Supreme court
S. 11(6) A&C Act | Referral Courts Should Limit Its Enquiry To Prima Facie Existence Of Arbitration Agreement : Supreme Court
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court reiterated that the referral courts under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) should refrain from conducting an in-depth factual analysis of the dispute. Instead, their role is confined to assessing the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. “The scope of inquiry under Section 11 of the Act, 1996...
No Absolute Bar For Proclaimed Offender To Seek Benefit Of Anticipatory Bail : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently noted that being declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. does not impose an absolute bar on the accused from seeking anticipatory bail. “Coming to the consideration of anticipatory bail, in the event of the declaration under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., it is not as if in all cases that there will be a total embargo on considering the application for the grant of anticipatory bail.”, the bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar...
Ensure Victim's Presence Before Quashing Serious Offences, Especially Against Women, Based On Settlement: Supreme Court To High Courts
The Supreme Court has advised High Courts to exercise caution before quashing non-compoundable cases based on settlement between the victim and the accused. Without ensuring that the settlement is genuine, quashing petitions should not be allowed.Even if there is an affidavit of the victim accepting the settlement, it is advisable to seek the victim's presence, either physically or...
Hate Speech Not Same As Wrong Assertions Or False Claims : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court today (November 14), while dismissing a PIL seeking guidelines to prevent 'provocative speech' by political leaders, observed that the offence of hate speech cannot be equated to the act of wrong assertions or false claims that one may make. The plea filed by Hindu Sena Samiti through its President Surjeet Singh Yadav stressed the need for guidelines to "prevent the...
Article 14 Can't Be Invoked To Repeat Illegality Committed In Favour Of Someone : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has stated that a person cannot claim equal treatment based on an illegal benefit conferred to someone else. Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be used to perpetuate illegality, the Court said.A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih made these observations while rejecting the claim for a compassionate appointment made by...
Compassionate Appointment Is Not A Vested Right : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be granted without any kind of scrutiny or undertaking a process of selection.The Court reiterated that compassionate appointment is always subject to proper and strict scrutiny of the various parameters.A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih was deciding...
Officers Carrying Out Illegal Demolitions Liable To Restore Properties At Personal Cost & Pay Damages: Supreme Court
In the judgment containing directions against "bulldozer actions", the Supreme Court has warned that officials who carry out illegal demolitions in contravention of the judicial directions will be held liable to restore the properties at their personal cost in addition to pay damages.The Court also warned that the officials who violate the directions will be hauled up for contempt of...
'Lackadaisical Approach In Implementing Arms Act' : Supreme Court Forms Committee In Each State & UT To Curb Illegal Gun Menace
The Supreme Court recently constituted a Committee in each State as well as Union Territories after it found that the proliferation of factories, and workshops producing unlicensed arms, which are outside the regulatory framework, resulted in crimes against the Society as well as against the State. It also found that there is a "lackadaisical approach" in the implementation of the Arms Act,...
Power Of Attorney Holder, Who Was Vendee & Witnessed Execution, Can Give Evidence On Agreement To Sell : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that when multiple plaintiffs are involved in an agreement to sell, a power of attorney holder (who is also a vendee and a plaintiff) may testify on behalf of another plaintiff on matters requiring his personal knowledge. The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra reasoned that since the power of attorney, who is also a...
Executive Can't Become Judge, Pronounce Guilt Of Persons & Punish Them By Demolishing Their Properties : Supreme Court
Pronouncing judgment in the 'bulldozer matter', the Supreme Court today stated in unequivocal terms that the executive demolishing house of an accused without following due process of law would constitute an 'abuse of power'. If it takes such arbitrary action, the executive would be guilty of giving a go-by to principles of law and acting in a high-handed manner, which would have to be dealt...
Defer Demolitions By 15 Days, Personal Liability Of Officials For Violations: Read Supreme Court's Directions Against 'Bulldozer' Actions
The Supreme Court has invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to issue a slew of guidelines against "bulldozer actions" carried out by State authorities as a punitive action against persons accused/convicted in crimes."In order to allay the fears in the minds of the citizens with regard to arbitrary exercise of power by the officers/officials of the State, we...
