5 Important Supreme Court Judgments February 18, 2019

1. Tamil Nadu Polution Control Board v. Sterlite Industries (i) Ltd.

Environmental Law - The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Section 18 - the State Government order made under Section 18 of the Water Act, not being the subject matter of any appeal under Section 16 of the NGT Act, cannot be “judicially reviewed” by the NGT. The NGT has no general power of judicial review akin to that vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India possessed by the High Courts of this country.

Citations : AIR 2019 SC 1074 : 2019 (3) Scale 721

Case Number : C.A. No. 4763 - 4764 of 2013 18-02-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : M. Yogesh Kanna

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman

2. MMTC Ltd. v. M/s. Vedanta Ltd.

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - The Court does not sit in appeal over the arbitral award and may interfere on merits on the limited ground provided under Section 34(2)(b)(ii), i.e. if the award is against the public policy of India. 

As per the legal position clarified through decisions of arbitrator are arbitrary, capricious or perverse, or when the conscience of the Court is shocked, or when the illegality is not trivial but goes to the root of the matter. An arbitral award may not be interfered with if the view taken by the arbitrator is a possible view based on facts. It is relevant to note that after the 2015 amendments to Section 34, the above position stands somewhat modified. Pursuant to the insertion of Explanation 1 to Section 34(2), the scope of contravention of Indian public policy has been modified to the extent that it now means fraud or corruption in the making of the award, violation of Section 75 or Section 81 of the Act, contravention of the fundamental policy of Indian law, and conflict with the most basic notions of justice or morality. Additionally, sub­section (2A) has been inserted in Section 34, which provides that in case of domestic arbitrations, violation of Indian public policy also includes patent illegality appearing on 8 the face of the award. The proviso to the same states that an award shall not be set aside merely on the ground of an erroneous application of the law or by re­appreciation of evidence. As far as interference with an order made under Section 34, as per Section 37, is concerned, it cannot be disputed that such interference under Section 37 cannot travel beyond the restrictions laid down under Section 34. In other words, the Court cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award, and must only ascertain that the exercise of power by the Court under Section 34 has not exceeded the scope of the provision. Thus, it is evident that in case an arbitral award has been confirmed by the Court under Section 34 and by the Court in an appeal under Section 37, this Court must be extremely cautious and slow to disturb such concurrent findings. 

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - While interpreting the terms of a contract, the conduct of parties and correspondences exchanged would also be relevant factors and it is within the arbitrator’s jurisdiction to consider the same. 

Referred Cases

1. Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49
2. McDermott International v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 181 
3. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. Friends Coal Carbonisation, (2006) 4 SCC 445
4. D.D. Sharma v. Union of India, (2004) 5 SCC 325
5. Pure Helium India (P) Ltd. v. ONGC, (2003) 8 SCC 593
6. ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd., (2003) 5 SCC 705

Citations : 2019 (4) Scale 391
Case Number : C.A. No. 1862 of 2014 18-02-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Surekha Raman

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

3. C.B.I. New Delhi v. B.B. Agarwal

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120B read with Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 - The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(2) read with Section 13(i) (c) and (d) - there is no criminality issue surviving qua those accused, who are alive so as to allow the prosecuting agency to continue with the criminal trial on merits. Indeed, it would be an abuse of process, as was rightly held by the High Court to which we concur.

Citations : AIR 2019 SC 1045 : JT 2019 (3) SC 130 : 2019 (4) Scale 389
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 2107 - 2125 of 2011 18-02-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Arvind Kumar Sharma

Respondent's Advocate : Nikhil Jain

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

4. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Rafiqunnisa M. Khalifa (deceased) Through His Legal Heir Mr. Mohd Muqueen Qureshi

The Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - A writ of mandamus is issued, when there is a right and correspondingly there is a legal duty to perform.

Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - Sections 312, 313, 313A and 314 - Prohibition of structures or fixtures which cause obstruction in streets - Power to remove without notice anything erected, deposited or hawked - In order to exercise the power under Section 314 (1) of the Act, two conditions must be present. First, the disputed wall, fence, rail, post, step, booth or any other type of structure or fixture, as the case may be, is erected or set up on any public street or open channel or drain or well or tank; and Second, any such structure or fixture, as the case may be, is erected or set up in the city or suburbs contrary to the provisions of Section 312(1) of the Act after coming into force the two Acts specified in sub­section (1).

Citations : JT 2019 (2) SC 410 : 2019 (4) Scale 655
Case Number : C.A. No. 1727 - 1732 of 2019 18-02-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Asha Gopalan Nair

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

5. S. Kumar (Dead) v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Motor Accidents Claims - The claimant-appellant overtly suggested in the claim application that he had suffered injuries to his private parts and at the age of 25 years, such injuries resulted in his inability to have the bliss of marital life. The appellant has, unfortunately, expired during the pendency of this appeal and his legal representatives, being his wife, mother and three children are substituted as appellants in his place. The very extent of the family left behind by the appellant, inclusive of his wife and three children, obviously falsify his suggestions about inability of having marital life.

Citations : JT 2019 (2) SC 405 : 2019 (3) Scale 872
Case Number : C.A. No. 6038 of 2003 18-02-2019

Respondent's Advocate : B.K. Satija

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari