“In the Concluding Report, final list has been annexed, which is utility-wise and personnel-wise, which is clear and unambiguous. We, thus, do not find any merit in the Miscellaneous Applications filed by Telangana State power utilities being M.A. Nos. 1286, 1290, 1292 and 1291, which are dismissed.”, this remarkable stand was forwarded by the Honorable SC in the Miscellaneous appeal case of Telangana Power Generation Corporation Ltd. (TSGENCO) V. Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd., [MIS.A. NO(S). 1270/2020] in [C.A. NO(S). 11435/2018], chaired by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Justice M.R. Shah, The bench in this present case has accepted the submissions of the one-man committee report, thereby disposing all the Miscellaneous appeals.

The High Court vide its judgment dated 02.02.2018 decided the bunch of writ petitions raising the dispute pertaining to allocation of the employees of the power sector undertakings in the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. The Honorable SC vide its judgment dated 28.11.2018 while upholding the judgment of the High Court with the agreement of the learned counsel for the parties appointed a One-Man Committee consisting of Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari, a former Judge of this Court for distributing the personnel between two States.

One-Man Committee proceeded to formulate the modalities for distributing the personnel, prepared the reports allocating the personnel at several stages. The miscellaneous applications were filed in this Court in the civil appeal in pursuance of the liberty granted by this Court in its judgment dated 28.11.2018 permitting the parties to approach the Court by filing an interlocutory application. The present set of miscellaneous applications have been filed by Telangana Power Utilities, certain employees and employees’ associations after submission of the concluding report dated 20.06.2020 by the One-Man Committee. These Miscellaneous Applications have been filed in Civil Appeal No.11435 of 2018 decided by this Court vide judgment dated 28.11.2018. Civil Appeal No. 11435 of 2018 was filed against the common judgment dated 02.02.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No.17994 of 2015 and other connected writ petitions.

After examining all the submissions, arguments and evidences forwarded by the councils, the Hon’ble SC observed that, the above judgment of the High Court having been upheld by this Court, the submission of learned counsel that no allocation process ought to be undertaken for applicants is without any merit. Further, submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that their names were not included in the Final List dated 26.12.2019 also does not in any manner militate against and their names subsequently included for allocation from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana State utilities. We having upheld the allocation made by the One-Man Committee from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana State also, we find no merit in M.A. No.1287 of 2020, which stands rejected.

The bench further added that, “With regard to other M.A.s, we make it clear that the One-Man Committee was entrusted only with distribution of personnel between the two States, which distribution has been finalized by the One-Man Committee. Insofar as other claims regarding salary or allowances as raised in different M.A.s, they need no consideration in these proceedings and employees of power utilities are free to adjudicate their claims before appropriate forum in accordance with law. All other M.A.s are disposed of accordingly.”

In lieu of the above made considerations and observations, the bench in this present disposed all the M.A.s stating that, “We having found no merit in the objections to One-Man Committee’s Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020 it is obligatory for power utilities of both the States and all concerned to carry out and implement the directions of the One-Man Committee Report.”

Click here to read more

The Delhi High Court in a recent case upheld the order of the special court of inquiry formed by the Sashastra Seema Bal (“SSB”) against the Appellant for dismissal of service and one year of imprisonment. This order was passed against the appellant as the charge against him for not reporting the seizure of 3 gold pieces that weighed half kilogram from smugglers was proved. This judgment was passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Yadav v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 6226/2020.

The facts of the case are that Sunil K Yadav joined the force of SSB as a constable in the year 2011. In the year 2014 he was posted at Narkatiaganj Area, Bihar. On 25.11.2014 he got an input from his source regarding gold smuggling that was going to be carried out in the Saptakranti Express train from Muzaffarpur in Bihar to Delhi. On receiving the input, he informed his superiors and on their orders the appellant conducted the entire operation against the smugglers. After due efforts, the smuggler was taken into custody and the 3 gold pieces weighing half kilogram was recovered from him. The apprehension was duly notified to the superior officers and by this time the Saptakranti Express had already reached Bagaha Railway Station 50 Kilometers away from Narkatiaganj. After reaching the station the Appellant and another constable deboarded the train. After the Sub-Area Organizers (SAOs) came to the Bagaha railway station, all of them proceeded towards Narkatiaganj. However, on the way, the smuggler escaped from the custody of the SAOs. Yadav said he was asked to deposit the recovered gold with the nearest SSB unit at Tuthibari while the SAOs “hurriedly” left the area. Yadav alleged that he was arrested by local Police while on his way to Narkatiaganj. The Central government on the contrary submitted that Yadav was apprehended while he was proceeding with his brother to his home instead of depositing the recovered gold with the SSB unit or the police or the Customs, whose offices were all located in the vicinity.

Sunil K Yadav while appealing to the High Court pleaded that the Doctrine of Equality and Proportionality must be implemented in this case as the other two officers that were along with him had faced no actions and in this case he is being made the scape goat for everything. The Delhi High Court stated that “The petitioner was a member of a disciplined Force and responsible for the security of the country, including economic security. He did not consider it inappropriate to keep smuggled gold in his possession, about the seizure of which no record was also prepared. Absolute honesty and integrity is expected of all government employees and no slip can ever be brooked. Such employees wanting in integrity cannot but be dismissed as their retention in service would send wrong signals and would be counter-productive.” Hence, the petition was dismissed, and the order of the inquiry commission was upheld.

