Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

1. SARFEASI Act Applicable To Cooperative Banks : SC [Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule and others V. Vishwasrao Patil Murgud Sahakari Bank Limited]The Supreme Court held that the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security (SARFREZI) Act, 2002 is applicable to Cooperative banks. A Constitution Bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M R Shah and Aniruddha Bose upheld the 2003 notification issued under the Banking Regulation Act of 1949, by which cooperative bank was brought within the class of banks entitled to seek recourse to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Thus, the court held that Parliament had the legislative competence to bring cooperative banks under the ambit of SARFAESI Act. 2. Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC: Bar To File Separate Suit Challenging Compromise Decree Applies To Stranger Also: SC [Triloki Nath Singh V. Anirudh Singh]The Supreme Court held that the bar under Order 23 Rule 3A Civil Procedure Code to challenge a decree passed on a compromise in a separate suit, also applied to a stranger to the proceedings. A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi examined the intent behind amending Order 23 and observed that "Finality of decisions is an underlying principle of all adjudicating forums. Thus, creation of further litigation should never be the basis of a compromise between the parties"3. [Contract Act] Sec 32 Instead Of Sec 56 Applies When Parties Agree In Advance On Contingency Which Makes Performance Impossible : SC [National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation V Alimenta SA]While discussing circumstances under which provisions of Sections 32 and 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 applied, the Supreme Court considered the incidental question of whether the contract had become void under Section 32 or Section 56 of the Contract Act. A bench of Justices Arun Mishra, M R Shah and B R Gavai noted that the contract in this particular case had a clear stipulation regarding the necessity of Government sanction, without which export would be impossible. Thus, Section 32 - which applies in case the agreement itself provides for contingencies upon happening of which contract cannot be carried out, would apply. Apart from that, another main point in this case was whether a foreign award was opposed to public policy of India and was therefore unenforceable? [A Report on which may be read here]4. HC May Decline To Entertain A Writ Petition Which Raises Complex Questions Of Facts: SC [Punjab National Bank Vs. Atmanand Singh]"The High Court may decline to entertain a writ petition when it raises complex questions of facts" the Supreme Court reiterated. A bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari noted that "when the petition raises questions of fact of complex nature, such as in the present case, which may for their determination require oral and documentary evidence to be produced and proved by the concerned party and also because the relief sought is merely for ordering a refund of money, the High Court should be loath in entertaining such writ petition and instead must relegate the parties to remedy of a civil suit."5. Accused Can Challenge Conviction In Appeal Filed By The State Even If He Did Not Prefer A Formal Appeal: SC [State of Rajasthan V. Mehram] The Supreme Court observed that an accused can challenge the finding and order of conviction in the appeal filed by the State, even though the said accused had not preferred a formal appeal. A bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari accepted the contention that the accused had a right to challenge the finding of guilt and conviction under Section 326 and 148, IPC, recorded against him, even though the said accused had not preferred a formal appeal against the impugned judgment. Court relied on Chandrakant Patil vs. State through CBI, Sumer Singh vs. Surajbhan Singh & Ors., State of Rajasthan vs. Ramanand vis-à-vis the settled legal position which predicates that in the appeal filed against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy, the accused may plead for his acquittal or for reduction of the sentence. 6. HC Cannot Disregard Statutory Limitation Period To Entertain Writ Petition Challenging Order Passed By Statutory Authority: SC [Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada V. M/s. Glaxo Smith KlineConsumer Health Care Limited]The Supreme Court observed that a High Court cannot disregard the statutory limitation period to entertain writ petition assailing orders passed by statutory authorities which were not appealed against before the expiry of the maximum limitation period. A bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari held that "the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution are wide, but certainly not wider than the plenary powers bestowed on this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution. Article 142 is a conglomeration and repository of the entire judicial powers under the Constitution, to...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Sanya Talwar

Weekly Round Up Of The Supreme Court Of India [Week Commencing May 4, 2020 To May 10, 2020]

Tags