{"id":39901,"date":"2016-03-18T16:09:09","date_gmt":"2016-03-18T10:39:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=39901"},"modified":"2016-04-15T16:41:55","modified_gmt":"2016-04-15T11:11:55","slug":"2016-scc-vol-3-march-14-2016-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/18\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-14-2016-part-1\/","title":{"rendered":"2016 SCC Vol. 3 March 14, 2016 Part 1"},"content":{"rendered":"

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 \u2014 S. 24 \u2014 Transfer of matrimonial proceedings: <\/strong>There was no reason why divorce case be not transferred to Jamnagar when other proceedings between parties already pending at Jamnagar, hence, transfer of proceedings from Rajkot to Jamnagar, allowed. [Tejalben v. Mihirbhai Bharatbhai Kothari, (2016) 3 SCC 69<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 \u2014 S. 35-A and Or. 6 R. 15 & Or. 18 R. 4 \u2014 Imposition of exemplary costs: <\/strong>Sanctity of affidavits filed by parties has to be preserved and protected and at the same time filing of irresponsible statements without any regard to accuracy has to be discouraged. Filing of false affidavit should be effectively curbed with a strong hand to preserve purity of judicial proceedings. Hence, imposition of costs by High Court of Rs 10 lakhs on petitioner for filing a false or misleading affidavit in court, affirmed. [Sciemed Overseas Inc. v. BOC India Ltd., (2016) 3 SCC 70<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 \u2014 Ss. 100 and 103 \u2014 Second appeal \u2014 Scope of interference:<\/strong> Interference with concurrent findings of courts below on pure question of fact, in second appeal, not permissible unless such findings are based on no evidence or are perverse. Said determination should be based on a reasonable man\u2019s inference on facts. To the reasonable man, if conclusion on facts in evidence made by court below is a possible one, there is no perversity, and if not, the finding is perverse. Inadequacy of evidence or a different reading of evidence is not perversity, nor will a wrong finding of fact by itself constitute a question of law. In order to constitute a question of law, the wrong finding should stem out of a complete misreading of evidence or it should be based only on conjectures and surmises. [Damodar Lal v. Sohan Devi, (2016) 3 SCC 78<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Constitution of India \u2014 Art. 136 \u2014 Scope of interference \u2014 Interim\/Interlocutory orders\/Injunction\/Stay:<\/strong> In view of admission of appeal by High Court, it would be in the interest of parties concerned to get that appeal disposed of at the earliest. Hence, High Court directed to dispose of appeal expeditiously and preferably within six months from date of present order. [Asha Shrichand Raheja v. Purushotam Vishandas Raheja, (2016) 3 SCC 98<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Constitution of India \u2014 Arts. 51-A(g) & (h), 21, 48, 48-A, 14 to 17, 19 and 29 \u2014 Animal rights:<\/strong> Jallikattu and other forms of bulls race cause trouble, pain and stress to bulls and it is contrary to provisions of PCA Act. Supreme Court has adjudged this particular issue A. Nagaraja<\/em>, (2014) 7 SCC 547, in backdrop of Arts. 51-A(g) and (h) of Constitution of India. There can be no shadow or trace of doubt that the Constitution of India is an organic and compassionate Constitution. [Compassion Unlimited Plus Action v. Union of India, (2016) 3 SCC 85<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Consumer Protection \u2014 Services \u2014 Insurance \u2014 Theft\/Burglary insurance:<\/strong> As per cls. 4 and 5 of proposal form (which was part of insurance policy) r\/w cl. 12 of insurance policy, items kept in display window or lying out of safe, though covered under the policy during daytime in business hours, were excluded under the policy after business hours at night. Meaning thereby, if burglary was committed of items kept in display window or lying out of safe during daytime in business hours then appellant insurer was liable to reimburse the loss in respect thereof under the policy but not when burglary of such items was committed after business hours at night. In order to claim benefit of policy in respect of such articles after business hours, it was obligatory upon insured to keep such items inside safe during night hours till opening of shop on next day. Thus, having regard to clear and unambiguous wording of aforesaid clauses of policy in relation to above condition, claim made by respondent insured with respect to stolen articles which were lying at night (when burglary took place) in display window and out of safe, held, was not covered under the policy concerned. Respondent did not pay any additional premium to get coverage of aforesaid two instances to avoid rigours of cls. 4, 5 and 12. Consequently, claim made by respondent with respect to said stolen articles was liable to be rejected. [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Orient Treasures (P) Ltd., (2016) 3 SCC 49<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 \u2014 Ss. 154 and 173(8) and 300 \u2014 FIR \u2014 Second FIR \u2014 Permissibility of:<\/strong> There can be no second FIR in the event of any further information being received by investigating agency in respect of the same offence or same occurrence, or, same transaction giving rise to one or more offences for which charge-sheet has already been filed by investigating agency. Recourse available with investigating agency in said situation is to conduct further investigation, normally with leave of court as provided under S. 173(8) CrPC. [Awadesh Kumar Jha V. State of Bihar, (2016) 3 SCC 8<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Criminal Trial \u2014 Investigation \u2014 Fresh investigation\/Reinvestigation or further investigation<\/strong>:<\/strong> The extraordinary power of constitutional courts in directing CBI to conduct investigation in a case must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations, when it is necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigation or where incident may have national or international ramifications or where such order may be necessary for doing complete justice and for enforcing fundamental rights. Each of the determinants is complete and independent by itself to justify exercise of such power and is not interdependent on each other. In facts and circumstances of instant case, CBI unhesitatingly entrusted with the task of undertaking a de novo investigation in the incident of brutal assassination of appellant\u2019s husband who was a sitting MLA, in broad daylight under public gaze, by rival candidate. [Pooja Pal v. Union of India, (2016) 3 SCC 135<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Criminal Trial \u2014 Witnesses \u2014 Hostile witness \u2014 Testimony of \u2014 Extent to which may be relied on:<\/strong> Whenever a prosecution witness turns hostile, his testimony cannot be discarded altogether. [Krishan Chander v. State of Delhi, (2016) 3 SCC 108<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Evidence Act, 1872 \u2014 S. 11 \u2014 Plea of alibi \u2014 Nature of \u2014 When to be proved:<\/strong> Word alibi means \u201celsewhere\u201d. Plea of alibi is not one of the General Exceptions contained in Ch. IV IPC. It is rule of evidence recognised under S. 11, Evidence Act. However, plea of alibi taken by defence is required to be proved only after prosecution has proved its case against accused. [Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2016) 3 SCC 37<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 \u2014 Ss. 13(1)(i) (a) and 13-B(1) & (2): <\/strong>Matter disposed of in terms of settlement and appearance before Supreme Court in person of husband and wife, as out of the amount of Rs 29.50 lakhs as alimony, fixed by High Court, Rs 21 lakhs already paid before High Court and further Rs 5 lakhs deposited with Family Court. [Priyanka Chawla v. Amit Chawla, (2016) 3 SCC 126<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Insurance \u2014 Motor insurance \u2014 Insurer when may avoid liability towards loss suffered by owner of vehicle in motor accident:<\/strong> Claim of Rs 1,64,033 towards repair of insured goods vehicle which met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicles, wherefor FIR was also registered, rejected by respondent Insurance Company on ground of contravention of terms and conditions of policy inasmuch as driver allowed six passengers to travel in vehicle, when permitted load was only 1+1. To avoid liability, Insurance Company must not only establish defence claimed, but also establish that breach of policy was so fundamental that it ended contract\/that breach concerned caused the accident. Mere factum of carrying more passengers than permitted capacity in goods carrying vehicle by insured does not amount to fundamental breach of terms of policy. Further held, burden of proof to establish such breach on part of insured\/causality rests with Insurance Company. [Lakhmi Chand v. Reliance General Insurance, (2016) 3 SCC 100<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 \u2014 S. 166(2) \u2014 Territorial jurisdiction of Tribunal:<\/strong> When accident occurred outside jurisdiction of Tribunal, claimant too resided outside its jurisdiction but respondent Insurance Company carrying on business within its jurisdiction, hence, claim petition, maintainable before such Tribunal. [Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2016) 3 SCC 43<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 \u2014 Ss. 138, 139 and 118(a) \u2014 Dishonour of cheque issued as security for discharge of a debt or other liability:<\/strong> Conviction of guarantor\/surety who had issued cheques as security for payment of amount due by principal debtor, as principal debtor had defaulted, confirmed. [Don Ayengia v. State of Assam, (2016) 3 SCC 1<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Penal Code, 1860 \u2014 S. 302 or S. 304 Pt. II [Ss. 454\/376\/302 and 300] \u2014 Culpable homicide or murder:<\/strong> As Respondent-accused and one other (since acquitted), entered house of victim and committed rape on her and after pouring kerosene oil, set her ablaze and in course of her treatment, she died after 2 months, intention of accused to cause death was present, hence, conviction under S. 302, restored. [State of Assam v. Ramen Dowarah, (2016) 3 SCC 19<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Penal Code, 1860 \u2014 Ss. 302\/34 \u2014 Murder trial \u2014 Appreciation of evidence:<\/strong> There is no impediment for recording conviction based upon uncorroborated testimony of single witness, if it is reliable. [Sudip Kumar Sen v. State of W.B., (2016) 3 SCC 26<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Penal Code, 1860 \u2014 Ss. 302\/34 or Ss. 304 Pt. I\/34 and Ss. 307\/34 & S. 452 [S. 300 Thirdly] \u2014 Culpable homicide or murder:<\/strong> Death occurred 62 days after occurrence and proximate cause of death was septicaemia due to injuries caused in the incident. As per evidence of doctor who examined deceased in hospital, deceased was discharged from hospital in good condition and he survived for 62 days. No opinion was elicited from the doctor who examined deceased in hospital or the doctor who conducted post-mortem that head injury sustained by deceased was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Having regard to fact that deceased survived for 62 days and that his condition was stable when he was discharged from hospital, court cannot draw inference that intended injury caused was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death so as to attract S. 300 Thirdly IPC. Therefore, conviction of appellant, altered from S. 302 to S. 304 Pt. I. [Sanjay v. State of U.P., (2016) 3 SCC 62<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Penal Code, 1860 \u2014 Ss. 398 and 401:<\/strong> Reduction of sentence, to less than the prescribed minimum, impermissible. [Parveen v. State of Haryana, (2016) 3 SCC 129<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Service Law \u2014 Recruitment Process \u2014 Eligibility criteria\/conditions \u2014 Post of Librarian:<\/strong> As per amended R. 4 of Bihar District Council Secondary and High Secondary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Manual, 2006, for appointment as Teachers\/Librarians, candidates must possess graduation degree from any recognised university with minimum 45% marks. Order dt. 25-11-2008 declared that degree of Sahityaalankar awarded by Deoghar Vidyapeeth was not equivalent to graduation degree. High Court in Reeta Srivastava<\/em>, CWJC No. 13343 of 2011, order dated 7-5-2012 (Pat) and other connected matters found that degree of Sahityaalankar was not equivalent to graduation degree. Hence, impugned judgment directing appellant State to redo entire selection process for post of Librarian, granting respondents who possessed degree of Sahityaalankar equivalence with graduation degree, set aside and matter remanded to High Court for consideration afresh. [State of Bihar v. Sanjay Kumar, (2016) 3 SCC 33<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Trusts and Trustees \u2014 Wakfs \u2014 Wakf Property \u2014 Interim arrangement: <\/strong>To conserve\/prevent misuse of wakf property, appellant permitted to work out remedy, as per liberty granted in impugned judgment, before an appropriate forum and initiate process within one month and to also seek appropriate interim relief from authority concerned. However, in interest of both parties, interim order of High Court to run day-to-day expenses of Trust by Trustees presided over by local Mamlatdar with representation from both appellants and respondents, to continue for eight weeks so as to enable appellant to work out remedies. [Kasamsha Ramjanisha Diwan v. Gujarat State Wakf Board, (2016) 3 SCC 132<\/a>]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 \u2014 S. 24 \u2014 Transfer of matrimonial proceedings: There was no reason why divorce case be not transferred <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":102451,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-39901","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casesreported","category-supremecourtcases"],"yoast_head":"\n2016 SCC Vol. 3 March 14, 2016 Part 1 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/18\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-14-2016-part-1\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"2016 SCC Vol. 3 March 14, 2016 Part 1\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Civil Procedure Code, 1908 \u2014 S. 24 \u2014 Transfer of matrimonial proceedings: There was no reason why divorce case be not transferred\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/18\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-14-2016-part-1\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-03-18T10:39:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-15T11:11:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/18\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-14-2016-part-1\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/18\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-14-2016-part-1\/\",\"name\":\"2016 SCC Vol. 3 March 14, 2016 Part 1 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/18\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-14-2016-part-1\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/18\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-14-2016-part-1\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-03-18T10:39:09+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-15T11:11:55+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/18\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-14-2016-part-1\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/18\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-14-2016-part-1\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/18\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-14-2016-part-1\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/18\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-14-2016-part-1\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"2016 SCC Vol. 3 March 14, 2016 Part 1\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\",\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sucheta\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"2016 SCC Vol. 3 March 14, 2016 Part 1 | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/18\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-14-2016-part-1\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"2016 SCC Vol. 3 March 14, 2016 Part 1","og_description":"Civil Procedure Code, 1908 \u2014 S. 24 \u2014 Transfer of matrimonial proceedings: There was no reason why divorce case be not transferred","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/18\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-14-2016-part-1\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2016-03-18T10:39:09+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-15T11:11:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/18\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-14-2016-part-1\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/18\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-14-2016-part-1\/","name":"2016 SCC Vol. 3 March 14, 2016 Part 1 