Tag: Jurisdiction

Supreme Court: Subsequent Contracts Don’t Override Original Arbitration Agreement
9Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Subsequent Contracts Don’t Override Original Arbitration Agreement

The Supreme Court held that Part I of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, including Section 11, does not apply to a foreign-seated international commercial arbitration. The arbitration clause in the principal "mother agreement" governs, and subsequent ancillary contracts with different parties cannot novate it or confer jurisdiction on Indian courts. Facts Of The Case: The petitioner, Balaji Steel Trade, entered into a Buyer and Seller Agreement (BSA) dated 06.06.2019 with respondent no. 1, Fludor Benin S.A., for the supply of cottonseed cake, containing an arbitration clause specifying arbitration in Benin. An Addendum was later executed. Subsequently, respondent no. 1 assigned its supply obligations. The petitioner then entered into separate Sales Contracts with r...
Read More
Law is a Force for Justice, Not Absurdity: Supreme Court on Rent Arrears Eviction Case
9Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Law is a Force for Justice, Not Absurdity: Supreme Court on Rent Arrears Eviction Case

The Supreme Court held that in appeals challenging eviction orders under Section 12(3) of the Kerala Buildings Act, the Appellate Authority is not required to mandatorily re-initiate the entire Section 12 procedure. The deposit of admitted arrears, as determined by the Rent Controller, is a precondition to contest the appeal, unless supervening events warrant a fresh application. Facts Of The Case: The appellants are landlords who filed eviction petitions against the respondent-tenant for two shops in Kochi, alleging non-payment of rent since early 2020. The Rent Controller, relying on a prior money decree for arrears, passed orders under Section 12(1) of the Kerala Buildings Act, directing the tenant to pay substantial outstanding and future rents. Upon the tenant's failure to comply, e...
Read More
Key Ruling: Supreme Court Upholds NGT’s Decision, Stresses Strict Timelines for Environment Appeals
7Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Key Ruling: Supreme Court Upholds NGT’s Decision, Stresses Strict Timelines for Environment Appeals

The Supreme Court held that for calculating limitation under Section 16(h) of the NGT Act, 2010, the period commences from the earliest date of communication of the environmental clearance by any duty bearer. The obligation to communicate rests on multiple authorities, and limitation is triggered upon the first clear and complete public communication. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Talli Gram Panchayat, sought to challenge an Environmental Clearance (EC) granted on January 5, 2017, for a limestone mining project in Gujarat. The Panchayat filed an appeal before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) under Section 16(h) of the NGT Act, 2010, but the appeal was delayed. It contended that it first learned of the EC through a Right to Information reply received on February 14, 2017, and t...
Read More
Alternative Remedy Rule Strengthened: Supreme Court Says Writ Petition Not Maintainable If Appeal to High Court Was Available
2Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Alternative Remedy Rule Strengthened: Supreme Court Says Writ Petition Not Maintainable If Appeal to High Court Was Available

This Supreme Court judgment reiterates the principle that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy, especially one before the High Court itself, is a valid ground for refusing to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It emphasizes that discretionary writ relief is generally unavailable where a litigant has, through their own fault, failed to exhaust an equally efficacious alternative forum provided by statute. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Rikhab Chand Jain, faced proceedings concerning 252.177 kg of allegedly smuggled silver seized on September 27, 1992. The Additional Collector of Customs, respondent no. 3, ordered the confiscation of the silver and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the appellant via an order dated May 7, 1996. The appellant app...
Read More
Public vs. Private Wrong: Supreme Court Explains Why Bank Fraud Cases Can’t Be Quashed Just Because Bank Settled
2Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Public vs. Private Wrong: Supreme Court Explains Why Bank Fraud Cases Can’t Be Quashed Just Because Bank Settled

The Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings involving serious economic offences, especially those under the Prevention of Corruption Act, cannot be quashed merely because a financial settlement or one-time settlement has been reached with the bank. Such offences constitute a crime against society at large, and quashing would be contrary to the interests of justice. Facts Of The Case: An FIR was registered in 2015 following a complaint by the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. The bank alleged that M/s Sarvodaya Highways Ltd. had fraudulently secured credit facilities of ₹60 crores by submitting fabricated work orders and financial statements to project a false financial standing. An internal inquiry later declared the account a Non-Performing Asset, uncovering an alleged fraud of...
Read More
Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Order Rejecting Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 is Appealable as a Decree
29Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Order Rejecting Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 is Appealable as a Decree

