Home » Supreme Court Daily Monday, 4 October, 2021

Supreme Court Daily Monday, 4 October, 2021

Anticipatory Bail – While granting bail, especially anticipatory bail which is per se extraordinary in nature, the possibility of the accused to influence prosecution witnesses, threatening the family members of the deceased, fleeing from justice or creating other impediments in the fair investigation, ought not to be overlooked. Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab https://pdf.caselaw.in/?p=256

Anticipatory Bail – Absconder – Even if there was any procedural irregularity in declaring the Accused as an absconder, that by itself was not a justifiable ground to grant pre­arrest bail in a case of grave offence. The conduct of the Accused in absconding for more than two years without any justifiable reason should have weighed in mind while granting any discretionary relief. Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab https://pdf.caselaw.in/?p=256

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 31(7)(a) – Payment of Interest – Law relating to award of pendente lite interest by Arbitrator – The provisions of the 1996 Act give paramount importance to the contract entered into between the parties and categorically restricts the power of an arbitrator to award pre-­reference and pendente lite interest when the parties themselves have agreed to the contrary – If the contract prohibits pre­-reference and pendente lite interest, the arbitrator cannot award interest for the said period. Garg Builders v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. https://pdf.caselaw.in/?p=259

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 31(7)(a) – Payment of Interest – If the contract bars payment of interest, the arbitrator cannot award interest from the date of cause of action till the date of award. Garg Builders v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. https://pdf.caselaw.in/?p=259

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 31(7)(a) – Payment of Interest – Where the parties had agreed that the interest shall not be payable, the Arbitral Tribunal cannot award interest between the date on which the cause of action arose to the date of the award. Garg Builders v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. https://pdf.caselaw.in/?p=259

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 31(7)(a) – Payment of Interest – If a contract prohibits award of interest for pre­award period, the arbitrator cannot award interest for the said period. Garg Builders v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. https://pdf.caselaw.in/?p=259

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 31(7)(a) – Payment of Interest – If the contract contains a specific clause which expressly bars payment of interest, then it is not open for the arbitrator to grant pendente lite interest. Garg Builders v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. https://pdf.caselaw.in/?p=259

Bail – Broadly speaking, each case has its own unique factual scenario which holds the key for adjudication of bail matters including cancellation thereof. Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab https://pdf.caselaw.in/?p=256

Bail – Cancellation of bail is to be dealt on a different footing in comparison to a proceeding for grant of bail. It is necessary that ‘cogent and overwhelming reasons’ are present for the cancellation of bail. Conventionally, there can be supervening circumstances which may develop post the grant of bail and are non-conducive to fair trial, making it necessary to cancel the bail. Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab https://pdf.caselaw.in/?p=256

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – First appeals are to be decided after following the procedure to be followed under the CPC. K. Karuppuraj v. M. Ganesan https://pdf.caselaw.in/?p=265

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Order XII Rule 6 – Decree of eviction on admission – Institution of suit for specific performance against the plaintiff with respect to the suit property means there is a clear cut admission that the plaintiff is the owner. Mohd. Raza v. Geeta @ Geeta Devi https://pdf.caselaw.in/?p=268

Contract Act, 1872 – Section 28 – A contract is void to the extent it restricts absolutely a party from enforcing his rights by usual proceedings in ordinary courts or if it limits the time within which he may enforce his rights. Garg Builders v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. https://pdf.caselaw.in/?p=259

Contract Act, 1872 – Section 28 – A lawful agreement to refer the matter to arbitration can be made a condition precedent before going to courts and it does not violate Section 28. Garg Builders v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. https://pdf.caselaw.in/?p=259

Interest Act, 1978 – When there is an express statutory permission for the parties to contract out of receiving interest and they have done so without any vitiation of free consent, it is not open for the Arbitrator to grant pendent lite interest. Garg Builders v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. https://pdf.caselaw.in/?p=259

Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 304B, 302 read with 120B – Unnatural death in matrimonial home – Accused is the mother­-in-­law of the deceased – The Investigating Agency, therefore, deserves a free hand to investigate the role of the Accused, if any, in the unnatural and untimely death of her daughter­­-­in-­­law. Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab https://pdf.caselaw.in/?p=256

Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 304B, 302 read with 120B – The offence alleged in the instant case is heinous and protrudes our medieval social structure which still wails for reforms despite multiple efforts made by Legislation and Judiciary. Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab https://pdf.caselaw.in/?p=256

Specific Performance – Ready and willing to purchase the property – Once it is found on appreciation of evidence that there was no willingness on the part of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not entitled to the decree for specific performance. K. Karuppuraj v. M. Ganesan https://pdf.caselaw.in/?p=265

Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Affidavit filed before the High Court for the first time – Procedure adopted by the High Court relying upon the affidavit in a First Appeal by which virtually without submitting any application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the High Court as a First Appellate Court has taken on record the affidavit and as such relied upon the same. Such a procedure is untenable and unknown to law. K. Karuppuraj v. M. Ganesan https://pdf.caselaw.in/?p=265

Specific Performance – For the purpose of passing a decree for specific performance, readiness and willingness has to be established and proved and that is the relevant consideration for the purpose of passing a decree for specific performance. K. Karuppuraj v. M. Ganesan https://pdf.caselaw.in/?p=265

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability of – Contractual Matter – Tender – Lease Agreement. Paulmech Infrastructure v. State of Odisha https://pdf.caselaw.in/?p=262

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 1 Average: 5]