Orders and Judgments Duration July 08-22, 2020

“A law is valuable not because it is law, but because there is right in it.”



  • State Trading Corporation of India Ltd Jindal Steel and Power Limited
    High Court (HC) cannot Suo Motu appoint an Arbitrator ignoring the procedure prescribed in the Agreement between Parties
    The Supreme court (SC) has observed that the High Court (HC) cannot appoint an Arbitrator ignoring the procedure prescribed in the Agreement between parties for such appointment.


  • Arjun Pandithrao Khotkar Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Ors
    Certificate Under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, 1872 is a condition precedent to the admissibility of Electronic Evidence: Supreme Court (SC)
    The Supreme Court (SC) has held that the certificate required under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record. The Bench further held that, in a fact-circumstance where the requisite certificate has been applied for from the person or the authority concerned, and the person or authority either refuses to give such certificate, or does not reply to such demand, the party asking for such certificate can apply to the Court for its production under the provisions aforementioned of the Evidence Act, CPC or CrPC. The Bench has also clarified that that the required certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act is unnecessary if the original document itself is produced.


  • The Director General (Road Development) National Highways Authority of India AAM Aadmi Lokmanch & Ors
    National Green Tribunal (NGT) has power to issue General Directions for future guidance to prevent injury to environment: Supreme Court (SC)
    The Supreme Court (SC), in a judgment delivered on Tuesday, has held that the National Green Tribunal (NGT), in appropriate cases, has power to issue general directions for future guidance, to avoid or prevent injury to the environment. While considering an application by Aam Aadmi Lokmanch, the NGT issued a direction to the authorities to ensure that 'no construction permission shall be given to any construction/development work, which is being proposed and is located at a distance may be of 100 ft. away from lowest slope i.e. incline of any hill within its territorial limits, as well as hill-tops, except for Bamboo cottages'. Aam Aadmi Lokmanch had approached the High Court raising an issue of illegal mining and consequent destruction of hills which resulted in the accident death of mother-daughter duo who were travelling through an adjacent National Highway. In the appeal, the power of the NGT to issue directions banning development and building activities were challenged. Taking note of provisions of the National Green Tribunal Act, the bench observed that NGT's Jurisdiction is not "restitutionary, but a remedial one". It said that its powers can also be preventive.


Disclaimer “This information has been gathered from various sources. Nothing herein is or may be construed as legal advice”.