Legal Reference Library

Supreme Court: Deciding a short question as to what should be the approach of the Court, once an application is duly filed in terms of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the civil court, the bench of MY Eqbal and Kurian Joseph, JJ held that the approach of the civil court should be not to see whether the court has jurisdiction but to see whether it’s jurisdiction has been ousted. The Court further held that once it is brought to the notice of the court that its jurisdiction has been taken away in terms of the procedure prescribed under a special statue, the civil court should first see whether there is ouster of jurisdiction in terms or compliance of the procedure under the special statute. Regarding the general law approach that a court should first see whether it has jurisdiction or not, the Court, referring to generalia specialibus non derogant rule, said that Such approaches would only delay the resolution of disputes and complicate the redressal of g

Bombay High Court: In a case of a company involved in a dispute and undergoing arbitration, a bench comprising of G.S. Patel, J. directed its lenders to wait for the passing of interim award before taking steps to get their money back. In the instant case, a company was incorporated to construct a bridge on a build, operate and transfer basis. A tax policy announced subsequently gave vehicles operating within a 5 km radius a substantial discount in toll rates, which affected the profitability and feasibility of the project. As the plaintiffs were unable to service their debts, the lender banks moved to sell off the pledged shares. The plaintiff company then approached the Court to restrain the lender banks from selling off the pledged shares before the passing of interim award in an arbitration between the company and State Government as they were expecting a favourable decision. The Court held the request of the plaintiffs to be ‘reasonable’ and ‘moderate’ and in interest of both t

Kerala High Court: In a recent case where respondent authorities illegally seized the passport of the dependants (wife and children) of victim of human trafficking in USA and denied them to travel to America, a bench of A.V.R. Pillai J, held that the denial of the same is not only violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners but also detrimental to the very concept of right, duties and obligations in matrimonial living of spouses. The counsel for the petitioner M.P. Ramnath contended that when the petitioners are having due visas granted by the Government of USA and when there is nothing illegal about the petitioners duly traveling to USA to join their husband /father (victim of human trafficking in USA), it is absolutely illegal and baseless to restrain the petitioners to travel to USA. The counsel for the respondent N. Nagaresh contended that if the petitioners are permitted to go abroad, it would be against the provisions of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Prote

Kerala High Court: Considering the increasing rate of crimes against women, a bench of Vinod Chandran J, in order to ensure safety of the working women held that women cannot be asked to work in night shifts between 10 P.M. to 6 A.M. The instant petition was filed by the women employees of the Seetharam Textiles Limited, Thrissur. V.M. Krishna Kumar, the counsel for the petitioner contended that asking women to work beyond 7 P.M. and prior to 6 A.M. is violation of Section 66 (1)(b) of the Factories Act, 1948. P. Vijayamma, the counsel for the respondent contended that the proviso to the above-mentioned Section enables the State Government to vary the limits provided thereto by notification in the official gazette with respect to any factory or group or class or group of description of factories. The Court read the circular dated 7.6.2003 issued by the Government of Kerala which stated that women can be employed till 10 P.M. provided that the employer must provide free transport f

Himachal Pradesh High Court- Considering the appeal with regard to grant of compensation to the claimants, a bench of Mansoor Ahmad Mir CJ, dismissed the appeal and held that the rights of victims of vehicular accidents cannot be defeated on flimsy grounds and the courts should not succumb to the procedural wrangles and tangles, technicalities and mystic maybes which in any way defeat the rights of the claimants. The Court observed that the aim and object of granting compensation is for the benefit of the victims/ persons, from whom the source of dependency has been taken away and who have lost their source of income and are deprived of the love and affection and hope of future because of the death of their kith and kin. The Court further noted that the Courts or the Tribunals have to decide such matters as early as possible, that too, summarily in terms of the mandate of Chapter XII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which provides mechanism to determine claim petitions and appeals. The

Madras High Court: While discussing the issue that whether “expiry date” and “best before date” are similar as contended by the petitioner in the present case, the bench of Vaidyanathan, J. observed that there is a clear distinction between the two terms. While “expiry date” means the end of estimated period under any stated storage conditions, after which product probably will not have the quality and safety attributes normally expected by the consumers; whereas “best before date” means the period during which the product shall remain fully marketable and shall retain specific qualities for which tacit or express claims have been made. The Court further added that Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labeling) Regulations, 2011 has clearly drawn the distinction between the terms. The case before the Court was that one of the food items imported by the petitioner did not meet the labeling requirements of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 as the expiry date and the best bef

Himachal Pradesh High Court- While deciding an appeal as to whether the suit land is partitioned or is still un-partitioned and in joint ownership of the parties to the suit and construction carried out by the defendant is justified or not, a bench of Dharam Chand Chaudhary J, held that the defendant cannot be permitted to go ahead with construction in violation of the rights and interest of other co-sharers as he is not in exclusive possession of the vacant suit land. The Court stated that the petitioners have successfully pleaded and proved the interference over the suit land by the defendant and threat to their rights and interest caused by such interference. The Court also noted that a co-sharer has every right, title and interest in the joint property even if not in actual and physical possession thereof. The possession of one co-sharer in joint property amounts to possession of all even if the other co-sharers are not in actual and physical possession thereof. Even a co-sharer i

Bombay High Court: Declaring the judgment of Harsha Nitin Kokate v. The Saraswat Cooperative Bank Ltd, 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 615  to be per incuriam, a bench comprising of G.S. Patel, J has held that legal heirs and not the nominees will get the ownership rights of share certificates. The Court declared the earlier judgment to be per incuriam, which means it had been wrongly decided and does not have to be followed. In the Kokate judgment,the Court had mistakenly concluded that once a nomination is made, the securities in question automatically get transferred in the name of the nominee upon the death of the holder of the shares and not to the legal heirs. The Court had considered the provisions of Section 109A of the Companies Act, 1956, and Bye-Law 9.11 under the Depositories Act and held that they do not displace the law of succession. The Court also discussed the purpose of nomination under Section 39 of the Insurance Act and various Supreme Court cases where it has been laid down

1. Is a dispute brought before the Company Law Board invoking the provisions of Sections 397, 398 and 402 of the Companies Act, 1956 at all referable to a private tribunal, viz., an arbitral panel for resolution? Does a decision of a foreign court on the question of whether a dispute is covered by an arbitration agreement bind the Company Law Board? These are among the questions of law canvassed in this group of appeals. List of Authorities & Decisions Referred/Cited 1. Haryana Telecom Ltd v Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd, (1999) 5 SCC 688. 2. Bennett Coleman & Co. v Union of India & Ors., 1977 (47) Comp Cas 92 3. Manavendra Chitnis & Anr. v Leela Chitnis Studios P. Ltd. & Ors., 1985 (58) Comp Cas 113 4. Surendra Kumar Dhawan & Anr. v R. Vir & Ors., [1977] 47 Comp Cas 276 (Delhi) 5. O.P. Gupta v Shiv General Finance (P.) Ltd. & Ors., [1977] 47 Comp Cas 279 (Delhi) 6. Das Lagerway Wind Turbines Ltd. v Cynosure Investments P. Ltd., [2009] 147 Com