THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. DICITEX FURNISHING LTD.

SC-Dismissing the appeal against the order of the Bombay HC,the Hon’ble SC opined that an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is in the form of a pleading which merely seeks an order of the court, for appointment of an arbitrator. It cannot be conclusive of the pleas or contentions that the claimant or the concerned party can take, in the arbitral proceedings. The court which is required to ensure that an arbitrable dispute exists, has to be prima facie convinced about the genuineness or credibility of the plea of coercion; it cannot be too particular about the nature of the plea, which necessarily has to be made and established in the substantive (arbitration) proceeding.-Hon'ble Justices Arun Mishra and S. Ravindra Bhat[13-11-2019]

Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-vs-dicitex-furnishing-ltd

#saketagarwal

MANOHARAN V. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARIETY HALL POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE

SC-Dismissing the review petition and upholding the conviction and death penalty, the Hon’ble SC observed that the two accused misused societal trust to hold as captive two innocent school-going children, one of whom was brutally raped and sodomised, and thereupon administered poison and finally, drowned by throwing them into a canal and this was indeed craftily planned and executed. The present offences are so grave as to shock the conscience of this Court and of society and would without doubt amount to rarest of the rare. It is no longer res integra that there can be no hard rule of not awarding death in cases based on circumstantial evidence owing to recent developments in medical science and the possibility of abuse by seasoned criminals.-Hon'ble Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman,Surya Kant and Sanjiv Khanna[07-11-2019]

Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/manoharan-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police,-variety-hall-police-station,-coimbatore

EBHA ARJUN JADEJA V. THE STATE OF GUJARAT

EBHA ARJUN JADEJA V. THE STATE OF GUJARAT

SC-Setting aside the order of the TADA Court,the Hon’ble SC held that non-compliance of Section 20-A(1) of  Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 is fatal and so the appellants have been discharged in so far as the offence under TADA Act is concerned. Where the information basically discloses an offence under TADA Act and the other offence is more in the nature of an ancillary offence then the information cannot be recorded without complying with the provisions of Section 20-A(1) of TADA Act. The language of Section 20-A is mandatory in nature and forbids the recording of information about the commission of offence under TADA Act by the police without prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police. -Hon'ble Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose[16-10-2019]

Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/ebha-arjun-jadeja-vs-the-state-of-gujarat

#saketagarwal

UNION OF INDIA V. GAUTAM KHAITAN

UNION OF INDIA V. GAUTAM KHAITAN

SC-Directing the Delhi HC to decide the writ petition on its own merits, the Hon’ble SC observed that the penal provisions under Sections 50 and 51 of the Black Money Act would come into play only when an assessee has failed to take benefit of Sec. 59 and neither disclosed assets covered by the Black Money Act nor paid the tax and penalty thereon. The HC was not right in holding that, by the notification/order impugned before it, the penal provisions were made retrospectively applicable. Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 1 of the Act, itself provides that save as otherwise provided in this Act, it shall come into force on 1st day of July, 2015.The assessment year in consideration was 2019-2020 and the previous year relevant to the assessment year was the year ending on 31.03.2019.-Hon'ble Justices Arun Mishra,M.R. Shah and B.R.Gavai[15-10-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/union-of-india-vs-gautam-khaitan

#saketagarwal

R.SRINIVAS KUMAR V. R.SHAMETHA

R.SRINIVAS KUMAR V. R.SHAMETHA

SC-Allowing the application for divorce filed by the appellant-husband,the Hon’ble SC observed that the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife have been living separately for more than 22 years and it was not possible for the parties to live together.While protecting the interest of the respondent-wife to compensate her by way of lump sum permanent alimony, this is a fit case to exercise the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and to dissolve the marriage between the parties. It reiterated that inherent powers under Article 142 has been exercised for dissolution of a marriage where the Court finds that the marriage is totally unworkable, emotionally dead, beyond salvage and has broken down irretrievably, even if the facts of the case do not provide a ground in law on which the divorce could be granted. -Hon'ble Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.R. Shah[04-10-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/rsrinivas-kumar-vs-rshametha

