Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Ashok Kini

22 July 2019 5:30 AM GMT

  • Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

    Execution Petition Filed Without Certified Copy Of Decree Maintainable [Sir Sobha Singh And Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shashi Mohan Kapur] In the appeal filed before the Supreme Court, the bench comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice and Dinesh Maheshwari observed that it is not necessary to file a copy of the decree along with execution application unless the Court directs the...

    Execution Petition Filed Without Certified Copy Of Decree Maintainable [Sir Sobha Singh And Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shashi Mohan Kapur]

    In the appeal filed before the Supreme Court, the bench comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice and Dinesh Maheshwari observed that it is not necessary to file a copy of the decree along with execution application unless the Court directs the decree holder to file a certified copy of the decree.

    Existence Of Commercial Relations Between Parties In Summary Suit By Itself Not A Ground For Imposing Condition To Grant Leave To Defend [Sudin Dilip Talaulikar vs. Polycap Wires Pvt. Ltd.]

    The Supreme Court held that existence of commercial relations between the parties in a summary suit by itself is not a ground for imposing condition to grant leave to defend.

    Cross Objection Should Be Disposed On Merits Notwithstanding Dismissal Of Appeal

    The Supreme Court observed that cross has to be disposed of on its merits by assigning reasons notwithstanding the dismissal of the appeal. While considering the appeal filed by land owners, the Apex Court bench comprising of Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Indu Malhotra noted that the High Court had dismissed the cross objection without assigning any reason. The bench observed that it was obligatory on the part of the High Court to have independently examined the issues raised by the landowners before the High Court in the cross objection with a view to find out as to whether any case was made out on facts by the landowners for further enhancement in the compensation and, if so, to what extent.

    Right To Use Passage Granted In The Sale Deed Will Not Extinguish In Terms Of Section 41 Indian Easements Act [Dr. S. Kumar vs. Ramalingam]

    The Supreme Court has held that right to use passage granted in the sale deed will not extinguish in terms of Section 41 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882. The bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta observed that grant of easement right of passage granted in the sale deed to the defendant will not be negated only because the recital is generic in nature and usually put by the deed writers.

    Sale With A Mere Condition Of Retransfer Is Not A Mortgage [Sopan vs. Syed Nabi]

    The Supreme Court reiterated that a sale with a mere condition of retransfer is not a mortgage. In this case. The bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice AS Bopanna referring to proviso to Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act observed that, if the sale and agreement to repurchase are embodied in separate documents then the transactions cannot be a mortgage by conditional sale irrespective of whether the documents are the contemporaneously executed

    No Mandatory Requirement Of Communicating The Proposed Punishment To A Delinquent Civil Servant [State Bank of India vs, Mohammad Badruddin]

    The Supreme Court observed that there is no mandatory requirement of communicating the proposed punishment to a delinquent Civil Servant in view of 42nd Amendment to the Constitution of India.The bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta also held that the non-communication of the previous punishments in the show cause notice will not vitiate the punishment imposed.

    Solatium U/S 30 RFCTLARR Act Has To Be Calculated Only On The Market Value Plus The Value Of The Assets Attached To The Land [RB Dealers Private Limited vs. The Metro Railway, Kolkata]

    The solatium as contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 has to be calculated only on the market value plus the value of the assets attached to the land i.e. total compensation amount as determined as per Sections 26, 27 and 28 of the 2013 Act, the Supreme Court held

    Section 498A- When Conviction By Trial Court Was Not For Dowry Demand, HC Cant Convict Accused For It Without Appreciating Evidence On Record [Wasim V. State NCT of Delhi]

    The Supreme Court observed that, when the Trial Court conviction under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was not for demand for dowry, the High Court could not convict the accused under the same for demand of dowry without a detailed discussion of the evidence on record.

    Acquittal In Criminal Case By Itself Doesn't Vitiate Disciplinary Enquiry Findings Of Misconduct [Union of India V. Sitaram Mishra]

    The Supreme Court reiterated that the acquittal in the course of the criminal trial by itself is not a ground for vitiating the finding of misconduct which has been arrived at during the course of the disciplinary proceedings.

    Plaintiff Cannot Be Forced To Add Parties Against Whom He Does Not Want To Fight [Gurmit Singh Bhatia V. Krishna Kant Robinson]

    The Supreme Court reiterated that, in a suit, the plaintiff is the dominus litis and cannot be forced to add parties against whom he does not want to fight unless there is a compulsion of the rule of law.

    Public Interest Litigation Should Not Be Entertained In Service Matter[Vishal Ashok Thorat vs. Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate]

    The Supreme Court has reiterated that a Public Interest Litigation should not be entertained in service. "It is well settled that with regard to service jurisprudence, PIL are not entertained" the Court observed.

    Arbitration - Section 31(8), 31A Will Not Apply If Fee Structure Is Laid Down By Agreement [National Highway Authority of India vs Gammon Engineers and Contractors Pvt Ltd]

    The Supreme Court has held that Section 31(8) and 31A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 will not apply to arbitral fee if a fee structure has already been laid down in the agreement between parties. The bench of Justices R F Nariman and Surya Kant overruled the Delhi High Court decision in National Highways Authority of India v Gayathri Jhansi Roadways Ltd, which held that arbitral fee will be governed by Fourth Schedule of the Act superseding the fee fixed by the agreement.

    Negotiable Instruments Act: Heavy Burden Cannot Be Placed On The Complainant To Prove The Debt [Pavan Diliprao Dike vs. Vishal Narendrabhai Parmar]

    The Supreme Court has reiterated that while dealing with a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, heavy burden cannot be placed on the complainant to prove the debt.

    Not Always Necessary That Attesting Witnesses Should Actually See The Testator Signing The Will [Ganesan (D) vs. Kalanjiam]

    The Supreme Court observed that it is not always mandatory that the testator must necessarily sign the Will in presence of the attesting witnesses only or that the two attesting witnesses must put their signatures on the will simultaneously at the same time in presence of each other and the testator.

    Objection Regarding Pecuniary Jurisdiction Of Consumer Forums Should Be Raised At The Earliest Opportunity[ M/s Treaty Construction vs. M/s Ruby Tower Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd.]

    The Supreme Court observed that objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction should be raised before the Consumer Forum/Commission at the earliest opportunity. The Court held that when the State Commission having already decided the matter on merits, such a technical objection as regards pecuniary jurisdiction could not have been countenanced before the National Commission.

    Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against Termination Of Teacher By Private School Management [Trigun Chand Thakur V. State of Bihar]

    The Supreme Court upheld a Patna High Court judgment that held that the Management Committee of Private School is not "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and a writ petition is not maintainable.

    COFEPOSA: Liberty Of An Individual Has To Be Subordinated Within Reasonable Bounds To The Good Of The People [Union of India V. Dimple Happy Dhakad]

    While upholding a detention of alleged gold smugglers under COFEPOSA, the Supreme Court observed that when the preventive detention is aimed to protect the safety and security of the nation, balance has to be struck between liberty of an individual and the needs of the society.

    Arbitration Award Cannot Be Set Aside By HCs Invoking Writ Jurisdiction [Sterling Industries vs. Jayprakash Associates Ltd.]

    The Supreme Court reiterated that any award passed by the Arbitral Tribunals cannot be set aside by the High Courts invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The bench comprising Justice SA Bobde, Justice R. Subhash Reddy and Justice BR Gavai was dealing with an appeal against the Allahabad High Court order that had set aside a partial award made under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

    Anticipatory Bail Plea Of The Accused Cannot Be Rejected Solely On The Ground That Petition U/s 482 CrPC Was Dismissed Earlier [Kamlesh vs. State of Rajasthan]

    The Apex Court Observed that an application for anticipatory bail cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the petition filed by the accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of FIR, has already been rejected.

    Other significant orders and proceedings

    • Dismissed the special leave petitions filed by Thomas Kottoor and Sephy against a April 9 judgment of the High Court of Kerala which had upheld the trial court's dismissal of their discharge pleas in the Sister Abhaya murder case.
    • Commuted the death sentence awarded to a man accused of rape and murder of a minor girl of age five years.
    • Passed an interim order holding that the fifteen rebel MLAs of Karnataka assembly cannot be compelled to attend assembly proceedings, and that they were at liberty to skip attending house.
    • Asked the Centre to respond to a plea seeking reforms on shared parenting of a child in cases of divorced or separated parents.
    • The CJI-led bench directed that the copy of the petition filed by Gujarat High Court Advocates Association against delay in elevation of Justice Kureshi be served on the Solicitor General Thushar Mehta.
    • Dismissed the bail plea of self-styled preacher Asaram Bapu in connection with a sexual assault case lodged against him in Gujarat.
    • Refused to entertain non-profit organisation Money Life Foundation's plea alleging that the LIC, through its Jeevan Saral policy, has misled and mass-cheated consumers, particularly senior citizens.
    • Issued notice to Centre in a Public Interest Litigation seeking decriminalization of abortion and declaration of right to complete autonomy of a woman to make decisions related to reproductive choices

    · In Muzaffarpur shelter home case, a Supreme Court bench led by Justice N V Ramana allowed TISS field action project Koshish to interact with the victims of the shelter home abuse case for their rehabilitation. The bench,also comprising justices M Shantanagoudar and Ajay Rastogi, asked Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) to file rehabilitation plan of victims within four weeks.

    · The bench of Justices R F Nariman and Surya Kant directed that the recording of the evidence in the Babri Demolition Case should be completed within six months and judgment should be delivered within nine months from today.

    Next Story