Tag: Functus Officio

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...
Read More
Supreme Court Reinstates Conviction in Cheque Bounce Case, Slams High Court’s Interference
21Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Reinstates Conviction in Cheque Bounce Case, Slams High Court’s Interference

This Supreme Court judgment reinforces the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which arise upon admission of a cheque's execution. It clarifies that these presumptions are rebuttable, but the initial onus is on the accused. The ruling also establishes that a violation of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not render a debt legally unenforceable for proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, filed by the appellant, Sanjabij Tari, concerning a cheque for Rs. 6,00,000 issued by the respondent, Kishore S. Borcar. The cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The appellant contended that the amoun...
Read More
Supreme Court Explains When a Criminal Court Cannot Change Its Own Order :”Functus Officio”
23Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Explains When a Criminal Court Cannot Change Its Own Order :”Functus Officio”

The Supreme Court held that proceedings under Section 340 CrPC are criminal in nature and thus governed by the CrPC. Consequently, a review petition filed under Order XLVII of the CPC is not maintainable. The Court reiterated that Section 362 CrPC bars criminal courts from altering or reviewing their own judgments, except for correcting clerical errors, and the High Court's recall order constituted an impermissible substantive review. Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated between two groups, the Khosla Group and the Bakshi Group, regarding a joint venture to develop a resort in Kasauli. A key point of contention was the validity of the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of their joint venture company, Montreaux Resorts Private Limited (MRPL), held on 30.09.2006. The Bakshi Group relied on ...
Read More
Supreme Court Reins In Judicial Intervention in Arbitration After Appointment
17Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Reins In Judicial Intervention in Arbitration After Appointment

This Supreme Court judgment holds that a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement has no legal right to be present in the arbitral proceedings as the award would not bind them, violating the confidentiality mandate under Section 42A. Furthermore, a court becomes functus officio after appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and cannot entertain subsequent applications for intervention or issue ancillary directions. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an oral family settlement between Pawan Gupta (PG) and Kamal Gupta (KG), later recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding/Family Settlement Deed (MoU/FSD) dated 09.07.2019, which was not signed by KG’s son, Rahul Gupta (RG). PG initiated proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Arbitra...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of Section 482 CrPC Powers :High Courts Can’t Revive Quashed FIRs After Compromise
26May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of Section 482 CrPC Powers :High Courts Can’t Revive Quashed FIRs After Compromise

The Supreme Court ruled that High Courts cannot revive quashed FIRs under Section 482 CrPC after parties have reached a lawful compromise, emphasizing the absolute bar under Section 362 CrPC against reviewing judgments except for clerical errors. It clarified that inherent powers cannot override statutory prohibitions, allowing recall only in cases of jurisdictional errors or abuse of process. The judgment reaffirmed that violation of compromise terms must be addressed through civil remedies, not criminal proceedings. The Court directed all High Courts to adhere to this settled legal position. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a property dispute in Haryana, where an FIR (No. 432/2014) was registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC against Raghunath Sharma and others for alleged ...
Read More