Interesting Caselaws of 2022| Monirul Molla Meaning and Scope of Life Imprisonment| Delhi Airport Metro- Setting Aside Arbitral Awards

Hi Friends!

I'm back with another edition of my newsletter, today I will share with you some of the most interesting legal cases of 2022 that I discovered on a website called Legal Bites. These cases are not only relevant for lawyers and law students, but also for anyone who wants to stay updated on the latest developments in the legal field. In this edition, I will give you more details and insights on these cases and why they matter. Here they are:

- Monirul Molla v. The State of West Bengal: This case was about the meaning and scope of life imprisonment in India. The Supreme Court of India clarified that life imprisonment means imprisonment for the whole natural life of the convict and not for a fixed period of time. The court also said that remission or commutation of sentence is not a matter of right but a privilege that can be granted by the appropriate authority under the law. This case has important implications for the criminal justice system and the human rights of prisoners in India. The court observed that life imprisonment is not a barbaric or inhuman punishment, but a reformative one that aims to rehabilitate the offender and protect society from further harm. The court also noted that remission or commutation of sentence is not an automatic or mechanical process, but a discretionary one that depends on various factors such as the nature and gravity of the offence, the conduct and character of the offender, the impact on the victim and society, etc. The court also emphasized that the power to grant remission or commutation should be exercised with due care and caution and in accordance with the constitutional principles and values.

- Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation: This case was about the setting aside of arbitral awards by courts in India. The Supreme Court of India held that the scope of judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is very limited and narrow and that courts should not re-appreciate the evidence or substitute their own views for those of the arbitral tribunal. The court also held that the award can be set aside only if it is contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law, the interest of India, justice or morality. This case has significant implications for the arbitration and conciliation process and the enforcement of arbitral awards in India. The court observed that arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism that aims to provide speedy, efficient and cost-effective justice to the parties. The court also noted that arbitration is based on the principle of party autonomy and mutual consent and that courts should respect and uphold the finality and binding nature of arbitral awards. The court also emphasized that courts should exercise restraint and deference while reviewing arbitral awards and should interfere only in exceptional cases where there is a manifest illegality or perversity in the award.

I hope you found these summaries informative and engaging. If you did, please like, comment and share this post with your network. Also, feel free to ask me any questions or share your thoughts on these cases in the comments section below. I would love to hear from you. Stay tuned for more updates on legal and compliance news from me. Thank you for reading!