Supreme Court Weekly Round Up July 12- July 18, 2021

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Compromise Decree In Respect Of Land Which Is Not Subject-matter Of Suit But Is Part Of Family Settlement Does Not Require Compulsory Registration : Supreme CourtCase: Ripudaman Singh vs. Tikka Maheshwar Chand [CA 2336 OF 2021]Citation: LL 2021 SC 293The Supreme Court observed that a compromise decree in respect of land which is not the subject-matter of suit but is part of the settlement between the family members does not require compulsory registration.The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta observed that a compromise decree entered into between the parties in respect of land which was not the subject matter of the suit is valid and a legal settlement.In this case, the High Court dismissed a suit on the ground that the land even though being subject-matter of compromise, was not the subject-matter of the suit and therefore the decree required registration under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act. So the issue in appeal before the Apex Court was whether a compromise decree in respect of land which is not the subject-matter of suit but is part of the settlement between the family members requires compulsory registration in terms of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act.2. Bail Condition To Compensate Victims Cannot Be Imposed : Supreme CourtCase: Dharmesh @ Dharmendra @ Dhamo Jagdishbhai @ Jagabhai Bhagubhai Ratadia vs. State Of Gujarat [CrA 432 OF 2021]Citation: LL 2021 SC 292The Supreme Court observed that a condition for payment of compensation to victims cannot be imposed at the stage of bail."We may hasten to add that we are not saying that no monetary condition can be imposed for grant of bail. We say so as there are cases of offences against property or otherwise but that cannot be a compensation to be deposited and disbursed as if that grant has to take place as a condition of the person being enlarged on bail.", the bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta clarified.In this case, the accused were granted bail by the High Court with a condition requiring them to deposit Rs.2.00 lakh each as compensation to the victims. 3. Supreme Court Sets Aside MP HC Order To Disburse 1.96 Crore Deposited By Defence Ministry To Land Owners As CompensationCase: AJAY KUMAR vs. KEWAL KUMAR JAGGIThe Supreme Court set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court order that directed the disbursal of the amount of about Rs. 1.96 crore deposited by Defence Ministry with Collector as compensation to land owners.Land owners of about 51.57 acres in Jabalpur had filed the writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High court alleging that they were being obstructed by the Defence Ministry from carrying out any kind of activities on their land. This writ petition was disposed of with a direction to authorities to take appropriate steps to determine the damages and payment of damages to the landowners on account of imposition of restrictions.4. Franklin Templeton : Consent Of Majority Shareholders Needed For Winding Up Funds After Publication Of Notices, Says Supreme CourtCase: Franklin Templeton Trustee Services Private Limited vs. Amruta Garg Citation: LL 2021 SC 295The Supreme Court this week delivered the judgment in a batch of special leave petitions filed by Franklin Templeton against a judgment of the Karnataka High Court which had restrained Franklin Templeton from winding up the debt funds without obtaining the consent of investors.The Supreme Court has agreed with the views of the High Court. However, it said that the requirement for consent of majority of shareholders will be post the publication of notices.The Court held that when the trustees decide to wind up a scheme by majority, they are required to seek consent of the majority of the unit holders, present and voting, under Regulation 18(15)(c). The use of the word "shall" in the provision is couched as a command. A harmonious construction of Regulation 18(15)(c) read with Regulations 39 to 42, would showcase that the even though the "opinion" of the trustees would stand, the consent of the unit holders would be a pre-requisite for winding up.Read Also: Delegated Legislation That Are Forbiddingly Excessive Or Disproportionate Can Also Be Manifestly Arbitrary: Supreme Court In Franklin Templeton Case5. 'Excludes Young Successful Advocates; Arbitrary & Discriminatory' : Supreme Court Strikes Down Minimum Age Limit Of 50 Years For Appointment As Tribunal MembersCase: Madras Bar Association vs. Union of India [WPC 502 of 2021]Citation: LL 2021 SC 296The Supreme Court has held by 2:1 majority that the minimum age limit of 50 years prescribed by the Tribunals Reforms(Rationalization and Conditions of Service) Ordinance 2021 for appointment as members in various tribunals to be "arbitrary and discriminatory".The majority comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and S Ravindra Bhat observed that this minimum age stipulation of 50 years introduced by the Ordinance violated the earlier direction given by the Court...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up July 12- July 18, 2021

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags