20, February, 2019 Important Judgment Supreme Court
1. Reliance Communication Limited v. State Bank of India
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Punishment for contempt of court.
Disobedience of an order to pay a sum of money may be countered by orders of attachment instead of committal to prison. On the other hand, in cases of perverse and deliberate flouting of undertakings, it had no option except to convict. So-called apologies, which are only tactful moves when contemnors are in a tight corner, should not be accepted and a jail sentence should be awarded.
- Lakshman Prasad Agarwal v. Syed Mohammad Kareem, 2009 (6) SCALE 413
- Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai v. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai, (2008) 14 SCC 561
- Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha, (2003) 11 SCC 1
- Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 409
- Rosnan Sam Boyce v. B.R. Cotton Mills Ltd., (1990) 2 SCC 636
- Noorali Babul Thanewala v. K.M.M. Shetty, (1990) 1 SCC 259
- Babu Ram Gupta v. Sudhir Bhasin, (1980) 3 SCC 47
- Chhaganbhai Norsinbhai v. Soni Chandubhai Gordhanbhai, (1976) 2 SCC 951
2. LMJ International Ltd. v. Sleepwell Industries Co. Ltd.
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – the scheme of Section 48 of the Act does not envisage piecemeal consideration of the issue of maintainability of the execution case concerning the foreign awards, in the first place; and then the issue of enforceability thereof. Whereas, keeping in mind the legislative intent of speedy disposal of arbitration proceedings and limited interference by the courts, the Court is expected to consider both these aspects simultaneously at the threshold.
3. RAHUL DUTTA & ORS. v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
The Supreme Court struck down Rule 5A of the Bihar Civil Service(Judicial Branch)(Recruitment) Rules 1995, as per which only 10% or 1:10 of the candidates who appear in the preliminary examination will be selected for mains.
4. Sri. Munisuvrata Agri International Ltd. v. Sleepwell Industries Co. Limited
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 48 – Enforceability of the Foreign Awards – Scope of interference has been consciously constricted by the legislature in relation to the execution of foreign awards.