FIRST LAW

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |  R.F. Nariman , Sanjiv Khanna & Surya Kant, JJ. W.P. (C) No. 43 of 2019 09-08-2019 The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 5 (8) (f) - Insolvency Committee Report 2018 - Allottees / home buyers were included in the main provision, i.e. Section 5(8)(f) with effect from the inception of the Code, the explanation being added in 2018 merely to clarify doubts that had arisen. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 -  Section 5 (8) (f) -  The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2018 - Constitutional Validity of - The Amendment Act to the Code does not infringe Articles 14, 19(1)(g) read with Article 19(6), or 300-A of the Constitution of India. The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 The RERA is to be read harmoniously with the Code, as amended by the Amendment Act. It is only in the...

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | Arun Mishra, S. Abdul Nazeer & M.R. Shah, JJ. M/s. Shahi and Associates v. State of U.P. C.A. No. 3559 of 2010 08-08-2019 The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 31 (7) (b) - The Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act, 1976 - Section 24 - Reduction of the Interest - Reduced the statutory interest to 6% p.a. from 18% p.a. as awarded by the Arbitrator - The interest awarded by the Arbitrator in accordance with Section 31(7)(b) of the Act of 1996 is restored. In the instant case, though the agreement was earlier to the date of coming into force of the Act of 1996, the proceedings admittedly commenced on 27.10.1999 and were conducted in accordance with the Act of 1996. If that be so, para 7­A of Section 24 of the U.P. Amendment Act has no application to the case at hand. Since the rate of interest granted by the Arbitrator is in accordance with Section 31(7)(b) of the Act of 1996, the High Court and th...

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | L. Nageswara Rao & Hemant Gupta, JJ. Secretary Managing Committee BSMPG College Roorkee v. Samrat Sharma, C.A. 6189 of 2019 08-08-2019 Service Law - University - Departmental Enquiry - Judicial Review - It is the decision making process and not the decision itself which can be the subject matter of judicial review. Interference by the courts can only be in cases where there is no evidence. Sufficiency of evidence for proof of the charges against delinquent officers is completely within the domain of the administrative authority. Courts cannot re-appreciate the evidence to come to a different conclusion. Interference with the penalty imposed on delinquent officers is permissible only when it shocks the conscience of the court. The High Court committed an error in reappreciating evidence in coming to the conclusion that the charges against Respondent No.1 were not established. It is well settled law that it is the decision making process...

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |  L. Nageswara Rao & Hemant Gupta, JJ. Civil Appeal Nos.6190-6201 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 14206-14217 of 2019) August 08, 2019 Recruitment Board - Manipulation of the OMR answer sheets - A bona fide decision taken by the Board to instill confidence in the public regarding the integrity of the selection process could not have been interfered with by the High Court. Sufficiency of the material on the basis of which a decision is taken by an authority is not within the purview of the High Court in exercising its power of judicial review. In the instant case, the Board initially conducted an inquiry on its own regarding the allegations pertaining to manipulation of the OMR answer sheets. The Board found that a few people benefited due to the tampering of the OMR answer sheets. On a deeper scrutiny sufficient material was found against 196 persons who were beneficiaries of the fraud in the alteration of marks. The ...

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | Abhay Manohar Sapre & Indu Malhotra, JJ. C.A. Nos. 6202 - ­6205 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 13573­13576 of 2014) August 08, 2019 Arbitration - Doctrine of ‘Group of Companies’ - the doctrine “Group of Companies” has its application to arbitral proceedings and, in appropriate cases, it can be so applied. A non-­signatory can be bound by an arbitration agreement on the basis of the “Group of Companies” doctrine, where the conduct of the parties evidences a clear intention of the parties to bind both the signatory as well as the non-signatory parties. The doctrine of ‘Group of Companies’ had its origins in the 1970’s from French arbitration practice. The ‘Group of Companies’ doctrine indicates the implied consent to an agreement to arbitrate, in the context of modern multi­party business transactions. The ‘Group of Companies’ doctrine has been invoked by courts and tribunals in arbitrations, where an arbitration agr...

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | Arun Mishra, S. Abdul Nazeer & M.R. Shah , JJJ. S.L.P. (C) Nos. 30404 - 30442 of 2017 08-08-2019 Laches and Delay - If the aggrieved party does not initiate the proceedings within the period of limitation without any sufficient cause, he can be denied the relief on the ground of unexplained laches and delay and on the presumption that such person has waived his right or acquiesced with the order. It is a very recognised principle of jurisprudence that a right not exercised for a long time is nonexistent. Even when there is no limitation period prescribed by any statute relating to certain proceedings, in such cases, courts have coined the doctrine of laches and delay as well as doctrine of acquiescence and non­suited the litigants who approached the court belatedly without any justifiable explanation for bringing the action after unreasonable delay. In those cases, where the period of limitation is prescribed within which the action is to...

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | R. Banumathi & A.S. Bopanna, JJ. Crl.A. No. 1066 of 2009 08-08-2019 Criminal Procedure – When a grave crime is registered, the PSI who is in-charge of the police station cannot wait for the arrival of the Circle Inspector or wait for the instruction to commence the investigation. [Para 24] Evidence Law – Minor discrepancies and inconsistent version do not necessarily demolish the prosecution case if it is otherwise found to be creditworthy. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be to assess whether the evidence of a witness read as a whole appears to be truthful. Once the impression is formed, it is necessary for the court to evaluate the evidence and the alleged discrepancies and then, to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the prosecution case. If the evidence of eye witness is found to be credible and trustworthy, minor discrepancies which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, cannot be m...