Author: LEXPEEPS editor

-Report by Deep Shikha

In the case of Sorin Group Italia S.R.L vs. Neeraj Garg, it was held that when the dispute is non-arbitrable, it will be adjudicated by the court and not by the Arbitration. And it is upon the discretion of the plaintiff to refer the dispute to which competent court leading to the present application being made successful.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Sorin, the plaintiff, entered into a Sole Distribution Agreement with the defendant to supply certain goods. Sorin supplied the goods as per the agreement and issued three invoices to the defendant. Since the defendant failed to make full payment for the goods purchased, this led to the present suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of money.

In the course of the hearing, the defendant filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for seeking leave to defend. When the defendant was given the liberty to file an application under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which gives the power to judicial authority to refer the parties to the arbitration. He lifted up the application filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which led to the present application being issued for this case.

As per the agreement between both parties, the rules set out are under Article 15 of the Memorandum of Understanding. As per Clause 1 of Article 15, the choice of law is being considered. It says if any dispute arose, it shall be governed in accordance with the laws of Italy and the rules of the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods and the place would be Milan, Italy. According to Clause 2 of Article 15, dispute resolution laws are mentioned which says that if disputes arise between parties relating to grounds of termination or termination or for potential claims for indemnification or compensation thereof, and if this dispute is not resolved within 60 days from the dispute, it will be submitted to final and binding Arbitration with current Commercial Arbitration Rules of the Chamber of Commerce Milan, by three arbitrators. The language would be exclusively English. The other disputes are to be adjudicated in the courts of Milan, Italy. Even as per the agreement, the plaintiff will have sole discretion to invoke the jurisdiction of any competent court.

PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTION

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff contended that as per the terms of the agreement only the termination dispute was to be resolved by the Arbitration. In this case, the dispute is about unpaid invoices not about the termination clause, therefore, the dispute cannot be adjudicated by Arbitration. And as per the agreement, a plaintiff has the sole discretion for the right to invoke the jurisdiction of any competent courts. As per the agreement, the disputes to be arbitrated are not the present dispute. It says that ‘excepted matters’ will be adjudicated by the court. In the present case since the dispute is about unpaid invoices, it will term an excepted matter.

DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant contended that since the dispute is of recovery of money which is covered under the aforesaid arbitration clause under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. As per the agreement, a case can be filed in any court having competent jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the case. They even contended that they have counted claims that they want to be adjudicated in Arbitration and not in front of judicial authorities. In the Vidya Drolia case, it was held that the court may interfere at Section 8 or 11 when the dispute is ex-facie certain or the disputes are non-arbitrable. The limited view of the court is to check and protect the parties from being forced to arbitrate when the matter is non-arbitrable. When the dispute is arbitrable, the dispute will be adjudicated by Arbitration. 

JUDGEMENT

The court held that the dispute in the present case comes within the ambit of ‘excepted matters’ which is unpaid invoices. Therefore, the present suit is maintainable before this court. In the present case, the issue is with regard to the non-arbitrability of the dispute and not with regard to the Agreement being null and void with reference to the clause of the sole discretion of the plaintiff to refer the dispute to the competent court.

–Report by Mritunjay Kumar Mishra

The Bombay High Court passed that since the prosecution had failed to establish the appellant’s fault beyond reasonable doubt therefore by giving him the benefit of doubt, he was bound to be acquitted.

Facts

Both Bharat and his brother Shrikant lived in a rented apartment which belonged to Ajay Saha. He was a part of the Bhishi Scheme, along with Kalu Modi and other locals (private collection and circulation of money scheme among members). After Bhishi ended, Kalu Modi was supposed to give Bharat a lump sum payment of Rs. 51,000. The money was given to him on July 9, 2013.

Around 10:30 p.m. on July 14, 2013, Ajay Saha saw Bharat alive for the final time before going to bed. The following morning, between 6:30 and 7:00 a.m., Bharat saw smoke rising from his chamber when Bahadur Singh arrived to deliver bread to him. Ajay Sahu was promptly alerted by Bahadur Singh. Both of them entered the room quickly and noticed that Bharat’s garments were on fire. They observed that Bharat’s throat had been cut, that blood was dripping from the wound, and that a knife was lying next to him. Ajay Saga filed a police report, and the appellant was detained. In the vicinity of his home, the appellant led the police to Sulabh Sauchalaya’s bathroom, where they found cash totalling Rs. 10,300, a receipt for Rs. 300 from a clothing store, and Rs. 35,000 in one bag. They also found a wallet containing a PAN card, an identity card, a railway pass, and a Bharat Identity Card. On July 24, 2013, at the request of the appellant and in the presence of a Pancha witness, one bag containing cash in the number of Rs. 20,000 was recovered from the home of one Smt. Gupta(friend of Appellant). It also contained a sky blue shirt and blue jeans. As a result, Rs. 65,300 in cash was the total amount collected from the appellant.

Prosecution’s Contention

The appellant entered Bharat’s chamber illegally, killed him by slicing his neck with a knife, and committed a robbery of Rs. 65,300 in cash. Since Bharat had successfully finished his term as Bhishi in June 2013 and had received the Bhishi fee of Rs. 51,500 from Kalu Modi, the appellant killed Bharat to defraud him of money. As a result, the appellant had a reason to loot Bharat and kill him.

Appellant’s Contention

It is important to note that the total amount of Bhishi that Bharat received from Kalu Modi was Rs.51,500, however, the prosecution recovered and seized an amount of Rs.61,500 in the current case, making it evident that the amount of Bhishi that was received by Bharat from Kalu Modi as significantly less. The whole amount of money Bharat received and the Appellant’s total recovery does not match, and there is a total discrepancy. Additionally, it may be evident that the prosecution has not established the fact that the seized currency notes totalling Rs. 65,300 are the identical bills that purportedly disappeared from Bharat. Furthermore, it can be demonstrated that there is no proof of any testimony to the appellant’s existence, either in the company of Bharat or having violated Bharat’s property rights room. The prosecution has not questioned any of these people or witnesses. Who was in the area to locate the hiding place of the items in the public restroom? Consequently, the recovery is speculative and cannot be welcomed. Additionally, it does not aid in forming the chain of situations as having been established without a shadow of a question.

Judgment

According to the High Court, the prosecution had completely failed to establish the circumstances to prove that the Appellant is the author of the crime. Further that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the Appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and thus Appellant deserved the benefit of the doubt.

Hence the following order was passed: 

(i) Criminal Appeal is allowed;

(ii) Judgment passed by the lower court on 4th & 8th April 2015 is hereby quashed and set aside.

(iii) The Appellant stands acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 302, 449, 392 r/w 397, 436 and 201 of IPC;

(iv) The Appellant be released forthwith from prison, if not required in any other case/cases. Fine if any, paid by Appellant shall be returned to Appellant.

-Report by Gourav Jain

The Delhi High Court in BALWANT SINGH DHAMRAIT & OTHERS V. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHER, decided that even if you pay rent on time and according to the conditions set by the owner of the property, you can’t become the legal occupant if the owner has shown his wish to evict you after the due date.

Facts

The property was given on lease to the SBI for a term of 10 years. For the first five years of the lease, the monthly rent was Rs. 3,21,000/-. After five years, as in the Deed, the monthly rent was increased by 25% to Rs.4,01,250. The SBI paid Rs. 19,26,000/- as six months’ advance rent at the start of the lease. The lease was renewable for a further five years on terms and conditions to be mutually agreed upon between the parties. Balwant Singh and others issued a letter dated 20th June 2012 to the SBI stating that they are in need of the property and the SBI should vacate the property on the expiry of the lease. A reply on 18th February 2013 was received from the SBI saying that the bank intends to continue the lease with the consent of Balwant Singh and others. In the reply, the SBI also requested Balwant Singh and others for a meeting in this regard. Later on, an offer for extending the lease for a further period of 5 years was given by Balwant Singh and others to the SBI. In the bank’s letter dated 20th September 2013, Balwant Singh and others sent their bid dated 23rd September 2013, offering the suit property for a fresh lease at a monthly rent of Rs. 22 lacs. No mutual agreement ever happened between parties for renewal of the Deed. The term of the Lease Deed expired on 12th November 2013 and the SBI was liable to evict the property. The SBI issued a letter saying that the bank is looking for a suitable space for shifting and till then the bank would do their work on the same property. The SBI deposited a sum of Rs. 34,50,750/- from 13th November 2013 to 31st July 2014 @ Rs. 4,01,250/- per month, in the account of Balwant Singh and others.

The present suit was filed by Balwant Singh and others for the eviction of the defendant Bank from the mentioned premises and recovery of damages.

Defendant’s Contention

Balwant Singh and others have no right to end the tenancy of the SBI. As per Clause II(j) of the Lease Deed, the SBI is to be given the lease for further 5 years after the expiry of the period of 10 years. The SBI is in possession of the property as a tenant and has regularly paid rent to the plaintiffs.

In the suit, the relief is claimed based on the area of the suit property measuring 5567.4 sq. ft, whereas the measurement of the same in the Lease Deed is 4729 sq.ft. The SBI informed the plaintiffs during their visit to the bank that the bank wants to eradicate the clause so that it can increase the tenancy period to 5 years, they further tried to mutually settle the terms for the extension of the lease for 5 years. 

SBI contended that the plaintiffs were liable to refund the security amount of Rs. 19,26,000/- back to them.

Judgment

In this case, the Lease Deed expired on 12th November 2013 and the possession was handed over by the SBI to the plaintiffs on 30th June 2016. Therefore, the mesne profits have to be considered for 31 months 17 days. None of the lease deeds or other evidence placed on record by Balwant Singh and Others can be the basis for deciding mesne profits in respect of the property. Therefore, the mesne profits have to be decided based on the last paid rent by the SBI to Balwant Singh and Others. As per the Lease Deed dated 13th November 2003 between the parties, the lease was to be renewed after 5 years with 25% increase of the last rent. Applying the same principle of increasing rent at the rate of 25% after 5 years, the plaintiffs would be entitled to mesne profits at the rate of 25% over the last rent for the period of 13th November 2013 to 12th November 2014. Following the rules set by the Court in the previous judgments (like, Sneh Vaish & Anr. v. State Bank of Patiala, 182 (2012) DLT 153; M.C. Agrawal and Ors. v. Sahara India and Ors., 183 (2011) DLT 105 and; Indian Tourism Development Corporation v. Anil Kumar Khanna, MANU/DE/0935/2016), the plaintiffs would be granted an increase in mesne profits by 15% every year on the amount. 

Hence, the Defendant Bank was liable to pay the damages to the Plaintiffs.

–Report by Sanstuti Mishra

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices S Abdul Nazeer and V Rama Subramaniam observed that a minister or public servant could file a private complaint alleging defamation and need not follow the particular procedure prescribed by Section 199(2) & (4) CrPC on 17th October 2022 in the case of MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI vs MANISH SISODIA & ORS.

Facts 

Manish Sisodia herein filed a   complaint under   Section   200 of the Code of   Criminal   Procedure, 1973 against six individuals, on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi, alleging commission of the offences under Sections 499 and 500 read with Sections 34 and 35 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner held that Manoj Tiwari, apprehended a Press Conference making false and defamatory statements as though he was involved in corruption to the tune of Rs. 2000 crores, in the matter of award of contracts for building classrooms in Delhi Government Schools. Shri Vijender Gupta also tweeted defamatory content against   Sisodia, and the person named Respondent No.6 in the complaint also made defamatory statements in his tweets. 

Petitioner’s contention 

Sisodia had accused three BJP leaders of defaming him through “insulting publications” it said were based on “fabricated” allegations. The deputy Chief minister necessitated an apology.

In November 2019, a trial court ordered the summons of BJP leaders and others accused of defamation in a criminal case filed by the Deputy CM of Delhi. BJP leaders sought relief from the Supreme Court, which denied it.

Respondent’s contention 

Shri R. Venkataramani and Ms Pinky Anand, learned senior counsel appearing for Manoj Tiwari and others argued that respondent   No.1   should have followed the special procedure prescribed in Section 199(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as he happens to be a Minister of a Union Territory; they also put forward that the transcript of the tweets attributed to him was not accompanied by a valid certificate in terms of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. They argued that the tweets made by him per se do not make out a case of defamation in terms of   Section   499   IPC, punishable under Section 500 IPC. The counsel referred to past judgements in P.C Joshi and Another vs. State of   Uttar Pradesh; Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India; and K.K. Mishra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another. 