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/18\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-14-2016-part-1\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/18\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-14-2016-part-1\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","datePublished":"2016-03-18T10:39:09+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-15T11:11:55+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/18\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-14-2016-part-1\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/18\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-14-2016-part-1\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/18\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-14-2016-part-1\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/03\/18\/2016-scc-vol-3-march-14-2016-part-1\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"2016 SCC Vol. 3 March 14, 2016 Part 1"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa","name":"Sucheta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sucheta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":36821,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/02\/24\/2016-scc-vol-1-january-14-2016-part-2-2\/","url_meta":{"origin":39901,"position":0},"title":"2016 SCC Vol. 1 January 14, 2016 Part 2","author":"Sucheta","date":"February 24, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Civil Procedure Code, 1908 \u2014 Or. 1 Rr. 3 and 10(2) and S. 115 \u2014 Impleadment as defendants when original defendants set ex parte:\u00a0As the impleadment application moved by appellants for impleading themselves as defendants when original defendants set ex parte, was allowed by trial court, but set aside in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":236706,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/03\/2020-scc-vol-5-part-3\/","url_meta":{"origin":39901,"position":1},"title":"2020 SCC Vol. 5 Part 3","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 3, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 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 \u2014 Seat of arbitration \u2014 Determination of: Mere expression \u201cplace of arbitration\u201d in the arbitration clause, held, cannot by itself be the basis to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":369065,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/07\/2025-scc-vol-9-part-5-latest-supreme-court-cases\/","url_meta":{"origin":39901,"position":2},"title":"2025 SCC Vol. 9 Part 5","author":"Sonali Ahuja","date":"December 7, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"2025 SCC Vol. 9 Part 5: Explore the latest Supreme Court Cases on Arbitration, Civil Procedure Code, Consumer Commissions, Election Law, NI Act, Service Law, and IBC.","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"2025 SCC Vol. 9 Part 5","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/2025-SCC-Vol.-9-Part-5.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/2025-SCC-Vol.-9-Part-5.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/2025-SCC-Vol.-9-Part-5.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/2025-SCC-Vol.-9-Part-5.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":290345,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/22\/delhi-high-court-extends-scope-of-section-16-of-court-fees-act-1870-to-cases-where-suit-is-stayed-due-to-imposition-of-moratorium-directs-registry-to-refund-court-fees-legal-research-updates-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":39901,"position":3},"title":"Delhi High Court extends scope of Section 16 of Court Fees Act, 1870 to cases where suit is stayed due to imposition of moratorium","author":"Simranjeet","date":"April 22, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Delhi High Court extended the scope of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 by holding that the cases in which suit is stayed due to imposition of moratorium would fall within the ambit of Section 16.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-472.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":255335,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/08\/2021-scc-vol-6-part-2\/","url_meta":{"origin":39901,"position":4},"title":"2021 SCC Vol. 6 Part 2","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 8, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"In this part a read a very interesting decision delivered by the Supreme Court running into over 120 pages which has been expertly analysed by our editors. While analysing various provisions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Supreme Court concluded that the proceedings under Section 138 are \u201cquasi-criminal\u201d in nature.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":276357,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/31\/2022-scc-vol-9-part-2\/","url_meta":{"origin":39901,"position":5},"title":"2022 SCC Vol. 9 Part 2","author":"Editor","date":"October 31, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 S. 31(7) and Ss. 17, 21, 23(3), 24(1), 25, 26, 29 and 85(2)(a) \u2014 Party autonomy \u2014 Emphasis on, under the 1996 Act: The phrase \u201cunless otherwise agreed by the parties\u201d used in various sections, namely, 17, 21, 23(3), 24(1), 25, 26,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-188-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-188-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-188-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-188-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-188-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39901","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=39901"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39901\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/102451"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39901"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39901"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39901"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}