Arbitration and Conciliation Act – if the parties are not able to agree on the said procedure, or constitute the Arbitral Tribunal to their mutual satisfaction, either of the party has an option to route to an appropriate remedy under Section 11 of the Act, which provides detailed machinery for appointment of Arbitrator through judicial intervention. = IBI Consultancy India Private Limited- Versus – DSC Limited

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION CASE (C) NO. 53 OF 2016 IBI Consultancy India Private Limited …Petitioner(s) Versus DSC Limited …Respondent(s) WITH ARBITRATION CASE (C) NO. 63 OF 2016 ARBITRATION CASE (C) NO. 54 OF 2016 ARBITRATION CASE (C) NO. 57 OF 2016 J U D G M… Read More Arbitration and Conciliation Act – if the parties are not able to agree on the said procedure, or constitute the Arbitral Tribunal to their mutual satisfaction, either of the party has an option to route to an appropriate remedy under Section 11 of the Act, which provides detailed machinery for appointment of Arbitrator through judicial intervention. = IBI Consultancy India Private Limited- Versus – DSC Limited

a cut at the rate of 10 % is very reasonable towards development of acquired land = Mohammad Yusuf and Others Etc. Etc. – Versus- State of Haryana and Others.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.3807-3825 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 35281-35299 OF 2016) Mohammad Yusuf and Others Etc. Etc. …. Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and Others. …. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.3826 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C)… Read More a cut at the rate of 10 % is very reasonable towards development of acquired land = Mohammad Yusuf and Others Etc. Etc. – Versus- State of Haryana and Others.

Constitutional validity of certain Amendments1 made to the Salaries, Allowances and Pensions of Members of Parliament Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). – LOK PRAHARI, THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY S.N. SHUKLA & ANOTHER – Versus – UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & OTHERS

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.  3798 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9584 of 2017) LOK PRAHARI, THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY S.N. SHUKLA & ANOTHER … Appellants Versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & OTHERS     … Respondents J U D G M… Read More Constitutional validity of certain Amendments1 made to the Salaries, Allowances and Pensions of Members of Parliament Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). – LOK PRAHARI, THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY S.N. SHUKLA & ANOTHER – Versus – UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & OTHERS

No conviction solely on the basis of evidence of last seen together with the deceased = Navaneethakrishnan -vs- The State by Inspector of Police

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1134 OF 2013 Navaneethakrishnan …. Appellant(s)   Versus The State by Inspector of Police …. Respondent(s) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 1135-1136 OF 2013 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1137 OF 2013 J U D G M E N T R.K. Agrawal, J. 1)… Read More No conviction solely on the basis of evidence of last seen together with the deceased = Navaneethakrishnan -vs- The State by Inspector of Police

whether any case under Section 20(4) read with its proviso was made out by the parties or not? = we concur with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below and accordingly hold that the tenant, having rightly suffered a decree for eviction on the ground contained under Section 20(2)(a), is not entitled to take the benefit of sub-section(4) of Section 20 because his case falls under the proviso to sub-section(4) by virtue of the fact that his son, who is member of family being a male lineal descendants as specified under Section 3(g)(ii) of the Act, has built his residential house in the same city and he is in its possession. The tenant can, therefore, shift in the said house once he is asked to vacate pursuant to eviction decree passed against him.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5903 OF 2012 Smt. Sudama Devi & Ors. ….Appellant(s) VERSUS Vijay Nath Gupta & Anr. …Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the legal representatives of the defendant(tenant) against the final… Read More whether any case under Section 20(4) read with its proviso was made out by the parties or not? = we concur with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below and accordingly hold that the tenant, having rightly suffered a decree for eviction on the ground contained under Section 20(2)(a), is not entitled to take the benefit of sub-section(4) of Section 20 because his case falls under the proviso to sub-section(4) by virtue of the fact that his son, who is member of family being a male lineal descendants as specified under Section 3(g)(ii) of the Act, has built his residential house in the same city and he is in its possession. The tenant can, therefore, shift in the said house once he is asked to vacate pursuant to eviction decree passed against him.

mere perusal of the order of the Family Court and the High Court quoted supra, would go to show that both the Courts failed to apply their judicial mind to the factual and legal controversy insofar as award of permanent alimony to the respondent(wife) is concerned. Both the Courts did 6 not even mention the factual narration of the case set up by the parties on the question of award of permanent alimony and without there being any discussion, appreciation, reasoning and categorical findings on the material issues such as, financial earning capacity of husband to pay the alimony and also the financial earning capacity of wife, a direction to pay Rs.15,00,000/- by way of permanent alimony to the wife was given. In our opinion, such direction is wholly unsustainable in law.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3876 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.9691 of 2015] Jalendra Padhiary .. Appellant(s) Versus Pragati Chhotray .. Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1) Leave granted. 2) This appeal arises from the final judgment… Read More mere perusal of the order of the Family Court and the High Court quoted supra, would go to show that both the Courts failed to apply their judicial mind to the factual and legal controversy insofar as award of permanent alimony to the respondent(wife) is concerned. Both the Courts did 6 not even mention the factual narration of the case set up by the parties on the question of award of permanent alimony and without there being any discussion, appreciation, reasoning and categorical findings on the material issues such as, financial earning capacity of husband to pay the alimony and also the financial earning capacity of wife, a direction to pay Rs.15,00,000/- by way of permanent alimony to the wife was given. In our opinion, such direction is wholly unsustainable in law.

Anti-Suit Injunctions are meant to restrain a party to a suit/proceeding from instituting or prosecuting a case in another court, including a foreign court. Simply put, an anti-suit injunction is a judicial order restraining one party from prosecuting a case in another court outside its jurisdiction. The principles governing grant of injunction are common to that of granting anti-suit injunction. The cases of injunction are basically governed by the doctrine of equity.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3878 2018 ( Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10078 of 2018) @ CC No.22197/2016 Dinesh Singh Thakur ………Appellant(s) Versus Sonal Thakur ….…Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T R.K.Agrawal, J. 1) Leave granted. 2) The present appeal… Read More Anti-Suit Injunctions are meant to restrain a party to a suit/proceeding from instituting or prosecuting a case in another court, including a foreign court. Simply put, an anti-suit injunction is a judicial order restraining one party from prosecuting a case in another court outside its jurisdiction. The principles governing grant of injunction are common to that of granting anti-suit injunction. The cases of injunction are basically governed by the doctrine of equity.