June - 2011

  • Arbitration: International contract: Even in absence of any specific clause of exclusion, the provisions contained in Part-I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would not remain applicable when the arbitration clause is governed by non-Indian law. Accordingly held, that in light of specific provision in the agreement that disputes would be governed by English law, held that the application under the Indian law were not Videocon Industries Limited v. Union of India, (Supreme Court); Dozco India (P) Limited v. Doosan Infracore Co. Ltd., (Supreme Court).

  • Hindu marriage: When the non-Hindu spouse had validly converted to Hinduism by performing shudhikaran ceremonies as per Hindu customs, prior to the date of marriage, then the marriage under the Hindu customs would be valid and divorce cannot be decreed on the premise of earlier religion. RajivGakhar v. Bhavna, (Supreme Court).
  • Honour killing: Often young couples who fall in love have to seek shelter in the police lines or protection homes, to avoid the wrath of kangaroo courts. There is nothing honourable in such honour killings, and they reflect the barbaric and brutal murders by bigoted persons with feudal minds. Honour killings for whatever reasons come within the category of 'rarest of rare cases' deserving death punishment. Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), (Supreme Court).
  • Interpretation of judgement: It shall be in pursuance of the statutory provisions and cannot be read as to restrict the meaning & powers conferred under the said provisions. Accordingly held that interpretation of the judgement cannot be to nullify the express statutory provisions. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Keshub Mahindra, (Supreme Court) (5J).
  • Khaap Panchayat: Decreeing or encouraging honour killing by the khap panchayats all over the country held to be illegal, and such institutionalisation is barbaric and shameful in nature. Accordingly, directions were issued to all over the country to ensure that such activities are stopped. Arumugam Servai v. State of Tamil Nadu, (Supreme Court).
  • Privacy: Right to Privacy is a fundamental right, which would also include the aspects of tapping by telecommunications operator. Further held, in case of request by government agencies to the service provider for phone tapping, it is the duty of the service provider that the authenticity of the request shall be verified. When such authenticity is not verified, than it would be concluded that the service provider has failed in its discharge of public duty. Amar Singh v. Union of India, (Supreme Court).

Archive >>