SCC Issue dated January 28th, 2021 (Vol. 1 Part 4)
Read the significant judgment of the Supreme Court expertly analysed by our Editors, where Court ruled on the arbitrability of disputes relating to lease/tenancy agreements or deeds which are governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. [(2021) 1 SCC 529]
Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 (6 of 2014) — Ss. 82, 2, 3 and 4 — Allocation of employees of power sector undertakings in States of Telangana and A.P. on bifurcation of erstwhile State of A.P.: In this case, there was appointment of One-Man Committee by Supreme Court vide order dt. 28-11-2018, consisting of former Judge of Supreme Court for distributing personnel between power utilities of the two States, granting liberty to parties to approach Court, in case any further direction or clarification was required. While determining the scope of such liberty, Supreme Court while appointing One-Man Committee had directed that decision of the Committee would be final and binding on all parties including power utility companies of two States. Liberty was granted to parties to seek further direction or clarification was with object to complete process of distributing personnel between two States with no right to file appeal thereagainst. Thus, decision of One-Man Committee must be given due weight and cannot be lightly interfered with. Consequently, scope of MAs challenging One-Man Committee’s findings on various grounds, held, is very limited and power utility companies cannot be allowed to seek re-examination of issues raised before One-Man Committee. [Telangana Power Generation Corpn. Ltd. v. A.P. Power Generation Corpn. Ltd.,(2021) 1 SCC 489]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 11 and 8 — Arbitrability of dispute relating to lease/tenancy agreements/deeds and eviction thereunder: Though Ss. 114 and 114-A TPA provide certain protection to the lessee/tenant before being ejected from the leased property, the same cannot be construed as a statutory protection nor as a hard and fast rule in all cases to waive the forfeiture Insofar as eviction or tenancy relating to matters governed by special statutes where the tenant enjoys statutory protection against eviction whereunder the court/forum is specified and conferred jurisdiction under the statute, the dispute is non-arbitrable. However, if the special statutes do not apply to the premises/property and the lease/tenancy created thereunder as on the date when the cause of action arises to seek for eviction or such other relief and in such transaction if the parties are governed by an arbitration clause; the dispute between the parties is arbitrable and there shall be no impediment whatsoever to invoke the arbitration clause. [Suresh Shah v. Hipad Technology (India) (P) Ltd., (2021) 1 SCC 529]
Constitution of India — Art. 32: Stay of implementation of legislation pending challenge thereto and appointment of Expert Committee by Court to resolve differences between those challenging the legislation and Government: In this case of protest against Farm Laws, due to failure of negotiation between Government and farmers and no solution in sight, extraordinary order of stay of implementation of the Farm Laws directed and Expert Committee set up by Court to resolve the conflict between the farmers and the Government. [Rakesh Vaishnav v. Union of India, (2021) 1 SCC 590]
National Law School of India Act, 1986 — Ss. 10, 11, 13, 18 and Sch. I Cls. 9, 13, 14 and 15 — Entrance test for admission to NLSIU — Mode and manner in which may be conducted: Recommendation of Academic Council, held, mandatory for making any change in mode and manner of admission test. As new admission notice dt. 3-9-2020 prescribed separate admission test, that is, National Law Aptitude Test (NLAT) for R-1 University instead of Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) and prescribed homebased online test, which was different from earlier prescription of centre based online test, recommendation of Academic Council, was mandatory which was not obtained. Therefore, admission notice dt. 3-9-2020 was illegal, therefore, quashed. Further held, doctrine of necessity did not warrant a separate entrance exam for NLSIU either. Thus, admission to R-1 University, NLSIU directed to be through CLAT. Detailed directions issued on this and incidental issues. [Rakesh Kumar Agarwalla v. National Law School of India University, (2021) 1 SCC 539]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 300 Fourthly — Scope and Applicability of: Intention to cause death, held, not necessary to attract S. 300 Fourthly. Rather, the applicability of S. 300 Fourthly depends on the knowledge that can be attributed to the accused. Thus, for determining the applicability of S. 300 Fourthly, the guiding principle is that even if there be no intention to cause death, if there is such callousness towards the result and the risk taken is such that it may be stated that the person knows that the act is likely to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, S. 300 Fourthly will get attracted and that the offender must be taken to have known that he was running the risk of causing the death or such bodily injury as was likely to cause the death of the victim. [Shatrughna Baban Meshram v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 1 SCC 596]