Author: kkslawoffices

Allowing an appeal against the decision of Bombay High Court (‘BHC’), which dismissed an appeal against an interim award of an Arbitral tribunal, the Supreme Court (‘SC’) ,while explaining the doctrine of ‘Group of Companies’, held that an arbitration agreement entered into by a company within a group of companies, can bind its non-signatory affiliates or sister concerns, if the circumstances demonstrate a mutual intention of the parties to bind both the signatory and affiliated, non-signatory parties. The Court, further, observed that: “Commentators have noted that a signed written agreement to submit a present or future dispute to arbitration does not exclude the possibility of an arbitration agreement binding a third party… A party, which is not a signatory to a contract containing an arbitration clause, may be bound by the agreement to arbitrate if it is an alter ego of a party which executed the agreement.”

Affirming Kerala High Court’s order of refusal to grant admission to a candidate with 80% disability, the Supreme Court (‘SC’) held that the unsuitability of the student to pursue the MBBS course was reflected by the Medical Board and that the Court should not substitute its own views when the opinion of the Medical Board is available on the issue. The SC further observed that: “The experts from different medical discipline examined the extent of disability and determined in the report that the petitioner will not be able to provide basic lifesaving procedure and it will be difficult for the 80% disabled aspirant to pursue and complete the MBBS curriculum. If such be the categorical opinion of the Medical Board constituted on court’s order and the Prospectus permits determination of suitability to satisfactorily pursue the course, the denial of admission to the PWD quota seat for the appellant, cannot in our assessment, be faulted.”

Observing that the right to claim compensation for land acquired by the government is in-built in Article 300A of the Constitution, the Supreme Court (‘SC”), in Kalyani (dead) through Lrs and ors vs Sulthan Bathery Municipality, noted that: “The appellants are farmers and the land utilized is agricultural land. It was part of their livelihood. Depriving them of their part of their livelihood and also of their property without authority of law would be violative of Article 21 and Article 300A of the Constitution,”

In an important development, overturning a division bench decision of Gujarat High Court (‘GHC’), the Supreme Court (‘SC’) held that Anganwadi workers and helpers are entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act of 1972, and further went on to observe that: “It is high time that the Central government and State governments take serious note of the plight of Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers who are expected to render such important services to the society,”

Setting aside the decision of Hindustan Copper Ltd (‘HAL’), to reduce the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (‘VRS’) benefits to an employee by altering his date of birth, the Supreme Court (’SC’) held that the rule that employees cannot raise a dispute relating to date of birth at the fag end of their service is equally applicable to employers as well. The SC went on to observe that: “VRS benefit is an entitlement and assumes the character of property to the employee concerned once his application for VRS is accepted. It is the right of a person under Article 300A of the Constitution of India to have the VRS benefit to be given on accurate assessment thereof, the employer here being a public sector unit. If at the time of quantifying the VRS benefit after accepting an employee’s application for voluntary retirement, the employer take any step that would reduce such benefit in monetary terms, such step shall have to be taken under the authority of law. “

Setting aside an appeal preferred against an order of the Calcutta High Court (‘CHC’), which had dismissed the appellant’s application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which invoked the arbitration clause after thirty-two years from the day when the cause of action of arose, the Supreme Court(‘SC’) held that: “Merely because for the alleged dues of 1985/1986, the legal notice to refer the dispute to the arbitrator is made after a period of approximately thirty-two years, the appellant cannot be permitted to say that the cause of action to file the application under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act had accrued in the year 2018/2019.”

The Supreme Court (‘SC’) set aside the order, by the High Court of Judicature at Madras (‘MHC’), substituting the removal of an employee to that of compulsory retirement, and held that the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority can’t be substituted merely on grounds that the employee had voluntarily deposited the defrauded amount. The SC observed that: “Being a public servant in the post office, the delinquent officer was holding the post of trust. Merely because subsequently the employee had deposited the defrauded amount and therefore there was no loss caused to the department cannot be a ground to take a lenient view and/or to show undue sympathy in favour of such an employee.“

Where a certain amount was deposited by the Appellant as ‘Share Application Money’, on which no share was allotted and afterwards the principal amount was refunded by the Respondent, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) has held that such ‘Share Application Money’ cannot be treated as a financial debt, in order to initiate Corporate Insolvency Process (“CIRP”), under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).

Commuting the death sentence of a man, accused of raping and killing a minor girl, the Supreme Court (‘SC’) while observing that the case did not fall in the ‘rarest of rare’ category, held that:” “The only difference between the saint and the sinner is that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future. One of the basic principles of restorative justice as developed by this Court over the years, also is to give an opportunity to the offender to repair the damage caused, and to become a socially useful individual, when he is released from the jail”

Setting aside the order of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and affirmed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) that held the Managing Director of PC Jewellers and some of his relatives guilty of insider-trading, the Supreme Court (‘SC’) held that: “it is the duty of the first court of appeal to deal with all the issues and evidence led by the parties on both, the questions of law as well as questions of fact and then decide the issue by providing adequate reasons for its findings. Unfortunately, the SAT failed to apply its mind on the issues raised by the parties and routinely affirmed the findings of the Whole Time Member (WTM) of SEBI without dealing with the issues at hand.”