Supreme Court Monthly Digest [November 2024]

International Seaport Dredging Pvt Ltd vs Kamarajar Port Limited 2024 INSC 827 - Arbitration - Govt. & Private Entities

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - The Arbitration Act is a self-contained code – It does not distinguish between governmental and private entities -Governmental entities must be treated in a similar fashion to private parties insofar as proceedings under the Arbitration Act are concerned, except where otherwise indicated by law. This is because the parties have entered into commercial transactions with full awareness of the implications of compliance and non-compliance with the concerned contracts and the consequences which will visit them in law - Referred to Pam Developments Private Limited v State of West Bengal (2019) 8 SCC 112. (Para 15)

Code Of Civil Procedure 1908- Order XLI Rule 5 - Court has the power to direct full or part deposit and/or the furnishing of security in respect of the decretal amount - Referred to Toyo Engineering Corpn. v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. (Para 17)

Anoop M vs Gireeshkumar TM 2024 INSC 828 - KPSC - Legitimate Expectation - Kerala High Court Rules

Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC)- A State instrumentality seized of the solemn responsibility of making selections to public services must maintain a high standard of probity and transparency and is not expected to remain nebulous as to its norms or resort to falsehoods before the Court, contrary to what it had stated in its earlier sworn affidavits. We can only hope that the Kerala Public Service Commission learns from this experience and desists, at least in future, from trifling with the lives, hopes and aspirations of candidates who seek public employment.(Para 27)

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation - State cannot be allowed to change course and belie legitimate expectation as regularity, predictability, certainty and fairness are necessary concomitants of governmental action. (Para 26)

Kerala High Court Rules - Rule 148- All persons directly affected should be made parties to the petition but where such persons are numerous, one or more of them may, with the permission of the Court, be impleaded on behalf of or for the benefit of all persons so affected, but notice of the original petition, on admission, should be given to all such persons either by personal service or by public advertisement- The very purpose of Rule 148 is to protect the interest of those affected persons who may be ignorant of the litigation and would be taken by surprise by the adverse developments therein. (Para 11)

Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited vs Bapuna Alcobrew Private Limited 2024 INSC 829 - Interim Relief - S 17 Limitation Act - Res Judicata

Practice and Procedure- Interim Relief -Once an interim order is passed in a suit or a proceeding, the interim relief granted to the party seeking interim relief could either be confirmed or vacated at the time of final disposal of the suit or proceedings, as the case may be. If the disposal is by way of an order of dismissal, interim relief which is granted as an aid of or ancillary to the final relief cannot continue beyond termination of such suit or proceeding- However, if in a particular suit or proceeding, interim relief is sought in respect of a development subsequent to institution of the suit/proceedings, , and the challenge to such subsequent development is spurned, the party who has approached the court cannot be heard to say that the effect of spurning of the challenge would come to an end with the disposal of the suit/proceedings. The effect of the challenge being spurned would continue till such time it is reversed in appeal or reviewed in a manner known to law. The situation in such a case, adversely affecting the party whose challenge has been spurned, cannot be sought to be overcome by contending that the suit or proceedings has/have not been dismissed on merits but was/were merely withdrawn. By seeking a withdrawal, the Court before whom the lis was brought is requested not to decide the lis and if the Court while granting the prayer for withdrawal does not grant leave for institution of a fresh suit on the same cause of action, or even if leave is granted and a fresh suit/proceeding is instituted, that would not have the effect of negating the order spurning challenge passed in the earlier suit/ proceedings. The same would remain operative till set aside or varied. (Para 30-32)

Res Judicata -A point even if wrongly decided binds the party against whom it is decided and the same point cannot be urged in a subsequent suit or proceeding at the same level. (Para 37)

Limitation Act 1963 - Section 17 - Section 17 is meant to save suits from being dismissed as time-barred, which could not be filed due to bona fide mistakes or errors. If a suitor alleges that the suit could not be instituted by him within the prescribed period of limitation because of some mistake, which came to be discovered beyond the period prescribed for institution of a suit, it is open to such suitor to claim exemption from limitation in terms of Order VII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and such exemption can be granted in an appropriate case. However, if a suitor alleges to have discovered a mistake later but it is proved on evidence being led that exercise of reasonable diligence could have resulted in the mistake being discovered on an earlier date, limitation would begin to count from that earlier date; and, in case, the count from the said earlier date takes the date of institution of the suit beyond the prescribed period of limitation, the bar of limitation would get attracted. Mistake is, thus, not a circumstance which can be used as a shield to save negligence in all cases. Absence of due diligence or lack of bona fides would not clothe a suitor to take undue advantage of a beneficent provision like section 17; it is for the relevant court to separate the grain from the chaff.

Indian Electricity Act, 1910- Section 24 - Section 24 prescribes no period of limitation, it does allow the licensee to discontinue supply of energy upon a consumer neglecting to pay charges that are demanded by raising a bill, irrespective of the fact that a suit for recovery of unpaid charges would be barred if not instituted within three (3) years of the liability accruing. There appears to be no limitation as regards the period within which notice under section 24(1) has to be issued, evincing the intention of the licensee to disconnect supply for nonpayment of claimed dues. However, if in case, despite the consumer not paying the charges demanded and the notice thereunder is not issued within a reasonable period or at any time within which a suit for recovery could be instituted, whether the right of the licensee to claim the unpaid charges would lapse will have to be decided by the court before whom the lis is brought upon consideration of the defense that is raised and the explanation for the delay. We only say that it must depend on the facts of each particular case whether the demand by reason of mere delay should be interdicted or not. (Para 20)

Sonal Gupta vs Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court 2024 INSC 830- Rajasthan Judicial Service Exams

Rajasthan Judicial Service Exams -The candidates who appeared for the main examination of the Rajasthan Civil Judge Cadre 2024 alleged that they have been awarded marks arbitrarily in the subjective exam paper, namely, the Language Paper – II (English Essay) which has led to them falling below the cut off marks for the interview round - Dismissing appeal, SC observed: In absence of any evidence that meritorious candidates have been deprived of their marks deliberately, the Court cannot interfere. he marking of the essay does not suffer from an infirmity that would cast doubt on the overall assessment of the English Essay answer sheets.