Supreme Court Weekly Digest February 2019 Part 3

• Supreme Court Weekly Digest February 2019 Part 1
• Supreme Court Weekly Digest February 2019 Part 2

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Issue of maintainability of the execution case concerning the foreign awards to be considered along with issue of enforceability. A.M. Khanwilkar & Ajay Rastogi, JJ. LMJ International Ltd. v. Sleepwell Industries Co. Ltd., S.L.P. (C) No. 540 of 2018 20-02-2019

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. Mohan M. Shantanagoudar & Vineet Saran, JJ. MMTC Ltd. v. M/s. Vedanta Ltd., C.A. No. 1862 of 2014 18-02-2019

Contempt of Court - The law of contempt has been recognized in English law at least from the 12th Century A.D. to the present time. It is also important to remember that while considering the question of disobedience of an order, what must be regarded is the letter and the spirit of the order, together with the bona fide or genuine belief of the alleged contemnor as to such order. Rohinton Fali Nariman & Vineet Saran, JJ. Reliance Communication Limited v. State Bank of India, W.P. (C) No. 845 of 2018 20-02-2019

Constitution of India - Art. 226 - A writ of mandamus is issued, when there is a right and correspondingly there is a legal duty to perform. Abhay Manohar Sapre & Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Rafiqunnisa M. Khalifa, C.A. No. 1727 - 1732 of 2019 18-02-2019

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 482 - Inherent Powers - Quashing of the FIR / Complaint / Criminal Proceedings - Settlement between Parties - Antecedents of the Accused - Accused persons were facing number of trials for the serious offences would be relevant factors. L. Nageswara Rao & M.R. Shah, JJ. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar, Crl.A. No. 336 of 2019 22-02-2019

Evidence Law - Appreciation of Evidence - General Principle - Even if some part of the evidence of witness is found to be false, the entire testimony of the witness cannot be discarded. Sanjay Kishan Kaul & Hemant Gupta, JJ. Mahendran v.  State of Tamil Nadu Crl.A. No. 1266 of 2010 21-02-2019

Evidence Law - ‘Interested’ and ‘Related’ Witnesses - Difference between - A related witness cannot be said to be an ‘interested’ witness merely by virtue of being a relative of the victim - A witness may be called interested only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation, which in the context of a criminal case would mean that the witness has a direct or indirect interest in seeing the accused punished due to prior enmity or other reasons, and thus has a motive to falsely implicate the accused - In criminal cases, it is often the case that the offence is witnessed by a close relative of the victim, whose presence on the scene of the offence would be natural. The evidence of such a witness cannot automatically be discarded by labelling the witness as interested. In case of a related witness, the Court may not treat his or her testimony as inherently tainted, and needs to ensure only that the evidence is inherently reliable, probable, cogent and consistent. L. Nageswara Rao & Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ. Md. Rojali Ali v. State of Assam, Crl.A. No. 1839 of 2010 19-02-2019

Medical Education - Loss of an Academic Year - Compensation - Middle class parents do not have the luxury of resources - A student who has been deprived of a valuable year in pursuing studies, cannot be left in the lurch. D.Y. Chandrachud & Hemant Gupta, JJ. Riya George v. Kannur Medical College W.P. (C) No. 1247 of 2018 21-02-2019

Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - Though, it was the discretion of the Courts/Authority to award compensation with different percentage in every case but it was necessary to give reasons in support of award of such compensation. Abhay Manohar Sapre & L. Nageswara Rao, JJ. Union of India v. Avtar Chand, C.A. No. 3416 of 2010 19-02-2019

Motor Accidents Claims - The claimant 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 very extent of the family left behind by the claimant, inclusive of his wife and three children, obviously falsify his suggestions about inability of having marital life. Abhay Manohar Sapre & Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. S. Kumar v. United India Insurance, C.A. No. 6038 of 2003 18-02-2019

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - 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. Rohinton Fali Nariman & Navin Sinha, JJ. Tamil Nadu Polution Control Board v. Sterlite Industries (i) Ltd., C.A. No. 4763 of 2013 18-02-2019

Penal Code, 1860 - S. 34 - To invoke Section 34 IPC, it must be established that the criminal act was done by more than one person in furtherance of common intention of all. It must, therefore, be proved that: (i) there was common intention on the part of several persons to commit a particular crime, and (ii) the crime was actually committed by them in furtherance of that common intention. The essence of liability under Section 34 IPC is simultaneous conscious mind of persons participating in the criminal action to bring about a particular result. Minds regarding sharing of common intention gets satisfied when an overt act is established qua each of the accused. Common intention implies pre-arranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to the pre-arranged plan. Criminal act mentioned in Section 34 IPC is the result of the concerted action of more than one person and if the said result was reached in furtherance of common intention, each person is liable for the offence as if he has committed the offence by himself. R. Banumathi & R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. Balvir Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Crl.A. No. 1115 of 2010 19-02-2019

Penal Code, 1860 - S. 307 - Attempt to Murder - There is no requirement for the injury to be on a “vital part” of the body, merely causing ‘hurt’ is sufficient to attract S. 307 I.P.C. L. Nageswara Rao & Indu Malhotra, JJ. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Harjeet Singh, Crl.A. No. 1190 of 2009 19-02-2019

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - S. 6 - Disposal of property left on public premises by unauthorized occupants - Section 6 of the PP Act applies, inter alia, to the persons who keep their goods in the public premises whether they are tenants / licensees, sub­tenants or any other parties. A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan & S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ. Board of Trust for the Port of Kolkata v. Apl (India) Pvt. Ltd. C.A. No. 3910 of 2013 21-02-2019

Railways Act, 1989 - S. 160(2) - Breaks any gate or chain or barrier set up on either side of a level crossing which is closed to road traffic - The offence in question is neither against the society nor it involves any moral turpitude and nor it has resulted in causing any harm or injury to any human being except causing some damage to the railway property, viz., one railway crossing gate. Abhay Manohar Sapre & Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. Nagaraj v. Union of India, Crl.A. No. 324 of 2019 21-02-2019

Slum Areas Act, 1971 (Maharashtra) - Slum Act is a beneficial legislation meant to ameliorate the poor condition of slumdwellers. The legislative purpose behind this enactment is to provide statutory protection to the rights of slum dwellers in furtherance of their fundamental right to shelter and other basic amenities, enabling them to lead a dignified life as reflected in the Constitution. N.V. Ramana & Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ. Lullu Vas v. State of Maharashtra, C.A. No. 1973 of 2019 22-02-2019

Service Law - Relaxation - Exercise of the power of relaxation without informing the candidates about the existence of such power would be detrimental to the interests of others who did not possess the certificate and did not take part in the selection process. L. Nageswara Rao & Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ. Sanjay K. Dixit v. State of Uttar Pradesh, C.A. No. 1961 of 2019 22-02-2019

Specific Performance - Equity - Comparative Convenience - Principles of - The party seeking the remedy has to make out a prima facie case on merits, and has to satisfy the court that there is some basis to its claim regarding the existence of his right. Further, the court must balance the comparative hardship or mischief which is likely to occur from withholding the relief, against that which would likely arise from granting it. It has to be further established that noninterference by the court would result in “irreparable injury” to the party seeking relief and that there is no other remedy available to the party except to grant the relief sought. N.V. Ramana & Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ. Lullu Vas v. State of Maharashtra, C.A. No. 1973 of 2019 22-02-2019