Tag: Supreme Court Judgment

Supreme Court Clarifies: When Does a Dispute Resolution Clause Qualify as Arbitration? Mediation or Arbitration
22May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: When Does a Dispute Resolution Clause Qualify as Arbitration? Mediation or Arbitration

The Supreme Court ruled that Article 20 of the Concession Agreements between MCD and private contractors did not constitute a valid arbitration clause under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court emphasized that clauses lacking mutual intent, impartial adjudication, and procedural fairness cannot be enforced as arbitration agreements, directing parties to pursue alternative remedies. The judgment reiterated the essential elements of arbitration clauses from K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi (1998) and upheld precedent in SDMC v. SMS AAMW Tollways (2019). Facts Of The Case: The case involved three separate appeals before the Supreme Court concerning Concession Agreements between the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and private contractors (SMS Ltd., DSC Ltd., and CCC ...
Read More
“Who Pays for Delays in Power Projects? : Supreme Court Explains CERC’s Role in Tariff and Compensation”
22May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Who Pays for Delays in Power Projects? : Supreme Court Explains CERC’s Role in Tariff and Compensation”

The Supreme Court held that the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) can exercise regulatory powers under Section 79 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to impose compensation for delays, even without specific regulations under Section 178. It clarified that CERC’s orders under Section 79 are appealable to APTEL under Section 111, not through writ petitions unless jurisdictional or constitutional issues arise. The Court emphasized that regulatory gaps can be addressed via Section 79, distinguishing it from legislative rule-making under Section 178. The High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition when an alternative remedy existed. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a dispute between Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (PGCIL) and Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Company L...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies: When Can an Arbitral Award Be Challenged for Lack of Jurisdiction?
22May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: When Can an Arbitral Award Be Challenged for Lack of Jurisdiction?

The Supreme Court ruled that an arbitral award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, cannot be annulled solely for lack of jurisdiction if no plea was raised before the tribunal under Section 16(2). It harmonized conflicting precedents, holding that objections under Section 34 must show strong grounds, and upheld the finality of awards where jurisdictional challenges were untimely. The judgment clarifies that the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Act 1983, does not automatically override arbitration agreements unless jurisdictional objections are raised at the appropriate stage. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a contractual dispute between M/s Gayatri Projects Limited and Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation regarding road construction works in Madhya Pradesh. The parties...
Read More
“Supreme Court Transfers Investigation to CBI in Shocking Custodial Torture & Death Case” : Police Brutality Exposed
22May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Supreme Court Transfers Investigation to CBI in Shocking Custodial Torture & Death Case” : Police Brutality Exposed

The Supreme Court transferred the investigation of a custodial death case to the CBI, citing bias in the local police probe under "nemo judex in causa sua" (no one should judge their own cause). It emphasized witness protection for the sole eyewitness, Gangaram Pardhi, and directed expedited arrests and trial, reinforcing accountability in custodial violence cases under constitutional safeguards. The judgment underscored fair investigation as a facet of Article 21. Facts Of The Case: The case stemmed from the custodial death of Deva Pardhi, a young man arrested by Madhya Pradesh police on 13th July 2024 during his wedding rituals in connection with a theft case (FIR No. 232/2024). Witnesses, including his uncle Gangaram Pardhi, alleged brutal torture—beatings, hanging upside down, and ch...
Read More
“Can Courts Reject a Plaint for Skipping Mediation? :Supreme Court’s Strict Rule for Commercial Cases”
22May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Can Courts Reject a Plaint for Skipping Mediation? :Supreme Court’s Strict Rule for Commercial Cases”

The Supreme Court upheld the mandatory nature of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, requiring pre-institution mediation for commercial suits unless urgent interim relief is sought. However, it clarified that non-compliance before August 20, 2022 (the date of its earlier ruling in Patil Automation) does not warrant plaint rejection—instead, courts may refer parties to mediation while keeping suits in abeyance. The judgment harmonizes procedural rigor with practical enforcement, ensuring mediation’s role in reducing litigation backlog without unduly penalizing past filings. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a money suit filed by the Union of India against M/s Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Ltd. in the Commercial Court, Alipore, seeking recovery of ₹8.73 crores as differential freight...
Read More
“Supreme Court Exposes Builder-Politician Nexus in Pune Pune Forest Land Scam”
21May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Supreme Court Exposes Builder-Politician Nexus in Pune Pune Forest Land Scam”

