Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd &Ors Vs Mehul

Construction Co (case1)

FACTS:
In this batch of cases an important question arises for
consideration of this Court, namely, under the provisions of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, what should be the
correct approach of the Chief Justice or his nominee in relation
to the matter of appointment of an arbitrator under Section
11(6) of the Act, and what is the true nature of the said order
and further if a person is aggrieved by such order, can he file
application in a Court and whether such an application could
be entertained and if so, in which forum? In Sundaram Finance
Ltd. vs. NEPC India Ltd. (1999) 2 Supreme Court Cases 479,
while deciding the question as to whether under Section 9 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court has
jurisdiction to pass an interim order even before
commencement of arbitration proceeding and before an
Arbitrator is appointed, after analysing different provisions
of Arbitration Act, 1940 and the present Act of 1996 an
observation has been made to the effect under the 1996 Act,
appointment of Arbitrator is made as per the provisions
of Section 11 which does not require the Court to pass a
judicial order appointing Arbitrator. 

ISSUES:

(1) what is the nature of the order that is passed by the Chief Justice or his nominee
in exercise of power under sub-section (6) of section 11 of the Act?

(2) what even if said order is held to be administrative in nature what is the remedy
open to the person concerned if his request for appointment of an Arbitrator is turned
down by the learned Chief Justice or his nominee, for some reason or other?
 Maneka Gandhi Vs UOI (case2)

FACTS:
This case is about a women who is journalist who was about to go
to other country for some official work. So, she applied for the
passport under Indian passport act 1967 and her passport was
issued on 1 June 1976. on the 4th of July 1977 , maneka Gandhi
received a letter from the regional passport officer intimating to her
that it was decided by the government of India to impound her
passport under sec.10(3)(c)of the act “in public interest”. The
petitioner was required to surrender her passport within 7 days
from the receipt of that latter. Maneka Gandhi immediately
addressed a letter to the regional passport officer requesting a
copy of a statement about the reason for making the order as
provided in sec.10(5). A reply was sent by the government of India,
ministry of external affairs on 6th july 1977 stating that the
government decided “in the interest of general public” not to
furnish her a copy of statement of reasons for the making of the
order.

Maneka Gandhi now filled a writ petition under article 32 of the

constitution of India  challenging action of government in
impounding  her passport and declining to give reasons for doing
so. She challenges sec 10(3)(c)  unconstitutional because it’s a
violation of fundamental right under art. 14,19(1).

ISSUES:

1.Are the provisions under Articles 21, 14 and 19 connected with

each other or are they mutually exclusive?

2.What is the scope of the phrase “Procedure established by law”

in Article 21?

3.Whether the right to travel abroad resides in Article 21?

4.Is a legislative law that snatches away the right to life

reasonable?

Sampath Kumar Vs UOI (case 3)

Facts:
S.K. Sinha and S.K. Verma for the Respondents. The
Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI, CJ. I
am in entire agreement with the judgment prepared by my
learned brother Ranganath Misra, but since the questions
involved in these writ petitions are of semi- nal importance
affecting as they do, the structure of the judicial system and
the principle of independence of the Judiciary, I think I
would be failing in my duty if I did not add a few words of
my own.

Issues:

1. whether the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the High

Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in
service matters specified in section 218of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the vesting of
exclusive jurisdiction in such service matters in the
Administrative Tribunal to be constituted under the
impugend Act, subject to an exception in favour of the
jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 32 and 136, is
unconstitutional and void and in any event, even if the first
question be answered against the petitioners and in favour
of the Government?

2.whether the composition of the Administrative

Tribunal and the mode of appointment of Chairman,
ViceChairmen and members have the effect of
introducing a constitutional infirmity invalidating the
provisions of the impugned Act?

Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum 

Vs UOI (case 4)

Facts:
The incident described in the background formed the basis of the FIR against the
Army Men and the Police officers which was registered at the Police Station New
Delhi Railway Station. All the rape victims were then sent for their medical
examination.

The members of the petitioner Forum wanted to visit the victims. They were provided
the address of all the victims by the police. Nowhere were they allowed to enter and
meet the victims even though the employers there knew that the rape victims were
with them. According to the petitioner- Forum, the victims were its members and they
needed social, cultural and legal protection. They also claimed that the victims were
helpless tribal women belonging to Bihar at the mercy of the employers and the
police. They were vulnerable to intimidation. The petitioner-forum claimed that
inspite of such a heinous act against the dignity of poor tribal women, neither the
Central government not the State government has given any serious attention for the
need of provisions of rehabilitatory and compensatory justice for women. Hence they
filed a writ petition under article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Issues:

1.According to the case, Speedy trail is one of the essential requisites of law. Can
such a trail be frustrated by prolongation of investigation?

2. Is the rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution will become
meaningless?
D.K Basu Vs State of W.B (Case5)

Facts:
DK Basu, Executive Chairman of Legal Aid Services, West Bengal,
a non-political organization on 26/08/1986 addressed a letter to the
Supreme Court of India calling his attention to certain news
published in the Telegraph Newspaper about deaths in police
custody and custody. He requested that the letter be treated as a
Writ Petition within the “Public Interest Litigation”. Considering the
importance of the issues raised in the letter, it was treated as a
written Petition and the Defendants were notified. While the writ
petition was being considered, Mr. Ashok Kumar Johri addressed a
letter to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court calling his attention
to the death of a Mahesh Bihari from Pilkhana, Aligarh in police
custody. The same letter was also treated as a Request for Writing
and was included along with D.K.Basu’s Request for Writing. On
14/08/1987 the Court issued the Order issuing notices to all state
governments and a notice was also issued to the Law Commission
requesting appropriate suggestions within a two month period. In
response to the notification, several states submitted affidavits,
including West Bengal, Orissa, Assam, Himachal Pradesh,
Haryana, Tamil Nadu, Meghalaya, Maharashtra, and Manipur.
Additionally, Dr. A.M.Singh vi, Principal Counsel was appointed
Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. All of the attorneys who
appeared provided useful assistance to the Court.

Issues:
1. Growth in incidents of Custodial Torture and Deaths by Police.2
2. The arbitrariness of Policemen in arresting a person.
3. Is there any need to specify some guidelines to make an arrest?