Facts:

The case involved seven accused, including appellant-accused 'M' and 'S.' Initial charges were not framed against 'M' and two others, but subsequent proceedings under Section 319 Cr.P.C. resulted in charges being framed. An attempt under Section 321 Cr.P.C. to withdraw the case against them was declined. The trial court relied on the testimony of injured eye-witnesses (PWs 5 and 6), medical evidence, and rejected the defense plea of alibi and false implication, leading to the conviction of all seven accused.

Issues:

The reliability of the prosecution's case, the rejection of the plea of alibi, and the impact of the Governor's pardon on the proceedings.

Held:

Although two accused were acquitted with the benefit of doubt, their acquittal does not mitigate the prosecution case against the remaining five accused, including the appellants. Acquittal of co-accused is not determinative of the guilt of others. The substance of the prosecution case remains intact.( Para 9)

The prosecution's case heavily relies on the testimony of injured eye-witnesses PW-5 and PW-6. Their consistent and reliable accounts, along with medical evidence, formed the basis of the conviction. The defense's attempt to discredit these witnesses was unsuccessful, and the trial court's reliance on their testimony was upheld.( Para 10)

The defense introduced a plea of alibi, supported by a witness (DW 5) and a complaint, but the trial court rejected it after thorough evaluation. The absence of the plea during cross-examination and the appellant's failure to assert non-presence at the crime scene in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. weakened the alibi.( Para 11)

The appellant's plea of alibi lacked credibility, as witnessed by DW-9 and other defense witnesses. The trial court and High Court rightly discarded these witnesses as unreliable. The plea of alibi was considered an afterthought and dismissed accordingly.( Para 12)

The absence of the recovery of the weapon used by the appellant-accused 'M' does not undermine the prosecution's case. The appellant's role as the leader of the unlawful assembly was established beyond doubt, justifying the conviction.( Para 13)

The unlawful assembly, comprising at least five accused, including the appellants, had a common object to attack and cause harm to the complainant party. The motive was linked to the appellant-accused 'M's pursuit of a rape and murder case. The assembly's actions constituted an unlawful assembly, engaging in rioting with deadly weapons and causing grievous bodily injuries.( Para 14)

FACTS:

The respondent floated tenders for the execution of work on a water treatment plant.

Three work orders were assigned to the appellant on different dates.

The contracts had a common arbitration clause, and the appellant claimed non-payment under the contracts.

The respondent delayed responding to the appellant's representations regarding outstanding payments.

The appellant approached the Settlement Committee, and after no response, requested the appointment of an arbitrator in 2002.

ISSUES:

Whether the Arbitration Applications were barred by limitation?

Applicability of the 1940 Act or the 1996 Act to the Arbitration Applications.

HELD:

The court addressed the facts, issues, and background of the case, leading to the appeals from the High Court's judgment dismissing the Arbitration Applications.( Paragraphs 1-4)

The court discussed the applicability of the 1940 Act or the 1996 Act, emphasizing the commencement of arbitral proceedings as per Section 21 of the 1996 Act.( Paragraphs 5-6)

The court examined the limitation under Section 43 of the 1996 Act and applied principles from relevant precedents to determine the starting point for the limitation period.( Paragraphs 7-8)

The court discussed the negotiation history between parties and clarified the need to plead and place on record such history for determining the "breaking point" when settlement becomes impossible.( Paragraphs 9-11)

The court found an element of mala fide conduct in the appellant's case and held that the Arbitration Applications were barred by limitation.( Paragraph 12)

REFERRED CASES:

Decided on : 03-09-2019

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11(6), 43(3), 85, 21, 85(2)(a), 43, 43(1), 43(3) - Arbitration Act, 1940 - Section 8(2) - Contract Act, 1872 - Section 28 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114(g) - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Payment of dues - Appointment of arbitrator - Appellant’s own default in sleeping over his right for 14 years will not constitute a case of ‘undue hardship’ justifying extension of time under Section 43(3) of the 1996 Act or show ‘sufficient cause’ for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act - Appellant should have approached the Court for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 8(2) of the 1940 Act within the appropriate limitation period - This Court agree with the High Court’s observation that the entire dispute seems concocted so as to pursue a monetary claim against the respondents, taking advantage of the provisions of the 1996 Act - Appeal dismissed.

Counsel for Appearing Parties

Mr. S.D. Singh, Advocate, Mrs. Bharti Tyagi, Advocate, Mr. Jitender Singh, Advocate, Mr. Ram Kripal Singh, Advocate, Ms. Shweta Sinha, Advocate and Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms. Pratibha Jain, Advocate, for the Respondent.

Cases Referred

Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd v. Jindal Exports Ltd., (2001) 6 SCC 356

Grasim Industries Limited vs. State of Kerala, (2018) 14 SCC 265

Hari Shankar Singhania and Others vs. Gaur Hari Singhania and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 658

Major (Retd.) Inder Singh Rekhi vs. Delhi Development Authority, (1988) 2 SCC 338

Milkfood Ltd. vs. GMC Ice Cream (P) Ltd, (2004) 7 SCC 288

Panchu Gopal Bose vs. Board of Trustees for Port of Calcutta, (1993) 4 SCC 338

Shetty's Constructions Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Konkan Railway Construction and Another, (1998) 5 SCC 599

Shree Ram Mills Ltd. vs. Utility Premises (P) Ltd., (2007) 4 SCC 599

State of Orissa and Another vs. Damodar Das, (1996) 2 SCC 216

Sunder Kukreja and Others vs. Mohan Lal Kukreja and Anr., (2009) 4 SCC 585

Union of India vs. Momin Construction Company, (1997) 9 SCC 97

Facts:

The dispute originated in 1987 when the appellants' predecessor filed an application seeking a declaration that "Bakers Choultry" is his private property. A rock inscription within the choultry indicated its management by the community of bakers for the benefit of others, with restrictions on alienation. The predecessor had previously claimed the choultry to be a "specific endowment" in earlier proceedings but later withdrew the application.

Issues:

Whether "Bakers Choultry" qualifies as a specific endowment under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.

The validity of the rock inscription and its implications on the choultry's status.

Held:

The court held that the "Bakers Choultry" and its rock inscription constitute a "specific endowment" as defined under the Act. The rock inscription, providing for the feeding of Brahmins during religious festivals, qualifies as a religious charity. The court rejected arguments of vagueness and secular nature, emphasizing divestment of the right to receive income. The predecessor's inconsistent claims were deemed disingenuous.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision that the "Bakers Choultry" is a specific endowment under the Act and not the private property of the appellants. The court provided a detailed analysis of the relevant legal provisions and previous decisions related to religious endowments.

Facts:

The case involves an appeal by Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. against the Competition Commission of India. The appellant was alleged to be abusing its dominant position in the relevant market, particularly in the National Capital Region (NCR), by offering unreasonably high incentives to drivers, resulting in a loss per trip.

Issues:

The primary issue is whether Uber's actions constitute an abuse of dominant position under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. The court also considered the definition of 'dominant position' as per Explanation (a), predatory pricing under Section 4(2)(a), and other relevant provisions.

Held:

The court decided not to interfere with the appeals based on the information provided, specifically a statement indicating that Uber was incurring a loss of Rs. 204 per trip for certain cars in its network. The court observed that this information prima facie suggests an abuse of dominant position under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.

In reaching this decision, the court referred to the definition of 'dominant position' in Explanation (a), which involves a position of strength enabling an enterprise to operate independently of competitive forces or affect competitors or the market in its favor. The court also noted that if an enterprise is making a loss for trips made, it could prima facie fall under the definition of abuse of dominant position.

The court emphasized the prohibition of unfair prices, including predatory pricing, under Section 4(2)(a). If a dominant position directly or indirectly imposes an unfair price, abuse of dominant position is attracted.

The appeals were dismissed with no orders as to costs, and the Director General was requested to complete the investigation within six months from the date of the judgment.

Facts:

Appellant, Ex-Sepoy Ram Khilawan, discharged on August 31, 1993, due to "CNS (IN) Seizure."

Discharge under Rule 13(3)(III)(iii) of Army Rules, 1954, for medical unfitness, not under residual clause (v).

Discharge proceeded without reference to Invalidating Medical Board.

Issues:

Whether the discharge of the appellant adhered to the prescribed procedure under Army Rules?

Applicability of Rule 13(3)(III)(v) in the discharge.

Held:

The discharge of the appellant was not under the residual clause (v) but under clause (iii) of Rule 13(3)(III) of the Army Rules. As the discharge was solely based on medical unfitness, it required adherence to the procedure laid down in Rule 13. Since the discharge proceeded without reference to the Invalidating Medical Board, it was deemed legally unsustainable.

The appellant, in accordance with General Principles of Army Order 46 of 1980, is entitled to be retained for ten years, and he would be deemed to be discharged only on October 22, 1997. Consequently, the appellant became entitled to pension, in addition to the disability pension granted for a period of five years. However, no arrears of salary were granted for the period up to the date of discharge due to "no work, no pay." Arrears of pension for a period of three years prior to filing the Writ Petition were directed to be paid to the appellant within six months from the date of the order.

Facts:

The case involves JBIMS, a department of the University of Mumbai, granted autonomous status for five years. The autonomous status, effective from 2014-15 to 2018-19, allowed 85% seat admissions based on merit from Maharashtra universities and 15% from the all-India quota. JBIMS sought an extension of autonomous status, facing delays in processing, leading to confusion during the 2019-2020 admissions.

Issues:

The delay in processing JBIMS's application for extension, the confusion in its status during the 2019-2020 admission process, and the subsequent legal challenge by students from other universities in Maharashtra.

Held:

The Court clarified that JBIMS, as a department of the University of Mumbai, did not need UGC approval for autonomous status, as it applies directly to the university under Section 122 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 (Para 11.2).

Despite the Directorate of Technical Education treating JBIMS as non-autonomous for 2019-2020 admissions, the Court held that the autonomous status had not been revoked or surrendered. The delay in the extension application processing contributed to the confusion (Para 11.5).

The decision emphasized that for the academic year 2019-2020, admissions must be conducted according to the High Court's judgment, treating JBIMS as an autonomous department of the University of Mumbai. The Directorate of Technical Education and CET-Cell were directed to follow the merit list for admissions (Para 12, 13).

Facts:

Appellant faced discharge due to seven instances of absence from duty with punishments ranging from 2 to 28 days of rigorous imprisonment.

Show-cause notice issued, and the appellant's reply mentioned family problems as the cause for mistakes.

Commanding Officer recorded the appellant as a habitual offender.

Issues:

Whether the discharge based on absence from duty was justified.

Adherence to para 5(a) of the Circular dated December 28, 1988, in conducting the enquiry.

Held and Decision:

The judgment emphasized the importance of an impartial enquiry before discharging a member from the armed forces.

Para 5(a) of the Circular dated December 28, 1988, outlined the enquiry process, excluding a court of inquiry but requiring a semblance of a fair decision-making process.

The appellant had the opportunity to provide an explanation but failed to do so, offering vague family circumstances.

The court found that the appellant had been given adequate opportunity to put forth his defense, satisfying the parameters laid down in para 5(a).

Absence from duty on multiple occasions with imposed punishments of imprisonment supported the conclusion that the appellant was a habitual offender.

In light of these factors, the order of discharge was considered justified.

Facts:

At the relevant time, respondent No.2 faced a default of Rs. 6.7 Crores and was declared an NPA by the bank. A Recovery Certificate was issued in 2001, leading to a Section 7 petition filed by Respondent No.1 before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The NCLT admitted the petition, and an appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) was subsequently dismissed.

Issues:

• Whether the default by Respondent No.2 is time-barred under the Limitation Act?

• Applicability of Section 23 of the Limitation Act to save limitation.

Held:

The court cites para 27 of B.K. Educational Services Private Limited vs. Parag Gupta and Associates, stating that the right to sue accrues when a default occurs. If the default happened over three years before filing the application, it would be barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act.( Paragraph 3)

The appellant argues for the applicability of Section 23 of the Limitation Act. The court rejects this, citing Balkrishna Savalram Pujari and Others vs. Shree Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan & Others, which distinguishes between a continuing wrong and a continuing right. The court holds that the Recovery Certificate in 2001 effectively and completely injured the appellant's rights, initiating the limitation period.( Paragraph 4)

Concluding that the claim is time-barred, the court sets aside the orders of the NCLT and NCLAT. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.( Paragraph 5)

Facts:

The challenges posed by the increasing number of vehicles, leading to a severe shortage of parking spaces in residential areas.

The court notes the failure of the government to provide sufficient public transport and highlights the need for comprehensive parking policies.

Issues:

Inadequate parking space in residential areas and the resulting impact on the social fabric and neighborhood harmony.

Lack of proper planning and infrastructure to accommodate the growing number of vehicles.

The need for regulatory measures to address parking issues in various areas, including transport hubs, institutional areas, and commercial zones.

Held:

The court directs municipal corporations and authorities to clear pavements from encroachments, making them usable for pedestrians.

Notifies the draft rules for the Delhi Maintenance and Management of Parking Places Rules 2019, with a compliance deadline of 30.09.2019.

Emphasizes the duty of all concerned to enforce the parking rules once notified.

Directs the Government of NCT to ensure proper assessment of parking needs for the next 25 years before granting permission for new structures.

Recommends the evaluation and effectiveness of the pilot project in Lajpat Nagar, with reports to be submitted by 30.12.2019.

Urges consideration of the viability of introducing RFID tags, parking guidance systems, and last-mile connectivity, with a report submission deadline of 30.09.2019.