Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up(23rd-29th October)

Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 914-933]Tottempudi Salalith v State Bank Of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 914M/S Unibros v. All India Radio, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 918Debasish Paul v. Amal Boral, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 919Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Waqf v. M/S Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 920Manmohan Gopal v. State Of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 921Ambalal Parihar v. State of Rajasthan and ors, Criminal Appeal No.3233 of 2023, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 922Munilakshmi v. Narendra Babu 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 924Assets Care and Reconstruction Enterprises Limited V. The State Of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 925Mrs. Kalyani Rajan v. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 926The State of Telangana & Ors. V. M/S Tirumala Constructions 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 927Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd. v Hdfc Bank Ltd, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 929Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner v. Gordhan Dass Thr. LRs 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 930 M.A Biviji v. Sunita & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 931Indrakunwar v.State of Chattisgarh2023 LiveLaw (SC) 932Sabbir(Dead) The. LRs v. Anjuman 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 933Judgments/OrdersIBC| Time-Barred Recovery Certificate Can Be Segregated From Composite Claim Under Section 7: Supreme CourtCase Title: Tottempudi Salalith v State Bank Of India & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 914The Supreme Court has held that in a composite application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) based on several Recovery Certificates issued by Debt Recovery Tribunal, if any of the Recovery Certificate(s) is barred by limitation, then the same can be segregated from composite claim. However, as the decree (Recovery Certificate) would still be alive, it can be treated as a claim made in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in view of Public Announcement.Arbitration | Awarding Claim For Loss Of Profit Without Substantial Evidence Is In Conflict With Public Policy Of India: Supreme CourtCase Title: M/S UNIBROS v. ALL INDIA RADIOCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 918Recently, the Supreme Court, while rendering an arbitral award as patently illegal and being in conflict with the “public policy of India”, held that a claim for damages cannot as a matter of course result in an arbitral award without proof of the claimant having suffered injury. The present decision emphasised the importance of substantial evidence in awarding claims for loss of profit.“A claim for damages, whether general or special, cannot as a matter of course result in an award without proof of the claimant having suffered injury. The arbitral award in question, in our opinion, is patently illegal in that it is based on no evidence and is, thus, outrightly perverse; therefore, again, it is in conflict with the “public policy of India” as contemplated by section 34(2)(b) of the Act.,” Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta.Tenancy Law | Can't Invoke S.5 Limitation Act Where Statute Prescribes Lesser Time Period For A Particular Purpose: Supreme CourtCase Title: Debasish Paul v. Amal Boral, Civil Appeal No.6565 Of 2023Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 919In the context of tenancy laws, the Supreme Court on Wednesday held that Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 ( Extension of prescribed period in certain cases) cannot be used to extend the time limit prescribed, when a lesser time period has been specifically provided under the relevant act for a particular purpose.Wakf | Judgment Debtor Can't Be Allowed To Take Undue Advantage By Invoking Plea Of Lack Of Jurisdiction At Execution Stage: Supreme CourtCase Title: MUMTAZ YARUD DOWLA WAKF V. M/S BADAM BALAKRISHNA HOTEL PVT. LTD. & ORS.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 920After a prolonged litigation, the Supreme Court, in a noteworthy judgment, finally granted relief to the owner of a suit property (Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf) in favour of whom the decree was already granted back in 2002.In a judgment authored by Justice M. M. Sundresh, it called out the dilatory tactics adopted by respondents while setting aside the impugned order and restoring the order passed by the executing court in favour of appellant/ suit property owner.[Article 142] Supreme Court Issues Directions For Sale And Attachment Of Assets To Clear Arrears Of Maintenance To Woman Abandoned By HusbandCase Details: Manmohan Gopal V. State Of ChhattisgarhCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 921The Supreme Court recently directed sale of ancestral property of a man to pay arrears of maintenance of Rs. 1.25 Crores to his wife under its inherent powers under Article 142.A bench of Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar relied on decisions of the Apex Court in Subrata Roy Sahara V Union Of India [2014] 12 SCR 573 and Delhi Development Authority V. Skipper Construction 1996 (2) Suppl. SCR 295 to observe that the Supreme Court is not powerless, but can issue appropriate directions, and even decrees, for doing complete justice between the parties.Judges Taking Up Cases Not Assigned By Chief Justice Is An Act Of 'Gross...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up(23rd-29th October)

Suraj Parmar

Tags