Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Limited
[Hon’ble Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Indu Malhotra; 26-11-2019]

Person having an interest in the outcome not to have power to appoint a sole arbitrator

SC – Appointing Dr. Justice A.K. Sikri as the sole arbitrator to decide all the disputes arising out of the Agreement in question, the Hon’ble SC held that a person having an interest in the dispute or in the outcome or decision must not only be ineligible to act as an arbitrator but must also not be eligible to appoint anyone else as an arbitrator and that such person cannot and should not have any role in charting out any course to the dispute resolution by having the power to appoint an arbitrator. The essence of the amendments brought in by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 lies in the fact that a person who has an interest in the outcome of the dispute must not have the power to appoint a sole arbitrator.
 

Shri Anil S/O Gajraj Mohabey v. The State Of Maharashtra Thru Secretary, Law and Justice Dept And-Anr
[Hon’ble Justices S. S.Shinde and N.B. Suryawanshi ; 25-11-2019]

Compulsory retirement from judicial service at the age of 55 by giving notice or 3 months pay legally sustainable

Bombay HC – The Bombay HC while dismissing the Writ Petition opined that the Review Committee after considering the service record of the Petitioner took a conscious decision that he lost his utility to continue in the judicial service and hence decided to retire him prematurely in public interest. The authorities have the absolute power to retire any member in the judicial service when he attains the age of either 50 or 55 or 58 years by giving him notice of not less than 3 months in writing or 3 months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice, if the authority is of the opinion that the compulsory retirement of a judicial officer is in public interest.
 

Nitin Bhimabhai Patel (detenu) through his wife Anvi Nitin Patel v. Union Territory Of Daman and Diu and Anr
[Hon’ble Justices S. S.Shinde and Nitin B. Suryawanshi ; 26-11-2019]

Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act – For passing detention order registration of criminal proceedings not sufficient to hold that public order is adversely affected

Bombay HC – Setting aside the detention order and directing the Petitioner to be released, the Bombay HC observed that mere registration of criminal cases is not sufficient for the detaining authority to pass detention order against a detenu by holding that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Section 3(4) of the Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act clearly mentions that the detaining authority must get itself satisfied that the material placed before it is sufficient to demonstrate that public order is adversely affected because of detenu’s activities. Non-consideration of petitioner’s previous acquittal and a bail order would amount to non-application of mind which would vitiate the impugned orders.
 

Mahipal v.Rajesh Kumar@ polia
[Hon’ble Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hrishikesh Roy; 05-12-2019]

Presumption of non-application of mind if the order refusing or granting bail does not furnish the reasons that inform the decision

SC – While allowing the appeal against the order of Rajasthan HC, Jaipur Bench, the Hon’ble SC has opined that where an earlier application for bail has been rejected, there is a higher burden on the Appellate court to furnish specific reasons as to why bail should be granted. Where an order refusing or granting bail does not furnish the reasons that inform the decision, there is a presumption of the non-application of mind which may require the intervention of this Court. The Court is required to examine whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence and on a balance of the considerations involved, the continued custody of the accused sub-serves the purpose of the criminal justice system.

 

The Maharashtra State Co Operative Bank Ltd. Through its Deputy Manager Akshay Nagarnaik v. Babulal Lade
[Hon’ble Justices Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Krishna Murari; 04-12-2019]

SARFAESI Act – Expressly created statutory first charges under Central and State laws can take precedence over the claims of secured creditors

SC – The Hon’ble SC while directing the Appellant-Bank to pay the employees’ dues out of the sale proceeds from the auctioned property, has observed that the recovery certificate issued under Sec. 50 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act only makes employees’ dues recoverable as arrears of land revenue. So, such employees’ dues would fall under the category of claims captured by Section 169(2) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, and can only take priority over unsecured claims. Expressly created statutory first charges under Central and State laws can take precedence over the claims of secured creditors under the SARFAESI Act.

 

The state of Telangana v. Managipet @ Mangipet Sarveshwar Reddy
[Hon’ble Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta; 06-12-2019]

Preliminary inquiry not required to be mandatorily conducted in all corruption cases

SC – In a case pertaining to the disproportionate assets of the accused officer, the Hon’ble SC held that relevant information was available with the informant in respect of prima facie allegations disclosing a cognizable offence and so, once the officer recording the FIR is satisfied with such disclosure, he can proceed against the accused even without conducting any inquiry. It cannot be said that the FIR is liable to be quashed for the reason that the preliminary inquiry was not conducted. The same can only be done if upon a reading of the entirety of an FIR, no offence is disclosed. Any formal and informal collection of information disclosing a cognizable offence to the satisfaction of the person recording the FIR is sufficient.

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment