SC-The appeal against the Allahabad HC order has been allowed with the observation that the HC committed jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order because while passing it the HC did not assign any reason as to on what grounds, even though of a prima facie nature, it considered just and proper to grant bail to the respondents. It must appear from a perusal of the order that the Court has applied its mind to the relevant facts in the light of the material filed by the prosecution at the time of consideration of bail application.-Hon'ble Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and Indu Malhotra[29-07-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/mauji-ram-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-anr
Agarwal and Company - Advocates agarwalandco@gmail.com; info@saketadvocate.com; 011-79619811; 9810176867
Wednesday, July 31, 2019
Mauji Ram V. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Tuesday, July 30, 2019
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. V. ATINDRA NATH BHATTACHARYYA & ANR.
SC-The opportunity of hearing granted to the respondent, which was the subject matter of appeal, has been set aside and the appeal has been allowed with the observation that once the respondent has failed to avail of opportunity of hearing granted, the Bank cannot be directed to give another opportunity for the sake of justice. The respondent avoided availing the said opportunity when offered. Once opportunity has been granted to the respondent, he is not entitled to another on the ground of compassion. The delaying tactics cannot be rewarded in such a manner.-Hon'ble Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta [25-07-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/state-bank-of-india-and-ors-vs-atindra-nath-bhattacharyya-and-anr
Monday, July 29, 2019
BRAHMANI RIVER PELLETS LIMITED V. KAMACHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED
While setting aside the Madras HC order,the Hon’ble SC observed that when the parties have agreed to have the “venue” of arbitration at Bhubaneswar, the Madras HC erred in assuming the jurisdiction under Sec.11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.Where the contract specifies the jurisdiction of the court at a particular place, only such court will have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter and parties intended to exclude all other courts.Non-use of words like “exclusive jurisdiction”, “only”, “exclusive”, “alone” is not decisive and does not make any material difference.- Hon'ble Justices R.Banumathi and A.S.Bopanna [25-07-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/brahmani-river-pellets-limited-vs-kamachi-industries-limited
Saturday, July 27, 2019
Sri A.M.C.S. Swamy, ADE/DPE/Hyd (Central) V. Mehdi Agah Karbalai & Anr.
SC-Setting aside the Hyderabad HC order, the Hon’ble SC observed that when there is express provision in the Special Act empowering the Special Court to take cognizance of an offence without the accused being committed, it cannot be said that taking cognizance of offence by Special Court is in violation of Sec. 193 of the CrPC,1973. The Govt. had already issued notification notifying the 1st Additional District Judge’s Court as a Special Court and under Sec. 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Special Court is empowered to take cognizance without there being an order of committal as contemplated under Sec. 193 of the CrPC.-Hon'ble Justices R. Banumathi and R. Subhash Reddy [23-07-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/sri-amcs-swamy,-adedpehyd-(central)-vs-mehdi-agah-karbalai-and-anr
Vinod Bhaiyalal Jain & Ors. V. Wadhwani Parmeshwari Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.Through its Director & Anr.
SC-The Hon’ble SC observed that the award passed by the Arbitrator was not sustainable and the learned District Judge was justified in entertaining the petition under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the award. There was a reasonable basis for the appellants to make a claim that the Arbitrator would not be fair to them even if not biased and propriety demanded that the Arbitrator should have recused in the present facts; but failed to do so.-Hon'ble Justices R. Banumathi and A.S.Bopanna [24-07-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/vinod-bhaiyalal-jain-and-ors-vs-wadhwani-parmeshwari-cold-storage-pvt-ltdthrough-its-director-and-anr