Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

Suit For Specific Performance: Plaintiff Has To Prove And Establish His Readiness And Willingness To Perform His Part Of Contract Throughout [Vijay Kumar vs. Om Prakash]The Supreme Court, while restoring a trial court order that dismissed a suit for specific performance of contract, reiterated that, in order to obtain a decree for specific performance, the plaintiff has to prove and establish his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract throughout.Litigant Can’t Take Contradictory Stands In The Same Case [Suzuki Parasrampuria Suitings Pvt. Ltd V. the official liquidator of Mahendra Petrochemicals Ltd.]The Supreme Court, while dismissing an appeal against Gujarat High Court order, observed that recitals in the order sheet with regard to what transpired before the high court are sacrosanct.Award-Debtor Cannot Be Subjected To A Penal Rate Of Interest; SC Lists Out Factors To Be Considered By Arbitrator While Awarding Interest [Vedanta Ltd. V. Shenzen Shandong Nuclear Power Construction Co. Ltd.]Observing that the discretion of the arbitrator to award interest must be exercised reasonably, the Supreme Court listed factors that must be taken into consideration by the arbitrator while awarding interest. The bench comprising Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Indu Malhotra said that the award-debtor cannot be subjected to a penal rate of interest, either during the period when he is entitled to exercise the statutory right to challenge the award, before a court of law, or later.Limitation Act Applicable To Applications Filed Under Sections 7 and 9 Of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code From The Inception Of The Code [B. K. Educational Services Pvt Ltd. V. Parag Gupta &Associates] In a significant Judgment the Supreme Court on Thursday held that the Limitation Act is applicable to applications filed under Sections 7 and 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code From the inception of the Code. The two Judge Bench of Justices RF Nariman and Navin Sinha was examining the question ‘whether the Limitation Act, 1963 will apply to applications that are made under Section 7 and/or Section 9 of the Code on and from its commencement on 01.12.2016 till 06.06.2018’. Statement Of Injured Recorded Under Section 161 CrPC Can Be Treated As Dying Declaration After His Death [Pradeep bisoi @ Ranjit Bisoi V. The State of Odhisa]A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday re-iterated that the statement of an injured recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure can be treated as dying declaration admissible under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. Bench of Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan was hearing an appeal against judgment of Orissa High Court dated 25.01.2017. Sec.14(3)(c) Specific Relief Act Does Not Bar Developer From Seeking Specific Performance Of Development Agreement [Sushil Kumar Agarwal vs Meenakshi Sadhu and others]Giving a purposive interpretation to Section 14(3)(c) of the Specific Relief Act 1963,the Supreme Court held that the said section does not bar a developer from seeking specific performance of development agreement against the owner of the property.To Attract Rigors Of S7, S13(2) PC Act, Twin Requirement Of Demand And Acceptance Of Bribe Must Be Proved [Dashrath Sigh Chauhan V. Central Bureau of investigation]The Supreme Court on Tuesday reiterated that in order to prove the offence of any public servant demanding and accepting illegal gratification, one has to necessarily prove the “twin requirement of “demand and acceptance of the bribe amount”.SC Upholds Constitutionality Of Section 19(11) Of Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006 [ALD Automotive Pvt. Ltd Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer]The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed appeals filed against Madras High Court judgment that had upheld the constitutionality of Section 19(11) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Rights Of Accused Far Outweigh That Of Victims, Needs Some Balancing So That Criminal Proceedings Are Fair To Both [Mallikarjun Kodagali V. State of Karnataka & Ors.]While holding that ‘victims’ can file appeal without seeking leave to appeal, the Supreme Court made pertinent observations about rights of victims of crime. Justice Madan B. Lokur, in his judgment, observed that even today the rights of an accused far outweigh the rights of the victim of an offence in many respects and there needs to be some balancing of the concerns and equalising their rights so that the criminal proceedings are fair to both.MV Act Compensation: Amounts Being Received By Family Under Employees Family Benefit Scheme Not To Be Deducted While Calculating Loss Of Income [Sebastiani Lakra vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd]The Supreme Court has held that amount being received by the family members of deceased under the Employees Family Benefit (EFB) Scheme cannot be deducted while calculating the loss of income for the purpose of determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.There Cannot Be Any Mechanical Denial Of Appointment In...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

ashok kini

Tags