Supreme Court Weekly Round Up: Nov 8 To Nov 14, 2021

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Merely Having An Explicit Clause Not Sufficient To Make Time The Essence Of The Contract: Supreme CourtCase name: Welspun Specialty Solutions Limited vs Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd Citation: LL 2021 SC 646The Supreme Court observed that merely having an explicit clause may not be sufficient to make time the essence of the contract.The contractual clauses having extension procedure and imposition of liquidated damages, are good indicators that 'time was not the essence of the contract', the bench comprising CJI NV Ramana and Justice Surya Kant observed. The court added whether time is of the essence in a contract', has to be culled out from the reading of the entire contract as well as the surrounding circumstances.2. Sec 40 RERA - Homebuyers Entitled To Recover Amount Invested Along With Interest As Land Revenue Arrears From Builder : Supreme CourtCase name: Newtech Promoters And Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of UP Citation: LL 2021 SC 641The Supreme Court in its judgment delivered on Thursday (11th November) had, inter alia, held that the amount invested by the allottees, which is often their life savings, along with the interest thereon as quantified by the regulatory authority or the adjudicating officer can be recovered as arrears of land revenue by them from the builders, under Section 40(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 ("Act")."While harmonising the construction of the scheme of the Act with the right of recovery as mandated in Section 40(1) of the Act keeping in mind the intention of the legislature to provide for a speedy recovery of the amount invested by the allottee along with the interest incurred thereon is selfexplanatory. However, if Section 40(1) is strictly construed and it is understood to mean that only penalty and interest on the principal amount are recoverable as arrears of land revenue, it would defeat the basic purpose of the Act", the Court held. 3. Employer Can Terminate Service In The Event Of Suppressing Or On Submitting False Information By The Employee: Supreme CourtCase name: Rajesh Kumar vs Union of India Citation: LL 2021 SC 644The Supreme Court reiterated that in the event of any suppression or on submitting false information, it is always open for the employer to cancel the candidature or terminate service of the employee/candidate.In the year 1994, the appellant in this case was selected and appointed as Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police Service. His services were terminated on the ground that that he was a deserter from the Army. It was noted that he had not disclosed about his earlier employment in Army and suppressed the said information. The contention raised by the appellant was that the employer ought to have conducted inquiry by giving opportunity before his termination. On the other hand, the employer contended that, as the order impugned is a termination simpliciter, there was no need to conduct an inquiry, as much as, the service of the appellant was not confirmed.The bench comprising Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy noted that the order that it is only a termination simplicitor without any allegation against the appellant.4. High Court Cannot Quash Criminal Proceedings U/Sec 482 CrPC Relying On 'Draft Charge Sheet' Which Is Yet To Be Filed Before Magistrate: Supreme CourtCase name: Jitul Jentilal Kotecha vs State of Gujarat Citation: LL 2021 SC 642A High Court cannot place reliance on a "draft charge-sheet" which is yet to be placed before the Magistrate to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment delivered on Friday (12 November 2021).The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna observed that a High Court can neither direct an investigating agency to submit the investigation report before it nor can it quash a criminal proceeding under Section 482 relying on such a report when the report has not been submitted to the Magistrate. 5. Arbitration - 2015 Amendment Won't Apply To Section 34 Applications Filed Prior To It : Supreme CourtCase Name: Ratnam Sudesh Iyer v Jackie Kakubhai ShroffCitation : LL 2021 SC 637The Supreme Court has held that the 2015 amendment to Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 will apply only to Section 34 applications that have been made after the date of the amendment."Section 34 as amended will apply only to Section 34 applications that have been made to the Court on or after 23.10.2015, irrespective of the fact that the arbitration proceedings may have commenced prior to that."A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M.Sundaresh made the above observations in a case where the applicability of S.34 to international commercial dispute was in question.6. Advocate Losing A Case After Arguing Is Not 'Deficiency Of Service' For Filing Consumer Complaint: Supreme CourtCase name: Nandlal Lohariya vs Jagdish Chand PurohitCitation: LL 2021 SC 636The Supreme Court...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up: Nov 8 To Nov 14, 2021

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags