre For Aviation Policy -when none of the GHAs challenged the tender conditions. Hence, the writ petition should have been dismissed on the ground of locus standi(Airports Authority of India versus Centre for Aviation Policy).Motor Accident Claim - Dependents Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Income Even If They Inherited Businesses & Properties Of Deceased: Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court bench of Justices Surya Kant and V Ramasubramanian has held that motor accident compensation need not be reduced for the sole reason that that the business ventures and properties of the deceased were bequeathed to the claimants.Order Of Termination Approved By Industrial Tribunal Is Binding On Parties, Labour Court Can't Take Contrary View: Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court of India recently observed that an order of termination approved by an Industrial Tribunal is binding on the parties and a Labour Court cannot take a contrary view against it. Highlighting this, a Bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari observed, "Once the order of termination was approved by the Industrial Tribunal on appreciation of evidence led before it, thereafter the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal were binding between the parties. No contrary view could have been taken by the Labour Court contrary to the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal."Compassionate Employment Can't Be Claimed Several Years After Employee's Death As Its Object Is To Help Family To Meet Sudden Crisis : Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court on India last week discussed the how compassionate appointment in public services is an exception to the general rule of appointments and how it flows out of pure humanitarian consideration. A Bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari observed that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis, i.e., after the death of the sole bread-winner.Married Daughter Can't Be Said To Be Dependant On Mother For Compassionate Appointment: Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court recently held that the married daughter cannot be said to be dependent on her deceased mother and therefore, is not eligible for compassionate appointment. A Bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari observed,"The respondent cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased employee, i.e., her mother."Even otherwise, the Court said that the respondent won't be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground that a number of years had passed from the death of the deceased employee.Allegations Of Fraud Must Be Specifically Averred In Plaint, Otherwise Plaintiffs Will Try To Get Suit Within Limitation By Clever Drafting: Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court of India, last week, observed that mere stating in the plaint that a fraud has been played is not enough and that such allegations must be specifically averred in the plaint. If this isn't done, parties would try to get the suit within the limitation period, the court added. "Even the averments and allegations in the plaint with respect to fraud are not supported by any further averments and allegations how the fraud has been committed/played. Mere stating in the plaint that a fraud has been played is not enough and the allegations of fraud must be specifically averred in the plaint, otherwise merely by using the word "fraud", the plaintiffs would try to get the suits within the limitation, which otherwise may be barred by limitation", a Bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari explained.Arbitration - Court Can Undertake Preliminary Inquiry Under Section 11 To Ascertain If Dispute Is Arbitrable: Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court has held that the High Courts while appointing the arbitrator can launch a preliminary inquiry to decide the issue of 'Excepted Matters' when an objection to that effect is taken by the respondent. The bench of Justices M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari held that if any dispute falls within the 'excepted' category provided in the contract between the parties, then it falls outside the scope of arbitration, therefore, no arbitration can happen apropos those matters.Land Acquisition Compensation - When Two Views Are Possible, Prefer The View Which Advances Cause Of Justice Over Technical View: Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court of India bench of...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: October 3 To October 9, 2022

Deepankar Malviya

Tags