Judgement 

The bench concluded that on grounds that the history of the law commission report was not properly traced, the appeal by Vijender Gupta was allowed and on the other hand the appeal by Manoj Tiwari was dismissed. 

“The special procedure is in addition to and not in derogation of the right that a public servant always has as an individual. He never lost his right merely because he became a public servant and merely because the allegations related to the official discharge of his duties”, the bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and V. Ramasubramanian said.

The court ruled that Shri Vijender Gupta’s appeal was successful only because the statements contained in his tweets were not considered defamatory within the meaning of Section 499 of the IPC.

The court explained that defamatory statements should be specific as an essential ingredient and not too vague or general. Hence statement made by Sri Vijender Gupta “your answer will disclose your scam” cannot be one, It cannot be intended to damage the reputation of Defendant Manish Sisodia.

-Report by Manya Sharma

A two Judge-Bench discussed fair and just compensation for the affected parties related to the deceased and provided for the heads to be considered while calculating the same. After considering a variety of factors, the Supreme Court ruled in the favour of the Appellants and allowed an enhanced compensation of Rs.10,29,260/-, who had felt aggrieved by the earlier judgement of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

FACTS

On 11.08.2009, a bus of Jammu and Kashmir State Road Corporation, which was being driven by the deceased husband of the first Respondent, fell into river Chenab. It was carrying Sudesh Kumar, aged 32 years, who drowned in the river. The Appellants claimed that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver and filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, for total compensation of Rs. 50 Lakhs, under different heads.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal found that the claim of the petitioners was correct and the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver, Mohd. Rasid. State Road Transport Corporation was held vicariously liable with Mohd. Rasid and the petitioners were entitled to an amount of Rs. 17,73,704/- with an interest of 6% per annum.

Dissatisfied by the compensation, the Appellants approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court for higher compensation and additional compensation of Rs. 2,95,000/- was granted to them at the interest rate of 9% per annum and the total compensation thus went up to Rs. 20,68,704/-. The Appellants still felt that the compensation was inadequate and hence approached the Supreme Court under Section 168 of the MV Act.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION

The Appellants, referring to the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi and Others, contended that the High Court, while giving the judgment and quantifying the amount payable, did not consider the future prospects of the deceased, under the head of ‘loss of dependency and other heads. It is also contended that no amount was added under the heads, ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses.’

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

Contrary to the Appellants, the Respondents contended that the High Court has granted just compensation to the Appellants, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, and no other factors need to be considered for the same as it is adequate. It is also further contended that the compensation under the head ‘loss of love’ is impermissible and under ‘loss of consortium,’ only Rs. 40,000 is to be granted going by the Pranay Sethi case.

COURT’S DECISION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court found that there is no justification for not reckoning the future prospects which he would have had but for his untimely death. The Court took the decisions in Pranay Sethi’s case and Sarla Verma and Ors. V. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., and held that they have no hesitation to uphold the contention of the Appellants that 50% of the actual salary of the deceased has to be added while calculating the compensation. The added amount of Rs. 15,000/- each, under the heads ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’ was granted to the Appellants, by the Supreme Court, which was not granted by the Tribunal and the High Court. The Court discussed the Pranay Sethi case, where three heads were recognized for the consideration of compensation and these heads were ‘loss of estate,’ ‘loss of consortium’ and ‘funeral expenses’ and accordingly fixed the amounts to be added and deducted for the same in the calculation of total compensation. Apart from this, referring to the Magma General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, the court held that compensation to the head of ‘love and affection’ is impermissible for ‘loss of spousal consortium to wife’ and ‘loss of parental consortium to children’ are admissible. Further, Rs. 40,000/- each was granted to minor children of the deceased and adjusted against ‘parental consortium’, the amount to be taken from the head of ‘love and affection which has to be removed from the list of heads, after deduction of the remaining Rs. 1,20,000/- from the same.

Thus, the Appellants were entitled to an enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 10,29,260/- which would be paid within 8 weeks from the date of judgement, and in case of failure of the same, would carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of this appeal till the date of realisation.

About the Organization

A renowned law firm with its headquarters in New Delhi is JLJ Law Offices. JLJ Law Offices has expertly carved out its legal business with a varied international clientele.One of India’s most active law firms, it provides a wide range of legal services in PE, M&A, business transfers, joint ventures, corporate structuring, corporate & commercial transactions, bankruptcy laws, commercial, banking, and securities laws, and FDI/international trade laws.

