Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise Index (Citation 815

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Interest – The party is not entitled to interest for the period during which the procedure was deliberately delayed – A party cannot be allowed to profit from its own disqualifications. [Para 12 to 14] Executive Engineer (R&B) vs Gokul Chandra Kanungo, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 824

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11 – The tribunal may undertake a preliminary investigation to determine whether the dispute is arbitrable or falls within the category excepted in the agreement. (Paragraph 7) Emaar India Ltd. vs. Tarun Aggarwal Projects LLP, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 823

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Paragraph 31(7)(a) – the section itself requires interest to be at the rate the arbitral tribunal deems reasonable. Where an arbitral tribunal has the discretion to award interest at a rate it deems reasonable, then it is for the arbitral tribunal to give reasons for how it considers the interest rate to be reasonable – Where the arbitral tribunal is vested with such discretion, the arbitral tribunal would be required to apply its spirit to the facts of the case and decide whether interest is due on all or part of the money and also whether it should be awarded to all or part of the period between the date the cause of action arose and the date the award is rendered. Executive Engineer (R&B) vs Gokul Chandra Kanungo, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 824

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Section 309 – The examination-in-chief followed by a cross-examination must be recorded either on the same day or the next day. In other words, there should be no grounds for adjourning the recording of the examination-in-chief/cross-examination of the prosecution witness, as the case may be. Mukesh Singh c. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 826

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Section 438 – Petitions seeking relief from bail before arrest are not money recovery proceedings – Supreme Court overturns condition imposed by Jharkhand High Court to deposit 7.5 Lakhs as “compensation for the victim” while granting bail before the arrest. Udho Thakur v. Jharkhand State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 815

Compassionate appointment – After a period of 24 years from the death of the deceased employee, the respondent is no longer entitled to appointment for humanitarian reasons. If such an appointment is made now and/or after a period of 14/24 years, so does the object and purpose for which the appointment on humanitarian grounds is intended – The very object of the grant of a humanitarian job is therefore to allow the family to overcome the sudden crisis. The object is not to give this family a position and even less a position held by the deceased. [Para 9.1, 9.2] Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. vs. Anusree KB, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 819

Compassionate appointment – The married daughter cannot be considered dependent on her mother for the purpose of compassionate care appointment – The main purpose of compassionate employment award is therefore to enable the family to overcome the sudden crisis. The object is not to give this family a position and even less a position held by the deceased. (Paragraph 7, 7.1) State of Maharashtra v Madhuri Maruti Vidhate, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 820

Constitution of India, 1950; 142 – The powers provided for in Article 142 may be exercised to reduce the amount of interest awarded. [Para 18] Executive Engineer (R&B) vs Gokul Chandra Kanungo, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 824

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 – The Supreme Court considers that there is no reason to revise the judgment in Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. vs. Axis Bank Limited, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587 which ruled that the National Company Law Court has the discretionary power not to admit the insolvency petition filed by a financial creditor even if the debtor company is in default. Axis Bank Ltd v Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 817

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016; Subsection 7(5) – Absence of grounds for revision of the judgment in Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. against Axis Bank Limited who held that the contracting authority has a discretionary power under Article 7(5) – The fear that the judgment will compromise the objectives of the IBC is misguided – Comments have been made in the context of the case in question. Axis Bank Ltd v Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 817

Judgments – It is well established that judgments and observations in judgments are not to be construed as statutory provisions. Statements and/or judicial pronouncements are within the facts of a particular case – To interpret the words and provisions of a law, it may be necessary for judges to engage in lengthy discussions. The words of judges interpreting laws should not be interpreted as laws. Axis Bank Ltd v Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 817

Labor Law – Labor Disputes Act 1947 – Once the dismissal order has been approved by the industrial tribunal after assessing the evidence produced before it, the conclusions noted by the industrial tribunal are then binding between the parties. No contrary opinion could have been taken by the labor court contrary to the findings recorded by the industrial tribunal. (Paragraph 5.2) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v Bharat Singh Jhala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 818

Land acquisition – When it comes to the payment of compensation to the losers of land, if two views are possible, the view which advances the cause of justice must always be preferred to the other view, which cannot derive its strength only from technicalities. (Paragraph 14) Kazi Moinuddin Kazi Bashiroddin v Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 827

