2016 SCC Vol. 10 December 28, 2016 Part 5


Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 45 and 8 — Reference of dispute to arbitration under S. 45 where arbitration clause exists — Mandatoriness of: Scope of enquiry under S. 45, confined only to the question whether arbitration agreement is “null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed” but does not extend to examination of legality and validity of substantive contract of which arbitration agreement is a part. Once it is found that arbitration agreement is a legal and valid agreement, capable of being performed by parties to the suit, court has no discretion but to pass an order referring parties to arbitration in terms of the agreement. [Sasan Power Ltd. v. North American Coal Corpn. (India) (P) Ltd., (2016) 10 SCC 813]

Companies Act, 1956 — S. 10-F — Review jurisdiction under — Scope of: Interference by CLB in excess of subject-matter of petition, liable to be set aside being an error apparent on record on review. [St. Mary’s Hotel (P) Ltd. v. T.O. Aleyas, (2016) 10 SCC 680]

Constitution of India — Art. 21 — Sterilisation procedures — Regulation of: Directions issued regarding framing of National Health Policy and effective implementation of sterilisation programme. [Devika Biswas v. Union of India, (2016) 10 SCC 726]

Constitution of India — Arts. 21, 14, 32 and 47 — Vector borne diseases: Directions issued to resolve issues relating to the better management of the problems faced by the people of Delhi due to dengue and chikungunya. [Outrage as Parents End Life after Child’s Dengue Death, In Re, (2016) 10 SCC 709]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 427(1) — Person already undergoing sentence of imprisonment — Discretion of court to direct subsequent sentences to run concurrently therewith — Entitlement to: Two sentences awarded for dishonour of two cheques, directed to run concurrently. [Shyam Pal v. Dayawati Besoya, (2016) 10 SCC 761]

Family and Personal Laws — Family Property, Succession and Inheritance — Will — Nature of Bequest/Disposition: Vested/Contingent/Conditional/Absolute/Restricted/Limited: Absolute bequest in earlier part of will to prevail over any subsequent bequest. Where an absolute bequest has been made in respect of certain property to certain persons, then a subsequent bequest made qua the same property later in the same will to other persons will be of no effect. Earlier clause of will granting absolute right to house property jointly to testator’s widow and elder daughter but later clause directing that after death of widow and daughter other lineal descendants would become owners of specified parts of same property. Held, absolute bequest in Cl. 2 would prevail over subsequent bequest in Cl. 4. [Madhuri Ghosh v. Debobroto Dutta, (2016) 10 SCC 805]

Infrastructure Laws — Water and Water Resources — Water disputes — Sharing of river water — Distress year/deficit water: Matter directed to be decided by Committee for said purpose constituted by Notification dt. 22-5-2013 of Central Government. While pending such disposal and in view of plight of farmers of Tamil Nadu (whose samba crops were at stake), State of Karnataka directed to release 15,000 cusecs of water per day for 10 days. [State of Karnataka v. State of T.N., (2016) 10 SCC 617]

Local Government — Municipalities — Encroachment of public places: Encroachment of public street is not permissible. Allotment of public land without formal lease deed and without prior approval of Government would not confer any rights on occupants based only on resolution passed by Executive Committee of Municipality or letter of allotment issued by Municipality. The same would not legalise occupation of municipal land in absence of formal lease deed. [Asikali Akbarali Gilani v. Nasirhusain Mahebubbhai Chauhan, (2016) 10 SCC 799]

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 — S. 22 — Appeal to Supreme Court against orders of NGT: Reappreciation of evidence, required only where it is demonstrated that decision of Tribunal suffers from error apparent on face of record or is perverse. [Anil Hoble v. Kashinath Jairam Shetye, (2016) 10 SCC 701]

Penal Code, 1860 — S. 149 [Ss. 302, 143, 147, 148 and 323 r/w S. 149] — Fastening of vicarious liability under S. 149 — Requirements of: Once it is established that unlawful assembly had a common object, it is not necessary that all persons forming the unlawful assembly must be shown to have committed some overt act. Vicarious liability under S. 149 rests upon the fact whether the other members knew beforehand that the offence actually committed was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. [Saddik v. State of Gujarat, (2016) 10 SCC 663]

Registration Act, 1908 — Ss. 32, 34, 35, 36, 69 and 87 — Recall of registration/Document if was properly presented for registration, reopening question of, after registration/Cancellation of registration of document after its registration: Competent authority for recall of registration/Document if was properly presented for registration, reopening question of, after registration/Cancellation of registration of document after its registration therefor, is civil court alone, and none of the authorities/officers under 1908 Act have power in this regard. [Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P., (2016) 10 SCC 767]

Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Ss. 100(1)(d) & (c) — Relative scope — Improper acceptance of nomination paper: If improper acceptance of nomination materially affects results then election can be declared as void. Under S. 100(1)(c) improper rejection of nomination on the other hand is itself is sufficient to invalidate election without requirement of any proof of material effect on election result. This is the distinction between Ss. 100(1)(d) and 100(1)(c). [Rajendra Kumar Meshram v. Vanshmani Prasad Verma, (2016) 10 SCC 715]

Town Planning — Illegal/Unauthorised constructions/Development/Encroachment: Extension of permission for completion of building after removal of all deviations and upon strict verification by authorities concerned, permitted. [Madurai Corpn. v. P. Kayalvizhi, (2016) 10 SCC 722]

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Ss. 67 and 60 — Nature of interest acquired by purchaser of mortgaged property sold for recovery of dues of mortgagee: Such purchaser acquires absolute ownership of the property. When immovable property, mortgaged with appellant Bank for securing loan, purchased by Bank itself in auction-sale in execution of decree for recovery of loan from respondent mortgagors, by virtue of auction-sale in favour of Bank, it became absolute owner of property and subsequent sale thereof by it to third party at a much higher price would not entitle respondents to claim refund of excess amount from appellant Bank. [State Bank of Travancore v. R. Sobhana, (2016) 10 SCC 676]


Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

19 + 11 =