Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

Relief Of Specific Performance Can Be Refused For Non-Performance Of An Essential Promise In Contract [Surinder Kaur (D) vs. Bahadur Singh (D)] The Supreme Court observed that a vendee who does not perform one of the essential promises in a contract is not entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance of that very contract. The bench comprising Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose observed that the payment of rent was an essential term of the contract had failed to perform his part of the contract. A party cannot claim that though he may not perform his part of the contract he is entitled to specific performance of the same, the bench said. Order IX Rule 9 CPC-Decree Against Plaintiff By Default Bars Fresh Suit On Same Cause Of Action By Successor In Title [Mayandi V. Pandarachamy] The Supreme Court observed that the decree against plaintiffs by default bars fresh suit on the same cause of action by their successor in title. The bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice MR Shah set aside a High Court order on the ground that in the previous suit filed by vendors of the plaintiff; a similar relief was prayed. The said suit was dismissed under the provisions of Order IX Rule 8 of the CPC as the counsel for defendants was present and counsel for the plaintiffs was absent. Contract Act-'Undue Influence' Can't Be Inferred Merely Because Family Member Was Taking Care Of Elderly Person [Raja Ram vs. Jai Prakash Singh] The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered observed that 'undue influence' in execution of contract cannot be inferred merely because a family member was looking after his family elder. Appointment Of Arbitrator: SC/HC Jurisdiction Confined To The Examination Of Existence Of Arbitration Agreement [Mayavti Trading Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pradyuat Deb Burman] The Supreme Court held that, after introduction of Section 11(6A) to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court/High Court, while considering a petition to appoint arbitrator, is confined to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement Economic Offences Constitute A Class Apart: SC Cancels Bail Granted To Bhushan Steel Ltd CFO Nittin Johari [Serious Fraud Investigation Office V. Nittin Johari & Anr.] While cancelling the bail granted to Nittin Johari, the Chief Financial Officer and Whole Time Director (Finance) of Bhushan Steel Ltd., the Supreme Court reiterated that the economic offences constitute a class apart and stringent view must be adopted while deciding bail applications. Executing Court Cannot Travel Beyond The Order Or Decree Under Execution [S. Bhaskaran vs. Sebastian (Dead)] The Supreme Court reiterated a settled proposition that an executing court cannot travel beyond the order or decree under execution. In the appeal the bench comprising Justice NV Ramana, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Ajay Rastogi observed that, by allowing the Judgment Debtors to re-open the question of trusteeship by way of an application in an execution petition, the High Court has gone beyond the decree to be executed and exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC. A Party To An Agreement Cannot Be An Arbiter In His Own Cause [M/S. Tulsi Narayan Garg V. The M.P. Road Development Authority, Bhopal] The Supreme Court reiterated that a party to an agreement cannot be an arbiter in his own cause. The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana, Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Ajay Rastogi observed that as long as the dispute remained pending adjudication, it was not justified on the part of the authorities to initiate recovery proceedings invoking the procedure under the Land Revenue Act without awaiting the outcome of the arbitral proceedings. SC Enhances Compensation To Family Of Carpenter Who Died In Accident [Chameli Devi & Ors. V. Jivrail Mian] What proof they can lead except to lead oral evidence, remarked Supreme Court while enhancing the compensation awarded to the family of a carpenter who died in an accident. SC Orders 20 Lakhs Compensation To Compulsorily Retired Judicial Officer Yogesh M. Vyas V. Registrar, High Court Of Gujarat] The Supreme Court granted Rupees Twenty Lakhs compensation to a former judicial officer who was compulsory retired. Penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed on Yogesh M. Vyas while he was working as Civil Judge (JD) and JMFC, Visnagar. Allegations against him were of granting bail orders illegally and corruption. Non Payment Of Debt After Issuance Of Recovery Certificate Not A 'Continuing Wrong' [Vashdeo R Bhojwani V. Abhyudaya Co-Operative Bank Ltd] The Supreme Court held that non-payment of debt after the issuance of recovery certificate cannot be regarded as a continuing wrong so as to give rise to a continuing cause of action under the...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

Ashok Kini

Tags