2018 SCC Vol. 3 April 14, 2018 Part 4

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 36, 32 and 42 — Execution/enforcement of arbitral award — Court through which may be effected: Execution/enforcement of award can be done/filed anywhere in country where such decree can be executed and there is no requirement for obtaining a transfer of decree from court which has jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings/award/within whose jurisdiction award is passed. [Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Abdul Samad, (2018) 3 SCC 622]

Electricity Act, 2003 — Ss. 127, 126 and 135 — Need to adhere to statutory dispute resolution mechanism/scheme: Once proceedings are initiated under Ss. 126 and/or 135, they must be brought logical conclusion in accordance with law after hearing consumer/concerned person as per statutory scheme. [Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. Appellate Authority, (2018) 3 SCC 608]

Insurance — Life Insurance — Contract of life insurance: Acceptance of premium, amounts to waiving precondition of medical examination of insured. Such acceptance of premium results in concluded contract. Subsequent repudiation of policy amounts to deficiency in service. [D. Srinivas v. SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 3 SCC 653]

Labour Law — Regularisation — Questions of fact — Proper forum: As several questions of fact arose in present case and MoU between employer and employee provided for arbitration, therefore, matter referred to Arbitral Tribunal for adjudication of factual disputes. [Ennore Port Trust v. V. Manoharan, (2018) 3 SCC 612]

Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 — Rr. 63, 64 and 65 — Decision regarding modification of time schedule of vehicle route: In this case State Transport Authority took decision by signing of two members when all three members as required for quorum were present during hearing where all parties heard. It was held that as quorum for meeting was satisfied, signing of decision by majority of members (that is by two out of three members), was valid. In present case, normal rule of decision by majority should be followed as no exception is provided in statute. R. 65(4) providing for decision by special majority is not applicable because it is with regard to decision by circulation by votes. Present case is not a case of decision by circulation. [State of M.P. v. Mahendra Gupta, (2018) 3 SCC 635]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Ss. 166 and 168 — Compensation — Total permanent disability — Functional disability — Need to assess: Appellant 26 yrs old at time of accident, riding pillion on a motorcycle, dashed against by a lorry, sustained a fracture in his spinal cord, right leg and right hip bone, losing sensation or movement in his legs. Tribunal determined compensation at Rs 9,72,000; but thereafter on medical opinion of about 70% disability, reduced it to net amount at Rs 6,80,400 and after addition of medical and other expenses, awarded a total compensation of Rs 11,27,359 together with interest of 12% p.a. High Court in appeal reduced interest component from 12% p.a. to 7.5% p.a.. It was held by the Supreme Court that as a result of multiple fractures sustained by him, appellant has lost complete sensation below abdomen. Evidently he cannot work anymore as load man. In these circumstances, assessment of disability at 70% is incorrect. On a realistic view, nature of disability must be regarded as being complete. There was no reason or justification for deduction of Rs 2,91,600 by Tribunal (Rs 9,72,000 minus Rs 6,80,400). Amount so deducted restored and rounded off to Rs 3,00,000, enhancing compensation granted by Tribunal by this amount. Moreover, appellant is entitled to interest at 9% p.a. from date of claim petition on total amount of compensation (instead and in substitution of 7.5% p.a. awarded by High Court). [S. Thangaraj v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 3 SCC 605]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Ss. 166, 168 and 173 — Enhancement of compensation — Difference claimed only 4% or 5%: Court normally does not interfere where variation in compensation is within permissible limits. [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vinish Jain, (2018) 3 SCC 619]

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — S. 24 — Interpretation of word “paid” in S. 24(2): As there is divergence in opinion of co-equal Benches, proceedings in all affected cases stayed until question is settled by larger Bench. [State of Haryana v. G.D. Goenka Tourism Corpn. Ltd., (2018) 3 SCC 585]

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Settlement Act, 2013 — S. 24(2) — Lapsing of acquisition proceedings under, in case of nonpayment of compensation within prescribed period — Conduct of landowners concerned in regard to non-payment — Relevance of: Said provision under S. 24(2) of 2013 Act extends protection only to such landowners who are deprived of the compensation and not to those who deliberately do not collect the compensation and avoid to receive the same by their wilful act(s). Failure to deposit compensation in court under S. 31 of LA Act, 1894 in latter case would attract only payment of interest as envisaged under S. 34 of said LA Act. In such latter case, provisions of S. 24 of 2013 Act cannot be invoked seeking lapse of acquisition proceedings. [Mahavir v. Union of India, (2018) 3 SCC 588]

Sales Tax and VAT — Refund: When payment of sales tax has been done on provisional price, in case of subsequent reduction in provisional price, assessee is entitled to refund of tax paid on excess amount, with interest. [Universal Cylinders Ltd. v. CCT, (2018) 3 SCC 648]

Join the discussion

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