P.V.Kranthi Kiran, Hyd -9542350436
IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS(WHERE PUBLIC INTEREST IS AT LARGE)AND CIRCULARS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WILL BE POSTED IN THIS BLOG FOR USE OF STAKE HOLDERS OF LEGAL FRATERNITY
Monday 14 October 2024
Tuesday 1 October 2024
A petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 may be filed dependent on where the seat of arbitration is located.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCIVIL APPEAL NO. 9307 OF 2019(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.25618 OF 2018)BGS SGS SOMA JV …PetitionerVersusNHPC LTD. …RespondentWITHCIVIL APPEAL NO. 9308 OF 2019(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 25848 OF 2018)WITHCIVIL APPEAL NO. 9309 OF 2019(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 28062 OF 2018)JUDGMENT
100.However, the fact that in all the three appeals before us the proceed- ings were finally held at New Delhi, and the awards were signed in New Delhi, and not at Faridabad, would lead to the conclusion that both parties have chosen New Delhi as the “seat” of arbitration under Section 20(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1996. This being the case, both parties have, therefore, chosen that the Courts at New Delhi alone would have exclusive jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings. There- fore, the fact that a part of the cause of action may have arisen at Faridabad would not be relevant once the “seat” has been chosen, which would then amount to an exclusive jurisdiction clause so far as Courts of the “seat” are concerned.
101.Consequently, the impugned judgment is set aside, and the Section 34 petition is ordered to be presented in the Courts in New Delhi, as was held by the learned Single Judge of the Special Commercial Court at Gurugram.
102.The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Saturday 28 September 2024
Apex Court founds a Police Officer and an Addl. CJM guilty of having committed contempt of its anticpatory bail order. Inspite of release on anticpatory bail, police cusotdy petition filed by Police Officer and allowed by Addl. CJM
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT/CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION(CIVIL) NO(S). OF 2024 (D. No. 1106 OF 2024)
IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CRL.) NO(S). 14489 OF 2023
TUSHARBHAI RAJNIKANTBHAI SHAH …..PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
KAMAL DAYANI & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)/ ALLEGED CONTEMNOR(S)
Discussion: - 28. Before proceeding to consider the rival submissions, at the outset, we may note that a bare perusal of the order under contempt dated 8th December, 2023 would leave no room for doubt that the interim protection of anticipatory bail granted by this Court to the petitioner was absolute, until modified or altered upon final disposal of the Special Leave Petition(Crl.) No. 14489 of 2023 which is still pending consideration before this Court. The language of the order was clear and unambiguous, hence, none of the contemnors-respondents could have entertained any doubt in their minds nor was there any scope for the interpretation that the petitioner could be remanded to police custody during the currency of the interim order dated 8th December, 2023
48. Criminal jurisprudence requires that before exercising the power to grant police custody remand, the Courts must apply judicial mind to the facts of the case so as to arrive at a satisfaction as to whether the police custody remand of the accused is genuinely required. The Courts are not expected to act as 60 messengers of the investigating agencies and the remand applications should not be allowed in a routine manner.
49. As discussed above, the FIR against the accused-petitioner
was pertaining to a dispute which prima facie appears to be of a
civil nature and hence, the learned Magistrate ought not to have
toed the line of the Investigating Officer while granting police
custody remand of the accused-petitioner.
54. We, prima facie feel that the contemnor-respondent No. 7 seems to have acted in defence of the police officials when she made a note on the complaint of custodial violence made by the petitioner on 16th December, 2023, that after personally examining the feet of the accused, she did not find any injury thereupon. Law requires that the moment the accused had made a complaint of torture in police custody, it was incumbent upon the concerned Magistrate to have got the accused subjected to medical examination as per the mandate of Section 54 CrPC. The formal complaint lodged by the petitioner herein was proceeded with by 8th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate who took cognizance thereof on 22nd December, 2023 and directed that the complaint be posted for verification. The only permissible action as per law after cognizance had been taken on a private complaint, would be to record the statements of the complainant and his witnesses by taking recourse to the mandatory procedure prescribed under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC. However, in sheer disregard to the order dated 22nd December, 2023 passed by 8th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, the 6th ACJM(contemnor-respondent No.7) dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner vide order dated 6th January, 2024 which has been rightly reversed by the High Court of Gujarat vide order dated 22nd February, 2024 passed in R/Criminal Revision Application No. 273 of 2024. This conduct of contemnor-respondent No. 7 gives a strong indication of her biased approach in the matter.
