2016 SCC Vol. 7 August 28, 2016 Part 4

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 11(6) — Appointment of arbitrator: In absence of counter as to referability of dispute to arbitration, arbitrator appointed based on material available on record. [Purple India Holdings Ltd. v. Drilling & Offshore (P) Ltd., (2016) 7 SCC 583]

CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 — R. 2(g) — Definition of “inputs” — Use of “includes” in — Effect: Word “include” in statutory definition is generally used to enlarge meaning of the preceding words and it is by way of extension and not with restriction. Hence, question referred i.e. as to whether the definition of the term “inputs” in R. 2(g) was to be understood to include items beyond the six items mentioned specifically in R. 2(g), answered accordingly. [Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. CCE, (2016) 7 SCC 585]

Courts, Tribunals and Judiciary — Supreme Court — Generally — Fundamental right of access to justice — Denial of: Matter regarding flooding of docket of Supreme Court, long pendency of cases and reduction of Supreme Court to a regular court of appeal, referred to Constitution Bench. [V. Vasanthakumar v. H.C. Bhatia, (2016) 7 SCC 686]

Criminal Law — Crimes Against Women and Children — Child pornography — Absolute prohibition of: Innocent children cannot be made prey to these kinds of painful situations, and a nation, by no means, can afford to carry any kind of experiment with its children in the name of liberty and freedom of expression. [Kamlesh Vaswani v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 592]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 406 and 482 — Transfer of criminal case — Investigation by CBI — Prayers for: Supreme Court will transfer a case from one State to another State only if there is a reasonable apprehension on the part of a party to a case that justice will not be done. Mere apprehension that the accused are influential may not be sufficient to transfer the case. Moreover, extraordinary power of constitutional courts in directing CBI to conduct investigation in a case must be exercised rarely in exceptional circumstances, especially, when there is lack of confidence in investigating agency or in national interest and for doing complete justice in the matter. [Sujatha Ravi Kiran v. State of Kerala, (2016) 7 SCC 597]

Education and Universities — Affiliation/Recognition — Students affected by Affiliation/Recognition issues — Dispute as to recognition: Interim order of High Court permitting admission in said college whose recognition was disputed, not permissible. [Medical Council of India v. Society for Advancement of Environmental Science, (2016) 7 SCC 590]

Education and Universities — Examination — Unfair means/Cheating/Leakage of question Paper/Cancellation of examination: If there is reliable information that students resorted to unfair means on a large scale at an examination, examining body can take action without any formal complaint and in absence of direct evidence, circumstantial evidence may be relied on. Court does not have necessary technical expertise to interfere with decision of Expert Committee. Court should not act as appellate court over decision of examining body/Expert Committee. In present case, decision of Expert Committee was that process of generation of roll numbers for allotment to examination centre requires some logic and in case of appellants that logic was not followed. Further, formula/test adopted by the Board to record conclusions that members of identified pairs (who were sitting together) who gave similar wrong answers to a given question adopted malpractice is approved by precedents. Plea of appellants that they should not suffer for fault of Board in not allotting roll numbers and exam centres as per norm/logic is not tenable. Culpability of some or all of the appellants is not the issue. Fact that examination process was tampered with, is relevant for administrative action. Hence, cancellation of results of 634 candidates in 2014 for PMT exams held in years 2008 to 2012, upheld. [Nidhi Kaim v. State of M.P., (2016) 7 SCC 615]

Excise — Appeal — Appeal to Tribunal — Issues in question not dealt with/not adequately dealt with: As several issues and aspects that arose for consideration and that had been dealt with by Commissioner in his order were either not considered at all or not satisfactorily dealt with by the Tribunal in appeal, matter remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal. [CCE v. Ford India (P) Ltd., (2016) 7 SCC 587]

Infrastructure Laws — Energy and Power — Petroleum and Gas — Gas pipeline project: State Government directing alteration of alignment of pipeline in interest of farmers, impermissible. [State of T.N. v. GAIL India Ltd., (2016) 7 SCC 565]

Labour Law — Back wages/Other consequential relief — Compensation in lieu of back wages: In lieu of 40% back wages, appellant directed to pay Rs 1.5 lakhs to respondent. [Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority v. Mandeep Singh, (2016) 7 SCC 571] 

Labour Law — Reinstatement/Back wages/Arrears — Compensation in lieu of reinstatement — Quantum of compensation: High Court substituted award of reinstatement with one-time payment of compensation of Rs 75,000 but having regard to fact that petitioner worked from 1984 though intermittently up to 1993, interest of justice would be advanced in case compensation is slightly enhanced and fixed at Rs 2,00,000. Hence, appellant entitled to compensation of Rs 2,00,000. [Raj Kumar v. SBI, (2016) 7 SCC 582]

Penal Code, 1860 — S. 395 — Punishment for dacoity: As accused was of young age and nothing was recovered from him, sentence of 5 yrs’ RI, imposed upon him is reduced to the period already undergone i.e. 3 years and 2 months of actual imprisonment. [Pareshbhai Annabhai Sonvane v. State of Gujarat, (2016) 7 SCC 684]

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — S. 24(2): For determination of deemed lapsing of Land Acquisition Proceedings initiated under LA Act, 1894, in terms of S. 24(2) of 2013 Act, following Karnail Kaur, (2015) 3 SCC 206 held, though an award was passed in respect of land belonging to appellant, appellant has not been dispossessed and hence appellant is entitled for protection under S. 24(2) 2013 Act. [Pawan Kumar Aggarwal v. State of Punjab, (2016) 7 SCC 614]

Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 — Ss. 22, 15 and 16 — Reference made before BIFR: Winding-up order passed under Companies Act is not the culmination of winding-up proceedings before Company Court but is in effect commencement of the process which ultimately would result in dissolution of company in terms of S. 481, Companies Act. Thus, whenever a reference is made to BIFR under Ss. 15 and 16 of SICA, provisions of SICA would come into play and they would prevail over provisions of Companies Act and proceedings under Companies Act must give way to proceedings under SICA. [Madura Coats Ltd. v. Modi Rubber Ltd., (2016) 7 SCC 603]

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Ss. 107 and 117: Registration of agricultural lease deed, mandatory, in States of Punjab and Haryana. Consequently, in view of Ss. 17 and 49 of Registration Act r/w S. 107 TPA, lease deed in present case would not be admissible in evidence and, therefore, inter alia lease deed cannot be looked into for the purpose of determining the duration of lease in such a case. [Shyam Lal v. Deepa Dass Chela Ram Chela Garib Dass, (2016) 7 SCC 572]


Join the discussion

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.