error apparent on face of record

Model Litigant?: Supreme Court Slams State Agency for Derailing 3-Year Arbitration Process

14Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Model Litigant?: Supreme Court Slams State Agency for Derailing 3-Year Arbitration Process

The Supreme Court held that an arbitration agreement survives even if the unilateral appointment mechanism is invalid; such offending portions are severable. Courts cannot review Section 11 orders absent patent error. Joint Section 29A extensions constitute waiver under Section 4 but cannot cure Section 12(5) ineligibility, which requires express post-dispute written waiver. Non-speaking SLP dismissal does not affirm underlying judgment Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated from a contract dated 04.03.2014 awarded by Respondent No. 1, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited, to the appellant, Hindustan Construction Company Limited, for construction of a bridge over the River Sone in Bihar. The contract contained Clause 25 providing for arbitration. The appellant had previously inv...

Errors Do Not Change Decision – Supreme Court Dismisses Konkan Railway’s Review Plea in Resignation Dispute

The Supreme Court held that apparent errors in factual findings do not warrant review unless they materially alter the decision. Justice and equity may override strict contractual principles where long, unblemished service exists. Settled “no work, no pay” rule is not absolute; back-wages can be reduced proportionately without disturbing reinstatement. No review lies for re-argument. Facts Of The Case: Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. approached the Supreme Court by way of a review petition against the judgment dated 13th September, 2024 passed in Civil Appeal No. 10567 of 2024. In the original appeal, the respondent-employee, S.D. Manohara, had challenged the decision of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, which had held that he could not withdraw his resignation. The employe...

Daughter’s Coparcenary Rights Upheld: Supreme Court Sets Aside Review Order

The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its limited review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order 47 of the CPC. A review cannot re-appreciate evidence or reverse findings as an appeal would. The order under review did not correct a patent error but substituted a view, which is impermissible in review proceedings. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a partition suit (O.S. No. 192 of 2000) filed by Subramani against his father, Munusamy Naidu, concerning ancestral properties. An ex-parte preliminary decree was passed in 2003, dividing the property into two equal shares. The Appellant, Malleeswari, who is the daughter of Munusamy Naidu, was not initially impleaded in this suit. Subsequent to the decree, her father executed a sale deed in favor of the first respo...