\n
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> \u2014 Ss. 7<\/a>, 8<\/a> and 11<\/a> \u2014 Essential requirements of arbitration agreement:<\/span> When there is discernible intention of parties in the agreement to refer disputes to arbitration, held, application under S. 11 is maintainable. S. 7 does not mandate any particular form of arbitration clause. Deficiency of words in agreement which otherwise fortifies intention of parties to arbitrate their disputes, cannot legitimise annulment of arbitration clause. [Babanrao Rajaram Pund<\/i> v. Samarth Builders & Developers<\/i>, (2022) 9 SCC 691<\/a>]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Companies Act, 2013<\/a> \u2014 Ss. 212(3)<\/a> and 219<\/a>:<\/span> Interim stay against investigation into affairs of Company, whether warranted, in exercise of writ jurisdiction by High Court, determined. [Serious Fraud Investigation Office<\/i> v. Sahara Housing Investment Corpn. Ltd.<\/i>, (2022) 9 SCC 794<\/a>]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Constitution of India<\/a> \u2014 Art. 233<\/a> \u2014 Appointment of District Judges\/Additional District Judges \u2014 Direct recruitment quota for advocates\/pleaders:<\/span> The issue regarding bar on appointment of judicial officers of State Subordinate Judicial Services in such quota, as per law clarified in Dheeraj Mor<\/i>, (2020) 7 SCC 401<\/a>, whether applicable when fully qualified advocate from State concerned on the date of application to post of District Judge in that State, had in the meantime obtained appointment in Subordinate Judicial Service of another State, determined. [Sunil Kumar Verma<\/i> v. State of Bihar<\/i>, (2022) 9 SCC 686<\/a>]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Hindu Succession Act, 1956<\/a> \u2014 Ss. 4<\/a> and 5<\/a> \u2014 Faridkot Princely State \u2014 Inheritance \u2014 Rule of primogeniture \u2014 Applicability:<\/span> Rule of primogeniture is not applicable to erstwhile Faridkot Princely State. In any case, held, on merger of Faridkot Princely State with Dominion of India, rule of primogeniture, if any, ceased to exist on account of Act of State. Hence, held, succession to properties of Ruler of erstwhile Faridkot Princely State would be by principles of intestate succession. [Deepinder Kaur<\/i> v. Amrit Kaur<\/i>, (2022) 9 SCC 658<\/a>]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016<\/a> \u2014 Ss. 12-A<\/a>, 30(2)<\/a> and 61(3)<\/a> \u2014 Commercial wisdom of CoC \u2014 Primacy of:<\/span> Commercial wisdom of the CoC has been given paramount status without any judicial intervention for ensuring completion of the stated processes within the timelines prescribed by the IBC. There is an intrinsic assumption that financial creditors are fully informed about the viability of the corporate debtor and feasibility of the proposed resolution plan and they act on the basis of thorough examination of the proposed resolution plan and assessment made by their team of experts. [Vallal RCK<\/i> v. Siva Industries & Holdings Ltd.<\/i>, (2022) 9 SCC 803<\/a>]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Motor Vehicles Act, 1988<\/a> \u2014 Ss. 166<\/a> & 168<\/a> \u2014 Fatal accident \u2014 Just compensation:<\/span> In this case, deceased, a mason, aged 48\/52 yrs, died in January, 2002 and was survived by his widow and children. For determination of compensation, future prospects and rise in income, considered. [Sumathy<\/i> v. Babu<\/i>, (2022) 9 SCC 702<\/a>]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Penal Code, 1860<\/a> \u2014 S. 34<\/a> \u2014 Conviction with aid of S. 34 \u2014 Requirements for:<\/span> When a part of the evidence produced by the prosecution to bring the accused within the fold of S. 34 is disbelieved, held, the remaining part must be examined with adequate care and caution. [Shishpal<\/i> v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/i>, (2022) 9 SCC 782<\/a>]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Penal Code, 1860<\/a> \u2014 S. 411<\/a> r\/w S. 24<\/a> \u2014 Receiving stolen property:<\/span> Confession of co-accused, resulting in recovery of stolen property from possession of appellant is not sufficient to convict the appellant, when the prosecution had not established essential ingredient of mens rea or knowledge of the appellant that such goods were stolen property. [Shiv Kumar<\/i> v. State of M.P.<\/i>, (2022) 9 SCC 676<\/a>]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Penal Code, 1860<\/a> \u2014 Ss. 299<\/a> and 300<\/a> \u2014 Culpable homicide, or, murder \u2014 Determination of:<\/span> Principles for clarified for determination of culpable homicide, or, murder. Significance of use of the word \u201clikely\u201d in several places in S. 299 and absence thereof in S. 300, explained. Circumstances (non-exhaustive) from which intention to cause death may be inferred, discussed. [Ajmal<\/i> v. State of Kerala<\/i>, (2022) 9 SCC 766<\/a>]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Securities, Markets and Exchanges \u2014 Securities \u2014 Dematerialised Securities\/Demat Accounts \u2014 Pledging of dematerialised securities:<\/span> Law clarified on pledge of dematerialised securities. Interplay between Depositories Act, 1996<\/a> and Contract Act, 1872<\/a>, explained. [PTC (India) Financial Services Ltd.<\/i> v. Venkateswarlu Kari<\/i>, (2022) 9 SCC 704<\/a>]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Trusts and Trustees \u2014 Religious and Charitable Endowments and Trusts \u2014 Disputed Places of Worship \u2014 Transfer of suit:<\/span> Having regard to complexity of issues involved in Gyanvapi Mosque, Varanasi case, and need for trial before a senior and experienced judicial officer of U.P. Higher Judicial Service, suit directed to be transferred from Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Varanasi to District Judge, Varanasi. [Anjuman Intezamia Masjid<\/i> v. Rakhi Singh<\/i>, (2022) 9 SCC 814<\/a>]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n