Supreme Court Weekly Round Up- November 22 To November 28, 2021

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Arbitrator Cannot Modify Award On An Application Under Section 33 Arbitration Act: Supreme CourtCase name: Gyan Prakash Arya vs Titan Industries Limited Citation: LL 2021 SC 669The Supreme Court observed that an Arbitrator cannot modify an Arbitration award on an application filed under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Only in a case of arithmetical and/or clerical error, the award can be modified and such errors only can be corrected, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna said. In this case, the arbitrator passed an award directing a party to return to the claimant 3648.80 grams of pure gold along with interest @ 18% per annum calculating the value of gold at Rs.740 per gram from 24.07.2004 and up to the date of delivery of the quantity of gold. In the alternative, the appellant was directed to pay the market value of 3648.80 grams of pure gold along with interest @ 18% per annum calculating the value of the gold at Rs. 740 per gram from 24.07.2004 till the date of payment. Thereafter, on an application under Section 33 of the Act, the Arbitrator made certain corrections in the award. Therefore corresponding changes was made in the alternate relief which read thus: In the alternative, the respondent shall pay to the claimant within the said period of three months the market value of 3,648.80 grams of 3 pure gold at [Rs.20,747.00 per 10 grams … value substituted] along with interest thereon at 18% per annum from 24.07.2004 and up to the date of payment. 2. Sale Deed Executed Without Payment Of Price Is Void; Has No Legal Effect: Supreme CourtCase name: Kewal Krishan vs Rajesh Kumar Citation: LL 2021 SC 670The Supreme Court observed that the payment of price is an essential part of a sale. If a sale deed in respect of an immovable property is executed without payment of price and if it does not provide for the payment of price at a future date, it is not a sale at all in the eyes of law, the bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka said. The court also observed that a document which is void need not be challenged by claiming a declaration as the said plea can be set up and proved even in collateral proceedings. Referring to Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the bench observed: "Hence, a sale of an immovable property has to be for a price. The price may be payable in future. It may be partly paid and the remaining part can be made payable in future. The payment of price is an essential part of a sale covered by section 54 of the TP Act. If a sale deed in respect of an immovable property is executed without payment of price and if it does not provide for the payment of price at a future date, it is not a sale at all in the eyes of law. It is of no legal effect. Therefore, such a sale will be void. It will not effect the transfer of the immovable property."The court noted that no evidence was adduced by Sudarshan Kumar about the payment of the price mentioned in the sale deeds as well as the earning capacity at the relevant time of his wife and minor sons. Hence, the sale deeds will have to be held as void being executed without consideration, the court added. 3. Civil Court Cannot Declare Orders Passed Under Urban Land Ceiling Act As Illegal Or Non Est: Supreme CourtCase name: State of Madhya Pradesh vs Ghisilal Citation LL 2021 SC 671The Supreme Court held that the civil courts has no jurisdiction to try suit relating to land which is subject-matter of ceiling proceedings, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Civil court cannot declare, orders passed by the authorities under the ULC Act, as illegal or non est, the court said. "In this case, the plaintiff filed a suit against a notification under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 on the ground that the possession was not taken, before the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 came into force. This suit was decreed by the Trial Court. The appeal and thereafter the second appeal was dismissed against this Trial Court judgment."In appeal before the Apex Court, the defendant contended that the plaintiff has not questioned the orders passed by the competent authority declaring the land as surplus land and that the suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of ULC Act. The court noted that the land in question is in the Urban Agglomeration and covered by the ULC Act, 1976.The court also found that the possession of the land was not only taken but same is utilised for a public purpose. In this context, the bench comprising Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy said. 4. Writ Of Mandamus Cannot Be Issued Directing Competent Authority To Grant Relaxation In Qualifying Service For Promotion: Supreme CourtCase name: State of U.P. vs Vikash Kumar Singh Citation: LL 2021 SC 672No writ of mandamus can be issued directing the competent authority to grant relaxation in qualifying service for promotion, the Supreme Court...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up- November 22 To November 28, 2021

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags