Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 11(5) and 11(12) and 16 — Appointment of arbitrator: Claims sought to be referred to arbitration if time barred, and merits of claims, are matters for arbitrator to decide. [Wexford Financial Inc. Panama v. BHEL, (2016) 8 SCC 267]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 11(5), (9) and 16 — Appointment of arbitrator: When disputes arose between parties and arbitration clause exists for resolution of disputes arising out of said agreement, petition under S. 11(5) r/w S. 11(9) is liable to be allowed. Questions as to performance of agreement or its breach and if so, any compensation and incidental issues can be examined only by arbitrator. [Etoile Creations v. Sarl Danset Deco, (2016) 8 SCC 263]
Constitution of India — Arts. 32 & 226 — Public interest litigation — Scope of: Though value-based education is needed, form and manner in which such values should be inculcated ought not to be ordained by court. Court singularly lacks expertise to do so. Remedies for grievance of petitioner seeking inclusion of moral education as compulsory subject from Classes I to XII are elsewhere. It is for those who have competence and constitutional duty to lay down and implement educational policy to deal with issues raised by petitioner. Whether students studying between Class I to Class XII should be saddled with separate course of moral science is not for courts to decide. Present matter where solution does not lie in legal or constitutional framework is incapable of being dealt with in terms of judicially manageable standards. Considering reply of respondents it was not for the court to evaluate whether alternative approach would better sub-serve. Hence, petition lacked merit and was dismissed. [Santosh Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 253]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — S. 2(1)(d) — “Consumer” — Charitable purpose involving some defrayment of expenses by the beneficiaries: As appellant Society is helping Adivasi/tribal girls in their education by providing hostel facilities free of cost i.e. no charges in form of rent, repairs and maintenance collected from inmates but only expenses for food and electricity borne by inmates, it is a charitable institution and not commercial entity and thus a “consumer” within meaning of S. 2(1)(d). [Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel v. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd., (2016) 8 SCC 286]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 31(1): Person convicted of several offences at one trial and sentenced to multiple sentences of life imprisonment, the same cannot be directed to run consecutively. They can only run concurrently. In law they stand superimposed on each other. [Muthuramalingam v. State, (2016) 8 SCC 313]
Criminal Trial — Identification — Identification by voice — Voice sample — Process for drawing: Underlying process for drawing voice samples must be fair and reasonable, having due regard to mandate of Art. 21 of the Constitution. Also, it is not open to accused to dictate course of investigation. Hence, there is no substance in submission, that text which is to be read by appellants in course of drawing their voice samples should contain no part of inculpatory words which are a part of disputed recorded conversation. A commonality of words, held, is necessary to facilitate a spectrographic examination. [Sudhir Chaudhary v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2016) 8 SCC 307]
Environment Law — Environmental Clearance/NOC/Environmental Impact Assessment — Environmental clearance — Continuance of: MoEF passed orders on 25-11-2005 according environmental clearance for expansion of iron ore mine falling in South Goa for two years only stipulating hydrogeological study but by subsequent order dt. 18-10-2007 removed time-limit, such extension not valid. [Talaulicar & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 299]
Service Law — Appointment — Nature of appointment: There is estoppel against challenging nature of appointment once having duly accepted the same: Having accepted contractual appointment, respondents are estopped from challenging terms of their appointment [State of Maharashtra v. Anita, (2016) 8 SCC 293]
Service Law — Tenure — Extension of tenure: Decision to grant extension of tenure to R-4 as Chairman-cum-Managing Director of EDCIL for period of five years, having been done as per applicable norms, and, duly scrutinised by competent authorities below with full knowledge of CVC, the same, held, is valid. [Educational Consultants India Ltd. SC/ST Employees Welfare Assn. v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 271]
