LEGAL ARENA

IMPORTANT
JUDGEMENTS

PART- 4
2023
MAH ADIWASI THAKUR JAMAT
SWARAKSHAN SAMITI V.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
AND OTHERS
JUDGMENT DATE: MARCH 26TH, 2023.

COURT: THE SUPREME COURT OF

INDIA

CORAM: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S.

Oka and Manoj Misra
Mah Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of
Maharashtra and Others

FACTS

In the order dated March 24, 2022, a bench

of the Supreme Court noted that there was
a conflict of views expressed in two
decisions of coordinate Benches of the apex
court. The first case was of Vijakumar v.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. and the second
case was Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny
and Verification of Tribe Claims & Ors.

In Vijakumar, it was held that if a candidate

fails the affinity test at any stage, a caste
validity certificate cannot be granted to him.
In the case of Anand, it was held that the
affinity test is not the only criteria for
deciding a caste claim based on a caste
certificate issued by a Competent Authority,
Hence, the matter was referred to a three-
judge bench to settle the issue.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether an affinity test is a conclusive test

to decide caste claim and is an essential part
of the verification process of the caste/tribe
claims?

03
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S Oka and
Manoj Misra said that "The Vigilance Cell, while conducting an affinity test,
verifies the knowledge of the applicant about deities of the community,
customs, rituals, mode of marriage, death ceremonies etc. in respect of that
particular Scheduled Tribe. By its very nature, such an affinity test can never be
conclusive. If the applicant has stayed in bigger urban areas along with his
family for decades or if his family has stayed in such urban areas for decades,
the applicant may not have knowledge of the aforesaid facts."

The Top Court added that "It is true that the Vigilance Cell can also question the
parents of the applicant. But in a given case, even the parents may be unaware
for the reason that for several years they have been staying in bigger urban
areas. On the other hand, a person may not belong to the particular tribe, but he
may have a good knowledge about the aforesaid aspects."

The Supreme Court further said that "Affinity test is not a litmus test to decide a
caste claim and is not an essential part in the process of the determination of
correctness of a caste or tribe claim in every case. Affinity test cannot be
conclusive and when an affinity test is conducted, the result 5 of the test along
with all other material on record having probative value will have to be taken
into consideration for deciding the caste validity claim."

04
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND
OTHERS V. RAJESH AGARWAL
AND OTHERS

JUDGMENT DATE: MARCH 27TH, 2023.

COURT: THE SUPREME COURT OF

INDIA

CORAM: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima

Kohli
State Bank of India and Others v. Rajesh Agarwal and
Others

FACTS

IA batch of appeals filed before the Top

Court by banks and the Reserve Bank of
India against a Telangana High Court order
reading principles of natural justice (hearing
the other side primarily) into the 2016
Reserve Bank of India (Frauds Classification
and Reporting by Commercial Banks and
Select FIs) Directions.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether an opportunity of hearing should

be given to borrower by a bank before
classifying a borrower's account as
fraudulent?

06
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court said that "the principles of natural justice are not mere legal
formalities. They constitute substantive obligations that need to be followed by
decision-making and adjudicating authorities. The principles of natural justice
act as a guarantee against arbitrary action, both in terms of procedure and
substance, by judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative authorities."

The Top Court further said that "A reasoned order allows an aggrieved party to
demonstrate that the reasons which persuaded the authority to pass an
adverse order against the interests of the aggrieved party are extraneous or
perverse; and the obligation to record reasons acts as a check on the arbitrary
exercise of the powers. The reasons to be recorded need not be placed on the
same pedestal as a judgment of a court."

The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and
Justice Hima Kohli while upholding the order of the Telangana High Court held
that "Decision classifying borrower account as fraudulent must be with
reasoned order. Rule of 'Audi alteram partem' has to be read into it and hearing
is required before borrower accounts are barred."

07
NN GLOBAL MERCANTILE PVT
LTD V. INDO UNIQUE FLAME
LTD & OTHERS
JUDGMENT DATE: APRIL 25TH, 2023.

COURT: THE SUPREME COURT OF

INDIA

CORAM: Justice K.M. Joseph, Justice Ajay Rastogi,

Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Hrishikesh Roy
and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
NN Global Mercantile Pvt Ltd v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd &
Others

FACTS

The parties in the original matter had entered

into a sub-contract that had contained an
arbitration clause. The respondent had later
invoked the bank guarantee furnished by the
petitioner, leading to a suit.

The respondent then filed an application under

Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act and sought resolution of the dispute
through arbitration, which a commercial court
had rejected. The Bombay High Court had
subsequently held that the application was
maintainable, leading to the present appeal
before the top court.

The matter was listed before the constitution

bench of Justices KM Joseph, Ajay Rastogi,
Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT
Ravikumar. While Justices Joseph, Bose and
Ravikumar wrote the majority opinion, Justices
Rastogi and Roy dissented, opining that
unstamped arbitration agreements are valid at
the pre-referral stage.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether unstamped arbitration agreements

are valid in law?

09
JUDGEMENT
Majority opinion held that "Court is duly empowered to act under the Stamp Act
if a document is not stamped Arbitration agreement not validated by Stamp Act
would stand non est in law."

Justice Rastogi in his dissenting opinion said that "Such examination should not
open the door wide open for judicial examination. Existence of certified copy of
Arbitration agreement whether unstamped or not is enforceable for
appointment of arbitrator All the preliminary maintainability issues of the
document are referrable to the arbitrator."

Justice Roy in his dissenting opinion said that "Objective behind 1996 Act was
to inter alia avoid procedural complexity and litigation between courts.
Impounding and stamping will frustrate the same, as enforcement will be stalled
when it can be solved at a later stage. But issue is much too important to leave
it lingering for clarification by a larger bench. I appeal to the legislature to revisit

amendments necessary in the Stamp Act to efface inconsistencies. I am of the

considered opinion that statutory schemes have to be interplayed in a
constructive manner if India is to become a centre for arbitration."

10
WEEKLY
LEGAL
BULLETIN

LEGAL ARENA
 LEGAL ARENA

Supreme Court To Consider Online

Gaming Companies' Plea Against
28% GST In January 2024
The Supreme Court has postponed the hearing of writ petitions
filed by online gaming companies challenging the constitutional
validity of the 28% GST, including Dream 11, Games 24x7, and
Head Digital Works, to January 8, 2024. The petitioners did not
receive an interim order in their favor.

ED Needn't Give Reasons In Writing

To Accused At Time Of Arrest, Can
Give Within 24 Hrs; 'Pankaj Bansal'
Doesn't Apply Retrospectively:
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled that its previous judgment in Pankaj
Bansal v. The Union of India, which requires the Directorate of
Enforcement to provide the grounds of arrest in writing to the
accused at the time of arrest, only applies prospectively.

Weekly Legal Bulletin 12

 LEGAL ARENA
S. 125 CrPC | Order For Interim
Maintenance Not An Interlocutory
Order, Can Be Challenged In
Revision: Allahabad High Court

Recently, the Allahabad High Court held that an order of interim

maintenance during the pendency of application under Section
125 CrPC is not an interlocutory order and thus, can be
challenged before the High Court in revision.

Patent Office Expected To Pass Final

Orders Within Reasonable Period
Not Exceeding 3 To 6 Months: Delhi
High Court.

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Patent Office is
expected to pass final orders after concluding oral hearings
within a reasonable period, which cannot be beyond three to six
months, depending on the complexity of the Case.

Weekly Legal Bulletin 13

Contact
Us

Join the community for daily newspapers

and more such legal information.
Click on the link below to join.

LEGAL ARENA

legalarena80@gmail.com

@legalarena._