P. ANAND GAJAPTHI RAJU & ORS V. P.V.G. RAJU & ORS P Anand Gajapathi Raju & Ors v. P.V.G. Raju & Ors, 2000 (4) SCC 539 ISSUE: Whether the court has the power to refer the parties to the dispute to arbitration during an ongoing appeal under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996? RULE:...
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH V. ALLIED CONSTRUCTIONS State of Uttar Pradesh v. Allied Constructions, (2003) 7 SCC 396 ISSUE: Whether an arbitrator can pass an award inspite of the contract preventing claims for damages due to unpredicted natural disasters? RULE: A challenge to set aside an arbitration award can be filed only if it fulfills...
Whether an arbitrator’s legal misconduct in discrepancies in important issues of granting damages can be a ground to set aside the arbitral award?
An arbitral award can be set aside by a court only if there is an explicit and evident legal error, breach of jurisdiction by arbitrator or legal misconduct on part of the arbitrator.
Whether claims are barred by arbitration and respondent's continued acceptance of payments without objections bars the invocation of arbitration?
M/S DOZCO INDIA P. LTD. V. M/S DOOSAN INFRACORE CO. LTD. M/S Dozco India P. Ltd. v. M/S Doosan Infracore Co. Ltd 2011 (6) SCC 179 ISSUE: Whether in cases of International Commercial Arbitration, Indian Courts have jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator U/S 11 (6) of the Arbitration Act? RULE: Article 22.1 (governing laws) of...
Whether the Municipal Corporation of Delhi is liable for the death of an individual caused by negligence by failing to maintain trees in the public?
What is the limitation period to file a suit under Section 478 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act of 1957?
The Municipal Corporation owes a duty in ensuring that trees in the public that are old, dry and dead are to be handled with care immediately to prevent any damage to the passerbys.
When the owner of a tree has a constructive knowledge of the harmful condition the tree is in, they owe a duty of care to the general public.
The limitation period of 6 months under Section 478 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 is applicable to suits filed for actions done by the Corporation within the limits of the Act and not for tortuous negligence cases. The limitation period of 2 years in Article 82 of the Limitation Act 1963 would be applicable to tortuous negligence cases.
Whether the Municipal Corporation owes a duty of care with respect to maintaining the public trees due to statutory obligation?
Whether the death of Jayantilal was a direct cause of the negligence of the corporation thus triggering tortious liability?
The court has the duty to determine if the widening the scope of duty of care is in consonance or goes against public policy. Duty is subjective to facts and circumstances of each care and is dependent on interpretation of the law, predictability and proximity.
Negligence is inclusive of both actions and omissions, which necessitates a violation of duty that ends up in an injury. A violation of statutory obligation may end up in tortious liability if the legal provisions entitle a personal action right.
Public officials are usually not liable for omissions but are rather liable for wrong acts, unless the law orders an obligation on the public authority to act.
Whether the citizens facing consequences of degraded air pollution can pray for a complete ban on firecrackers in order to minimize the air pollution levels?
The courts of the country are duty bound to address intense concerns when it affects the right to education, work, health and right to life as guaranteed under Part III of the Indian constitution.
There is a need to balance the bigger interest of the majority group as against the materialistic benefits of a minority wherein the citizens should be favored.
Constitutional balance should significantly give more priority to the negative consequences that the air quality has on the current and upcoming generations, rather than the temporary materialistic restrictions of those in the firecracker industry.
Whether the increased pollution caused by firecrackers and explosives burst during the time of Deepwali be a valid ground for banning the firecrackers in spite of other pollutants being present in the air?
The precautionary principle in environmental law does not need the backing of any scientific evidence or proof if the danger to the environment is significant and irreversible.
The fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) & Article 25 should be balanced with Article 21 of the Constitution, keeping in mind the health of the population who reside in Delhi and NCR.
Whether the limitation period under Article 36 or Article 120 of Limitation Act, 1908 would be applicable?
Negligence while performing a duty is only to decide if the governmental actions have resulted in not compensating an individual for the losses caused. A common man should not have to bear the brunt of actions of the government which are in fact injurious.
The computation of limitation period for Article 36 of Limitation Act, 1908 would begin from the date when either malfeasance/misfeasance/date of damage/date of filing claim/rejecting the claim took place.