Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

Ashok Kini
16 Sep 2019 6:02 AM GMT
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...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

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 Limitation Act. The bench of Justices R F Nariman and Surya Kant held so while allowing an appeal against an order of NCLAT which allowed the admission of an insolvency petition with respect to a financial debt.

Mere 'Simple Allegations' Of Fraud Does Not Make A Dispute Non-Arbitrable [Rashid Raza vs. Sadaf Akthar]

The Supreme Court reiterated that mere allegation of fraud simplicitor may not be a ground to nullify the effect of arbitration agreement between the parties. The bench comprising Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice R. Subhash Reddy and Justice Surya Kant noticed that two tests have been laid down in the judgment in A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam.

Succession And Inheritance Of Goan Domicile Shall Be Governed By Portuguese Civil Code [Jose Paulo Coutinho vs. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira]

The Supreme Court held that the rights of succession and inheritance of a Goan domicile shall be governed by the Portuguese Civil Code, 1867 as applicable in the State of Goa. Rights of succession and inheritance even in respect of properties of a Goan domicile situated outside Goa, anywhere in India, will also be governed by the Code, the bench comprising Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose has held.

Service Rendered In 'Work Charged' Establishment Should Be Treated As Qualifying Service For Pension [Prem Singh V. State of U.P.]

The Supreme Court held that services rendered in the work-charged establishment should be treated as qualifying service for grant of pension. The bench consisting of Justices Arun Mishra, Abdul Nazeer and M R Shah delivered the judgment allowing the appeals filed by employees against the Uttar Pradesh government.

No Attempt Made To Frame Uniform Civil Code Despite Judicial Exhortation [Jose Paulo Coutinho V. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira]

The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered, observed that no attempt has been made yet to frame a Uniform Civil Code applicable to all citizens of the country despite exhortations by it.

Protection From SARFAESI Act Not Available To 'Tenant-In-Sufferance' : SC Clarifies Interplay Between SARFAESI And Tenancy Laws [Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal vs. Central Bank Of India]

Clarifying the interplay between laws of tenancy and debt recovery, the Supreme Court held that protection from recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act is not available to a 'tenant-in-sufferance', i.e a tenant who continues to be in possession even after the expiry of the lease period.

Other Significant Orders And Proceedings

  • Observed that tribals who are genuine forest dwellers should be protected and eviction should be ordered only against 'urban encroachers' of forest land. The bench of Justices Arun Mishra, M R Shah and B R Gavai made these oral observations while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Forest Rights Act (FRA).
  • Warned that if the long drawn strike by the Allahabad High Court Bar Association continued, it will have to "work out the certain modalities so that the people are not deprived of the judicial remedy".
  • "Justice cannot be purchased like this", a "furious" Supreme Court said while coming down heavily on VVIP chopper scam accused Gautam Khaitan in a case related to the black money law.
  • The Bench of Justices N. V. Ramana, Indira Banerjee and Ajay Rastogi of the Supreme Court issued a notice in another petition challenging the constitutional validity of the law criminalizing Triple Talaq.
  • The bench consisting of Justices Arun Mishra and U U Lalit referred to a three judge bench the Centre's petition seeking review of its March 20, 2018 judgement which had virtually diluted provisions of arrest under the SC/ST Act.
  • Deprecated the remarks of an Uttar Pradesh minister that like the Ram Mandir and the disputed land in Ayodhya, the top court is also "ours".
A division bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and A. S. Bopanna issued notice on a special leave petition, seeking reckoning of seniority of 'Ad-hoc' judges in Gujarat from the initial date of their appointment

Next Story
Share it