55. The arguments advanced by learned senior counsel appearing for the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Gujarat as well as the High Court of Gujarat about the long-standing practice prevailing in the State, that the Investigating Officer(s) are given liberty to seek police custody remand of the accused after competent Court has granted anticipatory bail does not appeal to us for a moment. Such an interpretation does not appear to be in 64 consonance with the unambiguous position of law.
59.3 That the Investigating Officer, contemnorrespondent No. 4, Police Inspector acted in flagrant defiance and gross contempt of this Court’s order dated 8th December, 2023 by applying for police custody remand of the petitioner herein. The portrayal 69 made by the Investigating Officer in the remand application to claim that the accused-petitioner was not cooperating in the investigation was totally cooked up and a clear attempt to draw wool over the Court’s eyes. During subsistence of this Court’s order dated 8th December, 2023, there was neither any authority with the Investigating Officer to seek police custody remand of the accused nor was the prayer for remand justified in the backdrop of the fact that the FIR itself was lodged in relation to a civil dispute which arose from an oral agreement for sale of property. A clear misrepresentation was made in the remand application wherein, the Investigating Officer projected that the cheques issued by the accused-petitioner had to be recovered. It is an admitted position as per the FIR, that the cheques had been issued by the complainant to the accused-petitioner and not vice versa. By failing to test the truth of the complainant’s allegations regarding transmission of huge cash amount to the tune of Rs. 1.65 crores to the accused, the Investigating Officer acted in sheer ignorance to 70 the mandate of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as the provisions of PMLA. Admittedly, the Investigating Officer(contemnor-respondent No. 4) had only made investigation from the accused for a few hours on 12th December, 2023 and immediately thereafter, the police custody remand application came to be submitted. The notice for remand to the accused on 12th December 2023 does not indicate that he had not cooperated in the investigation. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that there was not even a shred of bona fide in the actions of the Investigating Officer(contemnor-respondent No.4) while seeking police custody remand of the accused on the purported ground of non-cooperation in investigation. The exercise of seeking police custody remand during currency of the interim protection granted to the petitioner was in sheer defiance of this Court’s order dated 8th December, 2023 and tantamounts to contempt on the face of the record. Hence, we have no hesitation in holding that while seeking for and procuring the police custody remand 71 of the accused in the teeth of the order dated 8th December, 2023, the Investigating Officer, R.Y. Raval, Police Inspector, Vesu Police Station, Surat(contemnor-respondent No. 4) is guilty of gross contempt.
59.4 That the explanation offered by 6th ACJM(contemnor-respondent No.7), that the order dated 13th December, 2023 granting police custody remand of the petitioner was passed in the bona fide exercise of jurisdiction, based on a genuine misunderstanding of the legal position does not appeal to us. In view of the findings recorded in preceding paras, it is clear that contemnor-respondent No. 7 acted with bias and in a high-handed manner while granting police custody remand of the accused. The reason offered by her that she was acting under a misconception owing to settled and prevailing practice in the State of Gujarat, is clearly in disregard to the order passed by this Court. The said plea does not hold water since the order under contempt dated 8th December, 2023 allowed only one interpretation i.e. 72 the accused-petitioner had to be released on bail in the event of arrest. The action of the contemnorrespondent No.7 in granting police custody remand of the petitioner and in failing to release him upon completion of the aforesaid period is clearly in teeth of this Court’s order dated 8th December, 2023 and tantamounts to contempt. The contemnor-respondent No. 7’s contumacious actions also contributed to the illegal detention of the petitioner for almost 48 hours after the period of police remand had come to an end
61. As a result of the above discussion, we hold R.Y. Raval, Police Inspector, Vesu Police Station, Surat(contemnorrespondent No.4) and Deepaben Sanjaykumar Thakar, 6 th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat(contemnorrespondent No.7) guilty of having committed contempt of this Court’s order dated 8 th December, 2023.
Wednesday 18 September 2024
Supreme Court Pauses 'Bulldozer Actions', Orders That No Demolition Should Take Place Without Its Permission - However it does not apply to illegal encroachment of roads water bodies etc.,
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 295/2022 JAMIAT ULAMA I HIND Petitioner(s) VERSUS NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
As requested by Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing for the respondent(s), list these matters on 01.10.2024 as first item.
2. Till the next date of hearing, we direct that there shall be no demolition anywhere across the country without seeking leave of this Court.
3. We further clarify that our order would not be applicable if there is an unauthorized structure in any public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies and also to cases where there is an order for demolition made by a Court of law.