#saketagarwal

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD. V. K.S. INFRASPACE LLP

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD. V. K.S. INFRASPACE LLP

SC-Dismissing the appeal against the Gujarat HC,the Hon’ble SC observed that that in order to fall within Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act,2015 the immovable property must be “used exclusively” or “being used exclusively” in trade or commerce. There has been nothing on record to show that at the time when agreement to sell came to be executed in 2012, the property was being exclusively used in trade and commerce so as to bring the dispute within the ambit of sub-clause (vii) of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act. Merely because, the property is likely to be used in relation to trade and commerce, the same cannot be the ground to attract the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court.-Hon'ble Justices A.S.Bopanna and R.Banumthi [04-10-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)- https://www.legitquest.com/ambalal-sarabhai-enterprises-ltd-vs-ks-infraspace-llp

#saketagarwal

DUNCANS INDUSTRIES LTD. V. A.J. AGROCHEM

DUNCANS INDUSTRIES LTD. V. A.J. AGROCHEM

SC-Confirming the order of the NCLAT which held that the insolvency petition under Sec. 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 initiated by the respondent-operation creditor shall be maintainable, the Hon’ble SC observed that the entire “corporate insolvency resolution process” as such cannot be equated with “winding up proceedings”. The provisions of the IBC would have an over-riding effect over the Tea Act, 1953 and that no prior consent of the Central Government before initiation of the proceedings under Sec. 7 or Sec. 9 of the IBC would be required and even without such consent of the Central Government, the insolvency proceedings under Sec. 7 or Sec. 9 of the IBC initiated by the operational creditor shall be maintainable.-Hon'ble Justices Arun Mishra,M.R. Shah and B.R. Gavai[04-10-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/duncans-industries-ltd-vs-aj-agrochem

#saketagarwal

KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M AND M) CORP LTD. V. P P SURESH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M AND M) CORP LTD. V. P P SURESH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

SC- The Hon’ble SC while allowing the appeal against the Kerala HC judgment, held that the decision taken by the Govt. in overriding public interest was a measure to strike a balance between the competing interest of the displaced Abkari workers and unemployed youth in the State of Kerala. The impairment of the fundamental rights of the Respondents due to the change in policy was not excessive and it cannot be said that the change in policy regarding re-employment of displaced abkari workers is disproportionate. If an announcement is made by the Govt. of a policy conferring benefit on a large number of people, but subsequently, due to overriding public interest, the benefits announced earlier are withdrawn, it is not expedient to provide individual opportunities to such innominate number of persons.-Hon'ble Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta [04-10-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/kerala-state-beverages-(m-and-m)-corp-ltd-vs-p-p-suresh-and-ors-etc-etc

#saketagarwal

PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOW GLADA) V. VIDYA CHETAL

SC-The Hon’ble SC overruled the case of HUDA vs. Sunita, (2005) 2 SCC 479,with the finding that it was rendered without considering any of the previous judgments of this Court and the objects of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.It opined that the determination of the dispute concerning the validity of the imposition of a statutory due arising out of a “deficiency in service”, can be undertaken by the consumer fora as per the provisions of the Act. Not all statutory dues/exactions are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum, rather only those exactions which are exacted for a service rendered, would be amenable to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.-Hon'ble Justices N.V.Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Ajay Rastogi[16-09-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/punjab-urban-planning-and-development-authority-(now-glada)-vs-vidya-chetal

#saketagarwal

JANARDAN DAGDU KHOMANE V. EKNATH BHIKU YADAV .

*SC*-Affirming the decision of the *Bombay HC*, the Hon’ble SC opined that the Trust, being a *public trust*,was rightly registered on 8.8.1984 and so *cannot be questioned*. The respondents became *deemed purchasers* and the right under *Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948* accrued to them on Tillers’ Day, that is, 1.4.1957. The respondents *cannot be divested of such right upon subsequent registration of the Trust*.A Trust for a religious purpose has the *right to own and acquire property, however, such property may be taken away by authority of law*.-Hon'ble Justices  R.Banumathi and Indira Banerjee[18-09-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)- https://www.legitquest.com/janardan-dagdu-khomane-vs-eknath-bhiku-yadav

#saketagarwal #plclaws