The firm is also actively involved in conflict resolution mechanisms through litigation, including before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, High Courts, and other judicial forums, as well as through alternative dispute resolution, including both domestic and international arbitration. The company is adept at handling matters involving anti-bribery, money laundering, benami, and financial and corporate crimes. It also specialises in white collar criminal defence.

Through its strategic expertise, the company strives to offer the best quality legal services and places a strong emphasis on timely job completion, client satisfaction, due process, quality, ethics, and professional integrity. The firm is dedicated to upholding its slogan, “JUST LAW & JUSTICE,” and as a result, “ACT WISE & ADVISE.”

About the Responsibilities  

For 4th and 5th year students interested in an online internship, JLJ Law Offices is accepting applications.

How to Apply?

Interested candidates may apply from here: – 

+91 8810528241 (Whatsapp) connect@jljlawoffices.com

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

For regular updates, we can catchup at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

About the Advocate

I am able to lawfully represent clients in Delhi’s District and Supreme Courts. I work with business, civil, matrimonial, criminal, arbitration, and arbitration-related issues. I oversee recurring appearances in the Supreme Court of India, Patiala House, Saket, Karkardooma, Tis Hazari Court, Rohini Court, and Tis Hazari Court. The headquarters are in Jangpura, Shalimar Bagh, and there are chambers in the Supreme Court and Rohini Court.

About the Responsibilities  

Opportunity for a Legal Internship.

As an intern you are required to: –

• Attending court hearings
• Working on research
• Working on drafting

Openings

2

Eligibility

• are available for a full-time, in-office internship that can begin between October 28 and December 2, 2012, are available for a duration of six months, and have relevant experience and interests
• Women who want to launch or renew their careers are welcome to apply.

Perks

• Certificate
• Letter of recommendation

How to Apply?

Interested candidates may apply from here: –  https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/3336981220

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

For regular updates, we can catchup at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

About the Responsibilities  

Opportunity for a Paid Legal Research Internship, Working with a team to create an artificial intelligence platform that can estimate the worth of personal injury claims is a component of the internship.

Time Period

1 to 2 months.

Stipend

Rs 10-15K/per month

Eligibility

• The candidate must be familiar with computer operation, including retrieving needed material from various search engines/processors such Manupatra, SCC Online, etc. The candidate should have strong legal research skills. Candidates with sharp knowledge, profound understanding, and a problem-solving mindset will do well in this internship.

How to Apply?

Interested candidates may apply from here: –  resume in free document format (.pdf or .odt) to lawklaim@gmail.com with a subject line – “Application for Legal research Internship”.

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

For regular updates, we can catchup at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

INTERNSHIP DESCRIPTION

Advocate Manasi Bhushan is hiring law students for internship at her Chamber.

1. No. of Position(s): 2
2. Job Location: Delhi
3. Experience: Law Student
4. Duration: November – December 2022
5. Eligibility: Fourth Year / Fifth Year of the Five-Year Course or Second Year / Third Year of the Three-Year Course
6. Mode: Offline/Physical
7. Stipend: Rs.2,500/- per month

APPLICATION PROCESS

APPLY HERE

Disclaimer: All information posted on Lexpeeps is accurate to our knowledge. However, it is advised that you verify and confirm things on your end.

For regular updates, we can catch up at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

ABOUT THE FIRM

Citadel Law Chambers is a full-service firm whose practice area straddles across general corporate, mergers and acquisitions, banking and finance, projects, real estate, and dispute resolution. The firm has a dedicated team of lawyers with considerable experience in each practice area. At Citadel, we focus on understanding the business of our clients to provide sound legal advice at a quick turnaround time while maintaining high ethical and professional standards.

JOB DESCRIPTION

The firm is hiring young and bright minds with 0-1 PQE as trainee Associate/ Junior Associate.

APPLICATION PROCESS

Interested candidates can send their applications to contact@citadel-chambers.com

Disclaimer: All information posted on Lexpeeps is accurate to our knowledge. However, it is advised that you verify and confirm things on your end.

For regular updates, we can catch up at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd