The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996  - Section 11 (4) ,  (6) , Section 15

Government contract - Disputes arose - DGOF appointed one 'A' as an arbitrator as per arbitration clause 19(F) - Petitioner raised objections due to apprehension of bias - Yet, arbitration proceedings continued - Application filed before Principal District Court, whereupon, mandate of the Arbitrator terminated after observing that he failed to act fairly - In accordance with Section 15(2), Court directed DGOF to act as an arbitrator or to appoint a Government servant as an arbitrator - Admittedly, DGOF neither acted as an arbitrator, nor appointed any government servant within 30 days from the date of order - Petitioner filed a petition on 2.3.2024 for appointment of arbitrator - Subsequently respondent appointed one 'S' as arbitrator on 16.3.2024 - Whether DGOF, having failed to appoint an arbitrator within 30 days from the date of order, respondent forfeited its right to appoint an arbitrator - Held, yes - By then Respondent had lost its right to appoint an arbitrator - Datar Switchgears Ltd.'s case applicable. Punj Lloyd Ltd.'s case referred.

Found In:  Judgement

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996  - Section 11 (4) ,  (6) , Section 15

Appointment of arbitrator - Principles of natural justice - No one can be a judge in his own cause - Government contract - Appointment of Government servant as arbitrator by DGOF as per arbitration clause - Objections raised - Principal District Court terminated his mandate as he failed to act fairly - However, directions given to DGOF to act as an arbitrator or to appoint any Government servant as an arbitrator - Whether DGOF can act as an arbitrator as he is likely to be biased being a government servant - Relying upon Indian Oil Corporation's case, held, that parties having initially agreed to appointment of a government servant as arbitrator, cannot later plead violation of natural justice - Arbitration agreements in government contracts providing for appointment of a government servant as arbitrator, are neither void nor unenforceable as usually senior officers are appointed who are presumed to be impartial.

Found In:  Judgement

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996  - Section 9

The parties entered into an Agreement, to jointly carry on business, however, in breach of the agreement, the respondent approached the dealers and Distributors of the Appellant to take direct supplies from the Respondent on a higher discount - whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the order passed by the District Judge, Khurda in Arb. (P) No. 576 of 2007, on account whereof pending arbitration, the Respondent was restrained from marketing the products manufactured by her under the Trade Mark by herself or through anyone, except through the Appellant - Held no - The condition in the Deed of Assignment clearly stipulate that all the goods manufactured by the Respondent under the Trade Mark "Naturoma" would be marketed solely by the Appellant. Even upon termination of the joint venture under the Agreement between the parties, neither the Appellant nor the Respondent would be entitled to use or register the Mark in their own names or jointly with some other party - The Supreme Court held that the order passed by the District Jugde, Khurda, restraining the Respondent from marketing her products through any person, other than the Appellant, was more apposite as the rights of both the parties stood protected till such time as a final decision could be taken in arbitral proceedings - Impugned order of the ld. Single Judge of the High Court set aside and of the District Judge, Khurda restored - Appeals allowed.

Found In:  Judgement

Land Acquisition  - Land acquisition

Land Acquisition (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1996 - Section 48-B - Transfer of land to original owner in certain cases - Acquisition of land in 1995 representation was made by the respondent(s) for release/re-conveyance of a portion of the land which was acquired in 1949 inter alia on the ground that the appellant-Corporation was not utilising the same - Government of Tamil Nadu cancelled the order of re-conveyance earlier issued - Writ petition filed - High Court allowed the writ petitions inter alia on the ground that the Government is bound by provisions of promissory estoppel and also by reason of the fact that the order of cancellation of re-conveyance was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the land owners - Appeals - Respondent(s) has no right of asking for re-conveyance in 1995 as the possession of the property was taken over by the State as early as in 1949 when the Award was passed and the land vested in the State Government in 1962 - It was transferred to the Corporation - No case of malafide or perversity has been made out in the writ petitions - As per the clear mandate of Section 48 of the principal Act, no right of the landowners to apply for re-conveyance in respect of a land which had vested in the Government long ago - Impugned order of the High Court set aside - Appeals allowed - No costs.

Found In:  Judgement

Civil Law  - Allotment of land

Allotment of industrial sites - Applied for - Lease-cum-sale agreements - Executed in favour of respondents - Appellants issued letters to respondents - Writ petition - High Court - Quashed - Enhanced demands - Appeals - Board cannot be permitted - Exercise its powers - Fixing final price under Clause 7(b) at any indefinite time - After the allotment is made - Board sought - Fix final price after 13 years - Not permissible - "as soon as" contained in Clause 7(b) - Appeals dismissed.

Found In:  Judgement

Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, and Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982  - Preventive detention

Preventive detention - Selling expired drugs - Tampering with labels and printing fresh labels - Detention order - Contained ipse dixit - There was no relevant material on which detention order was passed - Impugned detention order quashed - Appeal allowed.

Found In:  Judgement

Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, and Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982  - Preventive detention

Preventive detention - If ordinary law of land (Indian Penal Code and other penal statutes) can deal with a situation, recourse to a preventive detention law will be illegal.

Found In:  Judgement

Hindu Charitable and Religious Institutions Act and Rules, 1989  - Violation

Rule 13 - Violation - Serious dispute - Appellant in service of Temple for many years - Retired from service - Board of Trustees passed formal order - Extending services on contract basis - Writ petition - High Court nullified - Appeal - High Court failed to notice - 1989 Rules have no application to engagements made on contract basis or when services of government servants or employees of other organizations - Utilized on deputation - Impugned judgment High Court set aside - Board is directed to consider - Whether appellant ought to be granted further extension - Compensate for loss of service - Appeal allowed.

Found In:  Judgement

Indian Penal Code,1860  - Acquittal of charges

Acquittal of charges - Appeal - Committing murder of 2 persons - High Court set aside conviction - Alleged incident - Sought to be proved by PW3. - High Court disbelieved her evidence - Ground - She was unlikely to be present at the scene of incident - Her name did not figure in FIR - Improved her version - Not even tally with - Version given by injured - Ocular version - Contradicted by medical evidence - No plausible explanation - Delay in registration of FIR - Doubted authenticity of version given by PW3 - Ultimately concluded - Cumulative effect of all infirmities of prosecution - Probabilities of plea of self defence - Renders case doubtful - Supreme Court conclusions by High Court cannot be said - Either perverse or based on no evidence - Rightly acquitted on benefit of doubt - Appeal dismissed.

Found In:  Judgement

Criminal Laws  - Bail

Bail application - Filed by the respondents allegedly involved in false encounter - High Court granted bail to the accused - Appeal - Allegations made against the respondents cannot be brushed aside at the stage and the High Court also ought to have taken into consideration the serious nature of the allegations, the possibilities of undue influence being exerted on the witness for the prosecution at the instance of the police officials - Impugned orders of the High Court set aside - Appeals allowed.

Found In:  Judgement