[Please Click here to view the judgment]

Initially, the petitioner was granted bail subject to the conditions. But the petitioner has not complied with the said conditions and the trial Court invoking Section 82 of CrPC, issued proclamation after noticing that the petitioner has absconded. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail, Karnataka High Court held this in, Chandru v. State of Karnataka (Crl. Petition No. 6734 of 2020)

On 25.08.2012, the informant, who was working as Watcher in Social Forest Range, since five years found a dead body of unknown person with a rope tied to the neck. He also noticed that the dead body is of a lady and he suspected that she might have been killed by somebody and thrown the dead body to destroy the evidence of commission of the offence. On the basis of this information, FIR came to be registered and investigation was undertaken. It is stated that after due investigation, charge sheet was filed against all the four accused persons including the present petitioner.

The  counsel for the petitioner submits that he was earlier granted bail subject to the conditions. But he could not appear before the trial Court for various reasons. In the meantime, accused Nos. 1 and 2 have died and case against them was abated. The trial against accused No.3 was conducted and he was acquitted. Learned counsel further submitted that there are no material as against the present petitioner who has been arraigned as accused No.4. He is ready and willing to appear before the trial Court and hence, he prayed to allow the petition.

However, the counsel for respondent, claims that, Initially, the petitioner was granted bail subject to the conditions. But the petitioner has not complied with the said conditions and the trial Court invoking Section 82 of Cr.P.C., issued proclamation after noticing that the petitioner has absconded. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail by this Court.

The court was of the view that, “Initially, the petitioner was granted bail subject to the conditions. But the petitioner has not complied with the said conditions and the trial Court invoking Section 82 of Cr.P.C., issued proclamation after noticing that the petitioner has absconded. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail by this Court”

And hence, the petition was dismissed.

Click here to read judgment

Undoubtedly the scheme of expediency and limited judicial intervention is ingrained in the Arbitration Act but at the same time it cannot be forgotten that the Act nevertheless provides remedies against the arbitral award and it is felt that to vest the order, of any Commercial Court in the country refusing to condone the delay in applying for setting aside of the award, and which delay can be for varying reasons as diverse as the social, geographical and economic conditions prevalent in this country, and not even providing any opportunity to the High Courts to have a look therein, would be a very harsh outcome. This judgment was pronounced by the division bench comprising hon’ble Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Justice Asha Menon at Delhi High Court in the matter of Chintels India Ltd. v. Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd. [FAO (OS) (COMM) 68/2020].

The appeal came up first before this Court on 16th June, 2020, when notice thereof was issued and pleadings ordered to be completed.  On the subsequent date i.e., 13th July, 2020, the counsel for the respondent stated that the respondent shall stay their hands in the execution proceedings pending before the Commercial Division in relation to the arbitral award having force of the decree, subject matter of the appeal. On 22nd July, 2020, CM No.15906/2020 of the respondent seeking a direction to the appellant to deposit the award amount with up-to-date interest in the Court, came up before the Court and pleadings thereon also ordered to be completed. Thereafter the matter was adjourned from time to time, for completion of pleadings.

The hon’ble High Court held while dismissing the appeal as not maintainable, that being bound by the dicta of the Supreme Court in BGS SGS Soma JV and in Ramdas Construction Co., we grant certificate under Article 133 read with Article 134A of the Constitution of India to the appellant.  The court stated that in the hearing on 5th November, 2020, in view of BGS SGS Soma JV having referred to the grounds under Section 34 in entirety and not confined to Section 34(2) only, we were inclined to differentiate between a case of return of an application under Section 34 on the ground of the Court to which it is presented not having territorial jurisdiction, on the one hand and rejection of an application under Section 34 on the ground of having not been filed within the prescribed time, on the other hand, but in view of the Supreme Court having been approached against Ramdas Construction Co., expressly holding an appeal as the one before us, to be not maintainable under Section 37, and having dismissed the appeal with a speaking order, though not expressing any opinion on the maintainability of the appeal, we consider ourselves bound thereby and hold this appeal to be not maintainable.

By reading Section 37 as not permitting an appeal against refusal to condone the delay in applying for setting aside of the award, the persons aggrieved by the award are left with no remedy but to approach the Supreme Court by way of a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The refusal to set aside the award may not necessarily be by the Commercial Division of the High Court but may also be by the Commercial Courts of the country. No other remedy would be available to the persons aggrieved by the award, against the decision of any Commercial Court in the country refusing to condone the delay in applying for setting aside of the award, leaving such persons either with the option of accepting / remaining bound by the award even if having excellent grounds for setting aside of the same or of approaching the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, thereby putting an avoidable burden on the Supreme Court which, as per the scheme of the Constitution of India, was envisaged to hear limited number of matters entailing constitutional issues and not to hear matters of condonation of delay.

Click here to read more