The Supreme Court ruled that the allotment of 11.89 hectares of reserved forest land in Pune for non-forest purposes violated Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and the public trust doctrine. It quashed the illegal allotment to private builders, ordered restoration of the land to the Forest Department, and mandated a nationwide audit of similarly diverted forest lands. The judgment reaffirmed the state's fiduciary duty to protect forest resources and prohibited their conversion for commercial use without Central approval. Violations were held irreparable even under the doctrine of desuetude. Facts Of The Case: The case involved 11.89 hectares of reserved forest land in Pune's Kondhwa Budruk village, originally notified under the Indian Forest Act, 1878. In 1968, the land wa...
Read More
Justice for Disabled Victim: Supreme Court Awards ₹12 Lakh Extra for Disabled Accident Victim’s Future Care”
21May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Justice for Disabled Victim: Supreme Court Awards ₹12 Lakh Extra for Disabled Accident Victim’s Future Care”

The Supreme Court ruled that insurance companies cannot be compelled to provide non-monetary relief like prosthetic limbs or ongoing medical supervision to accident victims. Emphasizing indemnity principles, the Court held compensation must be monetary, calculating ₹12 lakh for future prosthetic/wheelchair needs. It overturned the High Court's directive for in-kind support, reaffirming insurers' liability is limited to pecuniary compensation under motor accident laws. The judgment clarifies that "just compensation" under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act excludes imposing perpetual welfare obligations on insurers. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a motor accident on 21.12.2008, where respondent Suraj Kumar, a 22-year-old tempo cleaner, suffered severe injuries...
Read More
Supreme Court Rejects Salary Cut: Widow, Kids, and Parents Get Full Compensation in Fatal Truck Accident Case”
21May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rejects Salary Cut: Widow, Kids, and Parents Get Full Compensation in Fatal Truck Accident Case”

The Supreme Court restored the Tribunal’s compensation award for the family of a deceased truck driver, rejecting the High Court’s reduction of income from ₹10,000 to ₹4,076 per month. Citing Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance, it upheld ₹10,000 as justified wages for 2014. The Court also affirmed loss of consortium for children and parents under Somwati v. New India Assurance, stressing equitable apportionment. The judgment reinforces fair compensation principles in motor accident claims, emphasizing statutory and precedential rights of dependents. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a fatal motor accident where a truck driver, aged 28, was hit and killed by another negligently driven truck while he was boarding his parked vehicle. The deceased’s legal representatives—his wido...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies Key Tax Exemption Case: Customs Duty Exemption Upheld for Soybean Oil Imports
20May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Key Tax Exemption Case: Customs Duty Exemption Upheld for Soybean Oil Imports

The Supreme Court ruled that crude degummed soybean oil is not an agricultural product but a distinct manufactured commodity, entitling the appellant to duty exemption under Notification No. 53/2003-Cus. The Court held that a circular (No. 10/2004) cannot expand statutory exclusions beyond the notification’s scope. It clarified that manufacturing processes creating new marketable products alter the original commodity’s identity, and exemptions must align with statutory intent, not administrative clarifications. The judgment reinforces the primacy of statutory notifications over executive circulars. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Noble Resources and Trading India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly Andagro Services Pvt. Ltd.), a recognized export house, imported crude degummed soybean oil under the Du...
Read More
“Can Employers Enforce a Minimum Service Period” Supreme Court Upholds Employees Must Pay for Premature Resignation
20May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

“Can Employers Enforce a Minimum Service Period” Supreme Court Upholds Employees Must Pay for Premature Resignation

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Vijaya Bank's employment bond clause requiring a minimum 3-year service period or payment of Rs. 2 lakhs for premature resignation. The Court ruled this condition does not violate Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act (restraint of trade) as it applies during employment, nor is it opposed to public policy under Section 23. The judgment clarified that while standard form contracts reflect unequal bargaining power, such terms remain enforceable unless proven unconscionable or unreasonable. The Court recognized the bank's legitimate interest in maintaining workforce stability through such reasonable restrictions. This decision reinforces the distinction between restraints during employment versus post-employment and sets parameters for evaluating liqui...
Read More