The respondent raised certain claims against the appellant and invoked the arbitration agreement — the appointed Arbitrator adjusted Rs.11,10,662 awarded to the appellant, towards the sum of Rs.91,33,844 awarded in favour of the respondent and consequently directed the appellant to pay to the respondent, the balance of Rs.80,23,182 — the appellant paid the said amount to the respondent and filed a petition under section 11 of the Act praying for appointment of an arbitrator to decide its claim for the extra cost in getting the work completed through the alternative agency — the High Court dismissed the said application and held that the application under section 11 of the Act by the appellant was misconceived, barred by res judicata, and mala fide — appeal —
Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 — provisions of — whether applicable — execution of an agreement in regard to maintenance of water supply and electrical works in different parts of Gwalior Municipal Corporation area — a work order was issued to the appellant by the respondent — bills were not paid — the designate of the Chief Justice appointed an independent arbitrator — the arbitrator made award however, the High Court set aside the orders holding that the arbitral award passed by the sole arbitrator was without jurisdiction as the dispute raised by the appellant could only be decided by the statutory arbitral tribunal constituted under the 1983 Adhiniyam and therefore the sole arbitrator appointed by the designate of Chief Justice under section 11(6) of the Act lacked inherent jurisdiction to decide the disputes
It logically follows that Parliament is not empowered to legislate with respect to extra-territorial aspects or causes that have no nexus whatsoever with India,” a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia said. The apex court said it did not agree that Parliament, on account of its alleged absolute legislative sovereignty, should be deemed to have the powers to enact any and all legislation, even without the requirement that it is for the benefit of India.
Problem of judgements without giving reasons continues :- Though the SC has criticised some high courts for writing judgements without giving reasons, the problem seems to continue. In the case of Tikaula Sugar Mills vs State of Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad high court was asked to pass a reasoned judgement in the dispute. The high court had set aside the order of the Special Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, without giving reasons. “In our considered view, the judge should not have set aside the order without assigning any reasons,” the SC said, and asked the high court to dispose of the case within a month.
Once a gift is complete, the same cannot be rescinded. For any reason whatsoever, the subsequent conduct of a donee cannot be a ground for rescission of a valid gift.
It is by now a settled law that the exemption notification has to be construed strictly and there has to be strict interpretation of the same by reading the same literally. In this connection reference can be made to the decision of this Court in Collector of Customs (Preventive), Amritsar vs. Malwa Industries Limited reported at (2009) 12 SCC 735 as also to the decision in Kartar Rolling Mills vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi reported at (2006) 4 SCC 772 wherein also it was held by this Court that finding recorded by the Tribunal and the two authorities below are findings of fact and such findings in absence of evidence on record to the contrary is not subject to interference. In order to get benefit of such notification granting exemption the claimant has to show that he satisfies the eligibility criteria. Since the Tribunal and the authorities below have categorically held that the appellant does not satisfy the eligibility criteria on the basis of the evidence on record, therefore, we hold that the said exemption Notification is not applicable to the case of the appellants.
M/S. Hyderabad Engineering vs State Of A.P. on 4 March, 2011 (Supreme Court of India) -Finally, the Supreme court concluded by observing that following scenarios are covered under “inter-state sales” “Sale” or “agreement to sell” occasions movement of goods from one state to another (irrespective of whether such movement has been provided in the agreement) or Order placed before HO or branch resulted in movement of goods from one state to another (irrespective of state where property in goods passes). Thus, it is not necessary that sale must precede movement of goods or the fact of movement of goods is mentioned in the agreement [Para 32]. Thus, even an agreement to sell can now result in classification of such transfers as “inter-state sales” and not “branch transfer”.
he Supreme Court last week reiterated that casual workers cannot claim regularization merely because they have been working for a considerable period of time. It said that the law consistently laid down by it was that casual employment terminates when the same is discontinued. “Merely because a temporary or casual worker has been engaged beyond the period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, if the original appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules,” the judg-ment stated allowing the appeal of the central government in the case of casual workers who have been engaged with six-monthly breaks up to 30 years. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Gauhati high court which was contrary to the precedents in the case, and allowed the appeal of the government in the case, Union of India vs Vartak Labour Union.
In a trademark battle over the use of the word ‘Eenadu’ between a Karnataka firm selling Agarbathis (incense sticks) and the newspaper group in Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court stated last week that allowing to sell Agarbathis with the same name would “definitely create confusion in the minds of the consumers.”
on the ground that the respondent has committed a violation of the Original Agreement inasmuch as obligations cast upon the respondent under clause 13 of the agreement (supra) have not been discharged by the respondent thereby giving rise to disputes that are in terms of Clause 15 of the original agreement arbitrable — the Supreme Court appointed a sole Arbitrator and all disputes including the dispute regarding interpretation and effect of Clause 4 of the termination agreement referred for adjudication by arbitration — petition allowed.
