Important Indian Court Cases of August 2016

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 9 & 11 – Application for appointment of an arbitrator at the instance of a borrower – proceeding under RDB Act is pending before the Debt Recover Tribunal – Held, In an application under Section 11 the Court is required to find out if there is existence of a valid arbitration clause. Amrit Jal Ventures Vs. SREI Infrastructure Finance [Calcutta High Court, 02-08-2016] http://goo.gl/jO3vxE


Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 96 – First Appeal – Limitation – Whether the High Court ought to have decided the first appeal not only on the preliminary issue of limitation but also on all other issues? Held, the High Court ought to have considered all the issues in the first appeal rather than only the preliminary issue of limitation. [Madina Begum Vs. Shiv Murti Prasad Pandey; Supreme Court of India 01-08-2016] http://goo.gl/bRtxo5


Constitution of India – Article 226 – Electrocution – Compensation – Whether a writ application is maintainable for payment of compensation when death is caused due to electrocution ? Whether opposite parties can deny the liability on the ground that the death was due to act of a third party ? Jairam Mishra Vs. Chief Executive Officer [Orissa High Court, 01-08-2016] http://goo.gl/fY1bpK


Ex-Chief Ministers Residence Allotment Rules, 1997 – Government bungalows occupied by former Chief Ministers of the State of Uttar Pradesh – the 1997 Rules, which permit the former Chief Ministers to occupy government bungalows for life cannot be said to be valid. Lok Prahari Vs. State of U.P. [Supreme Court of India, 01-08-2016]  Read More at : http://goo.gl/tHSj85


Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 54 of Schedule 1 – Interpretation of – Specific Performance of a Contract – date fixed for performance of the contract – Agreement did not specify a calendar date as the date fixed for the performance of the agreement – when no such date is fixed, the limitation of three years would begin when the plaintiff has notice that the defendant has refused the performance of the agreement – in taking a contrary view, ignoring the absence of a specified date for the performance of the agreement and reversing the Trial Court, the High Court has fallen in error. [Madina Begum Vs. Shiv Murti Prasad Pandey; Supreme Court of India 01-08-2016] http://goo.gl/bRtxo5


Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 – Section 54 – Conscious Possession – the circumstances explained to accused are sufficient for understanding of the accused that according to evidence the prosecution claimed conscious possession of Ganja with the accused. Gurvinder Singh Vs. State of West Bengal [Calcutta High Court, 02-08-2016] http://goo.gl/KOPNz7


Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 288, 337 & 304A – Criminal P.C. 1973 – Section 482 – Quashing of FIR – Collapse of a Building – Held, quashing the FIR in question at this stage would certainly send a very wrong signal not only to the petitioner, but the whole society at large and particularly to other builders, contractors and other agencies engaged in undertaking construction work, that even if they are grossly negligent in taking preventive measures so as to prevent predictable accidents – which may lead to serious injury and even loss of life, they could get away by paying some compensation to the heirs of the injured/ deceased. Bhajan Lal Sharma Vs. State (Govt of Nct) [Delhi High Court, 01-08-2016] http://goo.gl/VxDdHF


Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 – Section 19 – Application for appointment of an arbitrator at the instance of a borrower – proceeding under RDB Act is pending before the Debt Recover Tribunal – Held, If the petitioner instead of filing an application under Section 9 could have filed a suit prior to initiation of recovery proceeding which would be otherwise maintainable there is no reason to conclude that the application for appointment of arbitration in terms of the arbitration clause in the agreement would be barred. Moreover, the application under Section 9 was filed prior to the filing of the recovery proceeding and the respondent has participated in such proceeding and has received substantial benefits in terms of the orders passed in such proceeding. In an application under Section 11 the Court is required to find out if there is existence of a valid arbitration clause. Amrit Jal Ventures Vs. SREI Infrastructure Finance [Calcutta High Court, 02-08-2016] http://goo.gl/jO3vxE