2017 SCC Vol. 7 September 7, 2017 Part 5

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 7, 8 and 11: Arbitration clause contained in agreement would remain operative even if agreement stands terminated by mutual consent of parties. If subsequent to written agreement containing arbitration clause, parties enter into an oral agreement in continuation of previous one without referring to any arbitration clause, arbitration clause contained in previous agreement would continue to be operative. [Hema Khattar v. Shiv Khera, (2017) 7 SCC 716]

Crimes against Women and Children — Eve teasing: Menace of eve teasing, in India, deeply deprecated. [Pawan Kumar v. State of H.P., (2017) 7 SCC 780]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 482 r/w S. 202(1) and S. 397 — Quashment — Order issuing summons/process — Interference with under S. 482 CrPC — Permissibility: High Court erred in dismissing petitions for quashing of proceedings on ground that Supreme Court in Urmila Devi, (2013) 15 SCC 624 had laid down that since order summoning accused was revisable under S. 397 CrPC, proceedings under S. 482 were not maintainable since no such proposition was laid down in that case, but on the contrary, it was held that power under S. 482 was always available to challenge order issuing process or summons. [Aroon Poorie v. Jayakumar Hiremath, (2017) 7 SCC 767]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 319 and 161 — Power under S. 319 — Object of: Powers of court to proceed under S. 319 CrPC even against those persons who are not arraigned as accused, cannot be disputed. Such provision is meant to achieve the objective that real culprit should not get away unpunished. Power under S. 319 CrPC can be exercised by trial court at any stage during trial i.e. before conclusion of trial, to summon any person as an accused and face trial in ongoing case, once trial court finds that there is some “evidence” against such a person, on basis of which evidence, it can be gathered that he appears to be guilty of offence. “Evidence” herein means material that is brought before court during trial. Insofar as material/evidence collected by IO at the stage of inquiry is concerned, it can be utilised for corroboration and to support evidence recorded by court to invoke power under S. 319 CrPC. No doubt, such evidence that has surfaced in examination-in-chief, without cross-examination of witnesses, can also be taken into consideration However, since it is a discretionary power given to court under S. 319 and is also an extraordinary one, same has to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where circumstances of case so warrant. Degree of satisfaction is more than degree which is warranted at the time of framing of charges against others in respect of whom charge-sheet was filed. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from evidence led before the court, that such power should be exercised. It is not to be exercised in a casual or a cavalier manner. The prima facie opinion which is to be formed requires stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. [Brijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 7 SCC 706]

Economic Theory, Law and Economics — Interface between Law and Economics: Economic impact of judicial decisions is important in deciding cases. India, a developing economy, is on road of economic growth and judiciary also has a role in this development. Various branches of law like monopoly laws, competition laws, bankruptcy laws, corporate law and environmental law are decided on basis of economic analysis of judicial decisions. Thus, it is bounden duty of court to consider economic analysis and economic impact of judicial decisions. Thus, the answer is a balanced approach i.e. if two views are possible, view that subserves economic interest of nation should be adopted. Economic interest of nation should take precedence over technical violation of law. [Shivashakti Sugars Ltd. v. Shree Renuka Sugar Ltd., (2017) 7 SCC 729]

Limitation Act, 1963 — Art. 65 Expln. (b) — Suit for possession based on title by heir of deceased Hindu woman having absolute/full interest in property concerned — “Entitled” — Meaning in the context: Expln. (b) is applicable only where plaintiff is entitled to possession of property on death of Hindu or Muslim female where such female did not have an absolute/full interest in property concerned, and thus is not applicable to heir of female who is absolute/full owner of property. Word “entitled” contained in Expln. (b) clearly means that person concerned is entitled independently of the right of the Hindu or Mohammedan female i.e. it is necessary to trace the right to someone else and not to the Hindu or Mohammedan female, as the case may be. [Bapusaheb Chimasaheb Naik-Nimbalkar v. Mahesh Vijaysinha Rajebhosale, (2017) 7 SCC 769]

Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 — Ss. 3(2)(a) and 4(1)(d), 4(1)(e), 4(2), S. 4(3) proviso 2, Ss. 10, 14(3), 16, 37(2) and 63 — Composition of Selection Committee for recommending and procedure of selection of Chairperson and Members of the Lokpal: Chief Justice or his nominee being a member of Selection Committee not having been accorded primacy of opinion, cannot be ground to challenge constitutionality of provision. [Just Society v. Union of India, (2017) 7 SCC 802]

Penal Code, 1860 — S. 295-A — Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs — Essentials: Aggravated form of insult to religion perpetrated with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging religious feelings/beliefs of a class of citizens and disrupting public order, is necessary. Insults to religion offered unwittingly or carelessly or without any malicious or deliberate intention to outrage feelings of that class, is not culpable. [Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar, (2017) 7 SCC 760]

Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 — Rr. 4, 5 and 6 — Implementation and compliance with: Directions issued with respect to: (i) Constitution of Central Wetlands Regulatory Authority; (ii) National Wetland Inventory and Assessment Project; (iii) Draft Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2016; (iv) Statement of expenditure filed by UoI on identification/conservation of wetlands. [M.K. Balakrishnan v. Union of India, (2017) 7 SCC805]

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.