Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 2(2) and proviso thereto (proviso ins. w.e.f. 23-10-2015), 2(1)(f), Pt. I or Pt. II and Ss. 11(6) and 9 — Seat of arbitration — Determination of: Mere expression “place of arbitration” in the arbitration clause, held, cannot by itself be the basis to determine the intention of the parties that they have intended that place as the juridical “seat” of arbitration. Intention of the parties as to the “seat” should be determined from reading all clauses in arbitration agreement as a whole, as to whether there are any clear indicia which indicate the seat of arbitration; and the conduct of the parties. Designation of “place of arbitration” in arbitration clause, plus significant indica determine seat of arbitration. [Mankastu Impex (P) Ltd. v. Airvisual Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 399]
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 39 Rr. 1 and 2 — Grant of temporary injunction: Temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale cannot be granted when there are doubts as to existence of a concluded contract and there is delay in instituting the suit. The onus is on plaintiff to demonstrate that the parties were ad idem qua their obligations/concluded contract. The grant of relief in a suit for specific performance is itself a discretionary remedy and a plaintiff seeking temporary injunction will therefore have to establish a strong prima facie case on basis of undisputed facts. Further, the conduct of the plaintiff will also be a very relevant consideration for purposes of injunction and the discretion has to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. [Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Ltd. v. KS Infraspace LLP Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 410]
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 1 R. 8 — Representative suit: Decree in a representative suit is binding on all persons on whose behalf or for whose benefit suit is filed or defended. [C.J. Baby v. Fr. Jiju Varghese, (2020) 5 SCC 420]
Service Law — Pay — Pay revision — Expert Body — Prescription of pay scales and incentives — Exclusion of judicial review: When Government has taken decision based on recommendations of expert committee, and several other factors including financial implication, Court should not substitute its views ad interfere only when it is satisfied that Government’s decision was arbitrary. [Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair, (2020) 5 SCC 421]
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 21 R. 90 — S. 5 of Limitation Act — Inapplicability of, to proceedings under Or. 21 R. 90 CPC: The limitation for filing an application to set aside a sale in execution of decree is 60 days in terms of Art. 127 of the Limitation Act. S. 5 of the Limitation Act which deals with extension of time or condonation of delay is not applicable to proceedings under Or. 21 R. 90 CPC and therefore, the delay, if any in filing of proceedings under Or. 21 R. 90 CPC, cannot be condoned under S. 5 of the Limitation Act. [Aarifaben Yunusbhai Patel v. Mukul Thakorebhai Amin, (2020) 5 SCC 449]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 340/195(1)(b) — Giving false evidence in court: As there was no prima facie case made out against accused for giving false evidence in Court, requiring initiation of criminal proceedings against him, application for prosecution for giving false evidence in court dismissed. [Deepak Chandrakant Jhaveri v. Johnson Dye Works (P). Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 456]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 2(1)(e), 2(2), 11(6) and 20 — Seat of arbitration — Determination of, when only the venue is specified: If the “subject-matter of the suit” is situated within the arbitral jurisdiction of two or more courts, the parties can agree to confine the jurisdiction in one of the competent courts. Seat of arbitration once determined, amounts to exclusive jurisdiction clause. [Brahmani River Pellets Ltd. v. Kamachi Industries Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 462]
Service Law — Departmental Enquiry — Charge/Charge-sheet — Competent authority — “Disciplinary authority”/“competent authority”: Under R. 3(h) of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Management Staff Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1976, “competent authority” means any authority empowered by Board of Directors or Chairman by any general or special rule or order to discharge function or use powers specified in rule or order. Further held, “competent authority” includes “disciplinary authority”. Under Sch. I, Functional General Manager which include DGM was disciplinary authority for punishment lesser than dismissal while Functional Director was disciplinary authority for punishment of dismissal. Hence, DGM was competent to issue charge-sheet since penalty of discharge was imposed. Besides, employee neither in his reply to charges nor in departmental appeal raised any issue pertaining to competency of DGM to issue charge-sheet but raised it for first time in writ petition. Impugned judgment finding punishment of dismissal (discharge actually) to be vitiated since charge-sheet was not issued by competent authority unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Directions for issuance of fresh charge-sheet set aside and order of discharge not interfered with. [Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Anil Padegaonkar, (2020) 5 SCC 474]
Human and Civil Rights — Right to Information Act, 2005 — Ss. 2(h), (f), (j), 8(1)(d), (e), (j) and 11 — Information relating to assets declared by Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts: Chief Justice of India is a “public authority” under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the Act covers the office of the CJI. Information relating to assets declared by Judges of Supreme Court is subject to the provisions of RTI Act. [Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481]
Nice post author.Thank you.
Very Good