Parties by an Agreement can confer jurisdiction upon a Court in Arbitration matters

May
2
2017


Supreme Court in the matter of Indus Mobile Vs. Datawind Innovations; Civil appeal no. 5370-5371/2017 in a landmark judgment has modified the understanding of law with regard to jurisdiction of Court. Age old law that parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a Court by an agreement between the parties is no longer applicable to arbitration proceedings.




Limitation Act applies to Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996

Mar
17
2017


Delhi High Court in the matter of Jammu and Kashmir State Power Development Corporation Vs K J M C Global Market; FAO (OS) 263/2016 held It is now well settled that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 apply to all proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, including both in court and arbitration proceedings except to the extent expressly excluded by the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1996. 




Lowest bidder not necessarily entitled to grant of tender

Mar
17
2017


Delhi High Court in the matter of Inderjit Mehta Vs Union of India; WP (C ) 683/2017 decided on 2nd March, 2017 held there is no vested right of a participant in a tender to have an agreement of award concluded in its favour. There cannot be any insistence for carrying on with the tender on the ground that a particular participant was adjudged as the lowest tenderer. All that can be demanded and be ensured to a tenderer is that he is given a fair, equal and non discriminatory treatment in the matter of evaluation of his tender.




Continuance in service for long time no right to seek regularisation

Mar
17
2017


Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary to Govt Vs. A Singamuthu Civil Appeal no. 3770/2017 decided on 7th March, 2017 held Part-time or casual employment is meant to serve the exigencies of administration. It is a settled principle of law that continuance in service for long period on part-time or temporary basis confers no right to seek regularisation in service. The person who is engaged on temporary or casual basis is well aware of the nature of his employment and he consciously accepted the same at the time of seeking employment.



Tags: 

Trust not entitled to invoke jurisdiction of Consumer Courts

Mar
17
2017


Supreme Court in the matter of Pratibha Pratisthan Vs Manager, Canara Bank; Civil Appeal no. 3560/2008 vide judgement dated 7th March, 2017 held A reading of the definition of the words 'complaint', 'complainant' and 'consumer' makes it clear that a Trust cannot invoke the provisions of the Act in respect of any allegation on the basis of which a complaint could be made. 




Litigants abusing the process of law should be dealt with harshly

Mar
17
2017


Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik Vs Pradnya Prakash Khadekar; SLP(C) no. 25331-33 of 2015 vide judgement dated 1st March, 2017 held that this Court must view with disfavour any attempt by a litigant to abuse the process. The sanctity of the judicial process will be seriously eroded if such attempts are not dealt with firmly. A litigant who takes liberties with the truth or with the procedures of the Court should be left in no doubt about the consequences to follow.




Limitation under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 #legalupdates

Mar
2
2017


The Tribunal has held that a recurring or continuous cause of action may give rise to a fresh cause of action resulting in fresh accrual of right to sue. The Tribunal was of the opinion that a subsequent wrong or injury would become an independent first wrong or injury and a subsequent, composite and complete cause of action and will not be hit by the term, “when the cause of action first arose”, as provided in Section 14(3) of the NGT Act.The Hon’ble National Green tribunal has expanded the scope and extent of disputes in pursuance to its objective of effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection.




Reciprocal Advertising #legalupdates

Mar
2
2017


Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a matter explained propositions relating to comparative advertising which means "any trader is entitled to puff his own goods even though such puff as a matter of pure logic involves the denigration of his rival's goods". Factors constituting disparagement were also laid down which were the intention, the overall effect and the manner of advertising the specific commercial. Taking in account the statements of law in both the commercials, concept of "reciprocal advertisement" was propounded, in which they disgrace each other products with the same level of malicious contents. Hence the court in the aforesaid matter held that interim injunction will not be granted.

Procter & Gamble Home Products vs Hindustan Unilever Ltd. CS (OS) No. 459/16,463/16 and 507/16 decided on 17th February, 2017

 

 




Deficiency in service on part of the Bank when title deeds under their custody are lost #legalupdates

Mar
2
2017


In a case, before the National Commission, Bank took a stand that document had been 'misplaced', there shall still be a possibility that, document could be recovered at a later stage and returned to complainant. However, if Bank had intimated to the complainant that, documents had been "lost", cause of action would have started from date of receiving said intimation. In present case, therefore, it is established beyond doubt that since Bank has been taking the stand that, document was 'misplaced', cause of action had not accrued to complainant all these years, and hence, complaint filed by them cannot be stated to be beyond limitation in terms of Section 24A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Secretary/Manager, Mayyanad Regional Co-Operative Bank v. Ebrahimkutty




After acquisition of land, an allottee cannot be taken as necessary or proper party #legalupdates

Mar
2
2017


Acquisition may either be for a “public purpose” or for a company. When land has been acquired for public purpose, land vests in State after the Collector has made an award and the possession is taken. Once the land vests in State, acquisition is complete. An allottee from the State is not concerned with the process of acquisition. State may transfer land by public auction or by allotment at any price with which the person whose land is acquired has no concern. The fact that Government chooses to determine the allotment price with reference to compensation price determined by the Court does not provide any locus to an allottee to contest the claim for enhancement of compensation. Post-acquisition, an allottee cannot be treated at par with beneficiary for whom the land was acquired and therefore is neither necessary nor a proper party in award proceedings.

Satish Kumar Gupta v. State of Haryana & Ors. 21.02.2017 Civil Appeal Nos. 1587-1636 Of 2017








© 2010-15