Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [14th February to 21st February 2021]

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Subsequent Purchaser Can Also Challenge Readiness & Willingness Of Plaintiff In A Specific Performance Suit: Supreme CourtCASE: KADUPUGOTLA VARALAKSHMI v. VUDAGIRI VENKATA RAOCITATION: LL 2021 SC 104The Apex Court bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, Indira Banerjee and KM Joseph observed that subsequent purchaser of the suit property can challenge the readiness and willingness on part of the plaintiff in a specific performance suit.The Bench noted that the principles laid down in the judgment in Jugraj Singh judgment were not approved in Ram Awadh (Dead) vs.Achhaibar Dubey [(2000) 2 SCC428]."It is open to any defendant to contend and establish that he mandatory requirement of Section 16(c) has not been complied with and it is for the court to determine whether it has or has not been complied with and, depending upon its conclusion, decree or decline to decree the suit." The court observed.2. Suspicion, However Strong Cannot Take The Place Of Proof: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal Of Murder AccusedCASE: State of Odisha vs. Banabihari Mohapatra [Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1156/2021]CITATION: LL 2021 SC 103The bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and Hemant Gupta reiterated that suspicion, however strong cannot take the place of proof."It is well settled by a plethora of judicial pronouncement of this Court that suspicion[, however strong cannot take the place of proof. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt." the court observed.The court added that, before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must fully be established and the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused.3. Selections To Public Employment Should Be On The Basis Of Merit: Supreme CourtCASE: Anmol Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Jharkhand [Civil Appeal Nos. 429-430 of 2021] CITATION: LL 2021 SC 102The Apex Court bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Indira Banerjee observed that the selections to public employment should be on the basis of merit."Appointment of persons with lesser merit ignoring those who have secured more marks would be in violation of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India." The Court observed while agreeing with the High Court.In this case, the appointees to the posts of Police Sub-Inspectors, Attendants (Sergeant) and Company Commanders by the Home Department of the Government of Jharkhand were terminated on the ground that the select list was prepared wrongly by ignoring merit of candidates and by giving undue importance to the preferences given by them. Allowing the writ petition filed by these appointees who were terminated, the Jharkhand High Court observed that they cannot be held responsible for the irregularities committed by the authorities in the matter of their selection and there is no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation on their part. The High Court dismissed these applications. 4. Parties Who Privately Agree To Settle Disputes Without Court Intervention U/s 89 CPC Also Entitled To Refund Of Court Fee: Supreme CourtCase: High Court of Judicature at Madras vs. M.C. Subramaniam [SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 30633064 OF 2021]Citation: LL 2021 SC 97The bench comprising Justices Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Vineet Saran held that the parties who privately agree to settle their dispute outside the modes contemplated under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure are also entitled to refund of Court fees."The narrow interpretation of Section 89 of CPC and Section 69A of the 1955 Act sought to be imposed by the Petitioner would lead to an outcome wherein parties who are referred to a Mediation Centre or other centres by the Court will be entitled to a full refund of their court fee; whilst parties who similarly save the Court's time and resources by privately settling their dispute themselves will be deprived of the same benefit, simply because they did not require the Court's interference to seek a settlement. Such an interpretation, in our opinion, clearly leads to an absurd and unjust outcome, where two classes of parties who are equally facilitating the object and purpose of the aforesaid provisions are treated differentially, with one class being deprived of the benefit of Section 69A of the 1955 Act." The Court observed.5. Consent Decree Would Not Serve As An Estoppel Where The Compromise Was Vitiated By Fraud, Misrepresentation, Or Mistake: Supreme CourtCASE: COMPACK ENTERPRISES INDIA (P) LTD. vs. BEANT SINGH CITATION: LL 2021 SC 93 The bench comprising Justices Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Vineet Saran observed that a consent decree would not serve as an estoppel, where the compromise was vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake.It was also observed that consent decrees are intended to create estoppels by judgment against the parties, thereby putting ...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [14th February to 21st February 2021]

Nupur Thapliyal

Live Law (LL) Citation Count Crossed Its 100 Mark Within Just 52 Days Into 2021 This Week.

Tags