Land Tax Code (Maharashtra) – Maharashtra government cannot require him to register the subsequent transfer of apartments built on land leased from a developer – State government is not entitled to a bounty when the land is not not awarded to a corporation but to a builder on lease, who built flats for individuals, who in turn formed a co-operative society-The 1999 and 1983 resolutions are applicable to co-operative societies to which government lands are sanctioned to preferential rates-Since the land was not allocated to a company but to a leasehold builder, who built apartments for individuals, who then formed a cooperative society, the 1983 resolution and the 1999 resolution do not would not apply to members of such a society. (Paragraphs 13, 14 and 15) State of Maharashtra vs Aspi Chinoy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 825

Limitation Act 1963; Section 17 – By such skilful drafting and by using the word “fraud”, the plaintiffs attempted to bring the actions within the limitation period by invoking Article 17 of the Law on Limitation. Plaintiffs cannot be allowed to sue within the statute of limitations by clever drafting, which otherwise is barred by statute of limitations – Merely stating in the complaint that a fraud was played is not sufficient and the allegations of fraud must be specifically substantiated in the Complaint, otherwise by simply using the word “fraud” Complainants would be attempting to obtain litigation under the Limitation, which otherwise may be barred by the Limitation. (Paragraph 7.8) CS Ramaswamy vs VK Senthil, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 822

Road accident claims – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Article 168 – the Minimum Wage Notification Act can only be a guiding factor in the event that there is no evidence available to assess the monthly income of the deceased. Where positive evidence was adduced, no reliance could be placed on the notification, particularly where no one asserted that the deceased was a workman, as presumed by the High Court. (Paragraph 9) Gurpreet Kaur v. United India Insurance Company, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 821

Road accident compensation – Dependents are entitled to compensation for loss of income even if the businesses and property of the deceased have been bequeathed to them. [Para 14,17 & 22] K. Ramya c. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 816

Road accident compensation – Documents such as tax returns and audit reports are reliable evidence in determining the income of the deceased. [Para 14] K. Ramya c. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 816

Road accident compensation – It is not necessary to deduct the full amount under “Income from property of house and farmland” just because properties have been bequeathed to dependents – compensation for loss of management skills can be granted. [Para 22] K. Ramya c. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 816

Road accident compensation – The mere fact that the deceased’s share of ownership in these business enterprises was transferred to the minor children of the deceased just before his death or to dependents after his death is not sufficient justification to conclude that the benefits of these enterprises continue to benefit his dependents. [Para 17] K. Ramya c. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 816

Motor Vehicle Act 1988 – Road Accident Compensation – the age of the deceased and not the age of the dependents in the event of the death of a single person must serve as the basis for the multiplier. Giasi Ram v ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 828

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Article 168 – Traffic accident claims – compensation must be fair, reasonable and equitable. Furthermore, the determination of quantum is a fact-dependent exercise which must be liberal and not parsimonious – the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 is beneficial and social legislation which seeks to provide compensation according to the contemporary position of an individual who is primarily forward-looking. [Paras 11, 12] K. Ramya c. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 816

Pleadings – Fraud must be specifically pleaded – Merely stating in the complaint that a fraud has been played is not sufficient and the allegations of fraud must be specifically proven in the complaint, otherwise by simply using the word “fraud”, plaintiffs would attempt to obtain suits within the limitation, which otherwise may be barred by the limitation. (Paragraph 7.8) CS Ramaswamy vs VK Senthil, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 822

NOMINAL INDEX

  1. Axis Bank Ltd v Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 817
  2. CS Ramaswamy vs VK Senthil, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 822
  3. Emaar India Ltd. vs. Tarun Aggarwal Projects LLP, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 823
  4. Executive Engineer (R&B) vs. Gokul Chandra Kanungo, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 824
  5. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. vs. Anusree KB, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 819
  6. Giasi Ram c. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 828
  7. Gurpreet Kaur v. United India Insurance Company, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 821
  8. K. Ramya v. National Insurance Co Ltd, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 816
  9. Kazi Moinuddin Kazi Bashiroddin v Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 827
  10. Mukesh Singh c. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 826
  11. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v Bharat Singh Jhala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 818
  12. State of Maharashtra v. Aspi Chinoy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 825
  13. State of Maharashtra v Madhuri Maruti Vidhate, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 820
  14. Udho Thakur v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 815

Kevin A. Perras