The Supreme Court held that an order rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is a decree under Section 2(2). Consequently, such an order is appealable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as it constitutes a final adjudication, not merely an interlocutory order restricted by the proviso. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, MITC Rolling Mills Private Limited, filed a commercial suit before the Commercial Court. The respondents, M/s. Renuka Realtors and others, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint. Their ground was that the appellant had not undertaken the mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement (PIMS) as required under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The...
Read More
Supreme Court: Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contracts, Upholds IRCTC’s Catering Policy
28Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contracts, Upholds IRCTC’s Catering Policy

The Supreme Court held that an arbitral award which contravenes binding government policy circulars—incorporated into the parties' contracts—is patently illegal and in conflict with the public policy of India under Section 34(2A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. An arbitrator cannot rewrite contractual terms that reflect such policy. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from contracts for catering services on premium Indian Railways trains (Rajdhani, Shatabdi, Duronto). The Railway Board initially increased meal tariffs in 2013 but simultaneously introduced a cheaper "combo meal" to replace the second regular meal on long journeys. This combo meal was swiftly discontinued days later, and caterers were directed to serve a second regular meal instead, but were to be reimbu...
Read More
Key Takeaway from Supreme Court Judgement: Only CBI Can Appeal in CBI-Investigated Cases, Not State Govt
21Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Key Takeaway from Supreme Court Judgement: Only CBI Can Appeal in CBI-Investigated Cases, Not State Govt

The Supreme Court upheld the legal principle from Lalu Prasad Yadav that only the Central Government, not a State Government, can file an appeal against an acquittal in cases investigated by the CBI. It also ruled that a victim's right to appeal under Section 372 CrPC is prospective, applying only to acquittals passed after December 31, 2009. Facts Of The Case: On June 4, 2003, Ramavatar Jaggi, a political leader, was murdered in Raipur. The local police initially investigated and filed a chargesheet against several accused. Dissatisfied, the victim's son secured a transfer of the case to the CBI. The CBI, after further investigation, filed a fresh chargesheet alleging a conspiracy and implicated Amit Jogi, the son of the then Chief Minister. In 2007, the trial court convicte...
Read More
Supreme Court Explains Why: Can’t File Contempt in Supreme Court for Violating High Court Order
29Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Explains Why: Can’t File Contempt in Supreme Court for Violating High Court Order

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that the doctrine of merger is not of universal application. It holds that where the Supreme Court permits withdrawal of an intra-court appeal, the parties revert to the status under the original High Court Single Judge order. Consequently, contempt for its violation lies before the High Court, not the Supreme Court. Facts Of The Case: The petitioner, M/s Khurana Brothers, initially challenged an order of a Single Judge of the Uttarakhand High Court by filing an intra-court appeal before a Division Bench. While the Division Bench dismissed this appeal, it made certain observations that, according to the petitioner, worsened its legal position compared to the Single Judge's order. The petitioner then sought and was granted leave to appeal to t...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies: Licensee Must Pay Arrears, Not Liquidated Damages, at Interim Stage
4Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: Licensee Must Pay Arrears, Not Liquidated Damages, at Interim Stage

In a suit for eviction under a lapsed license agreement, the Supreme Court ruled that the trial court cannot grant liquidated damages as an interim measure under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC. However, it upheld the application of Order XV-A CPC (Bombay Amendment), directing the licensee to pay ascertained arrears and ongoing license fees with annual increments, failing which the defense can be struck off. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a Leave and License Agreement executed on 08.10.2013 between the appellant licensors and the respondent licensee for 36 months, from 01.11.2013 to 31.10.2016, with a 7% annual increase in license fee. Clause 19 stipulated liquidated damages of Rs. 10,000 per day if the licensee failed to vacate upon expiry. After the license period lapsed, ...
Read More