Supreme Court Weekly Round Up- November 15 To November 21, 2021

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Tenants Ought To Be In Actual Possession Of Premises To Avail Benefit Of Section 9 Of TN City Tenants Protection Act: Supreme CourtCase Title: National Company, Represented by its Managing Partner v. The Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And Ors. Civil Appeal No. 6726 of 2021] Citation : LL 2021 SC 647The Supreme Court this week reiterated that the tenants ought to be in actual possession of the premises to avail the benefit of Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1972, which deals with the application filed by the tenant before the Court to direct the landlord to sell the land.A bench comprising Justices L. Nageshwara Rao and B.R. Gavai allowed a civil appeal filed by National Company (appellant) against Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ("BPCL") for not vacating the premises leased out to them even after the term of the lease agreement had expired. In the factual context of the case, the Court further thought it fit to impose a cost of INR 1,00,000 (One Lakh) on BPCL, payable to the appellant. Observing that in its judgment, the Division Bench had made reference to ABL International Ltd. and another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. And Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 553, which held that a party disputing facts in a writ jurisdiction would not bind the court to relegate the parties to a suit, the Apex Court inferred that the Division Bench was not inclined to entertain the plea of BPCL challenging maintainability of writ on account of alternate remedy. Another judgement of the Supreme Court viz., Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And Anr v. Dolly Das (2006) 1 SCC 228 wherein in similar fact situation, HPCL was directed to hand over vacant possession and pay rent in a writ jurisdiction, was also relied upon by the Division Bench. 2. Jurisdiction Of High Court Hearing An Arbitration Appeal Is Distinct From That Of First Appellate Court In A Civil Suit: Supreme CourtCase name: Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd vs Ramesh Kumar and Company Citation: LL 2021 SC 648The Supreme Court observed that the jurisdiction in a first appeal arising out of a decree in a civil suit is distinct from the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act arising from the disposal of a petition challenging an arbitral award.In this case, the arbitrator rejected the claims made by a party. This award was challenged under Section 34 before the District Judge who dismissed the petition. The High Court reversed the judgment of the District Judge and allowed Arbitration appeal under Section 37 decreeing the claim in its entirety. The court noted that it was on the basis of the evidence that the sole arbitrator upheld the defence of the appellants. It observed: "While considering a petition under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, it is well-settled that the court does not act as an appellate forum. The grounds on which interference with an arbitral award is contemplated are structured by the provisions of Section 34. The District Judge had correctly come to the conclusion that there was no warrant for interference with the arbitral award under Section 34. The High Court seems to have proceeded as if it was exercising jurisdiction in a regular first appeal from a decree in a civil suit. The jurisdiction in a first appeal arising out of a decree in a civil suit is distinct from the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 37 of the 1996 Act arising from the disposal of a petition challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the 1996 Act."3. Vehicle Manufacturer Cannot Be Held Liable For Deficiency In Service By Dealer/Authorized Service Centre In Repair : Supreme CourtCase name: Honda Cars India Limited vs Sudesh Berry Citation: LL 2021 SC 649The Supreme Court observed that a vehicle manufacturer cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service by the dealer or the authorized centre in rendering assistance for repairs of the vehicle.In this case, the complainant purchased a 'Honda City' Car in the year 1999. In 2010, the car suffered damage in an accident and was taken to the authorized service centre for repairs. Alleging deficiency on part of the Manufacturer as well as the dealer and the service centre, a complaint was filed before District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint but held that the manufacturer cannot be held liable since there was no claim that the vehicle had some manufacturing defect. This finding was affirmed by the State Commission (SCDRC). However, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, allowed the revision petition filed by the complainant and directed the manufacturer to provide a brand new Honda City car to the complainants on payment of a nominal sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. The court observed that the District Forum was justified in making only the dealer and the authorized centre, liable for the deficiency on their part. "These findings were rightly affirmed...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up- November 15 To November 21, 2021

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags