Legal News & Views

In Balasubramanian & Anr v. M. Arockiasamy (dead) Through Lrs., the Supreme Court has observed that there is very limited scope for re-appreciating the evidence or interfering with the finding of fact rendered by the trial court and the first appellate court in a second appeal u/s 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Bench of Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice A.S Bopanna observed that when there is perversity in findings of the court which are not based on any material or when appreciation of evidence suffers from material irregularity, then the High Court would be entitled to interfere on a question of fact as well. The background of the case was that the plaintiff filed a suit seeking relief of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The said suit was however dismissed by the Trial Court on ground of failure to prove possession, which was confirmed by t

In Union Of India & Anr vs S. Narasimhulu Naidu (dead) Through Lrs. And Ors., the questions are required to be decided in the appeals was whether the order passed in the first suit filed by the plaintiffs as affirmed by the High Court operates as res judicata?  In the first suit, the father of the applicants had not filed any counter claim to assert title or possession over the land in question. The land admeasuring 4971.5 sq. yards was a schedule property and the subject matter of the first suit. The issue no. 1 in the first suit was in respect of the possession of the plaintiffs and their predecessor-in-interest over the suit land within 12 years prior to the suit. Therefore, the rights of the plaintiffs were examined in respect of such suit land measuring 4971.5 sq. yards alone, although, to return the finding on possession and title, possession of the father of the applicants over the land purchased by the Plaintiff was clubbed together on the basis of patta claimed to be grant

In Union Territory Of Jk vs Shahnaza Parveen & Ors, Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent has been filed by B. K. Singh, IFS, Administrative Secretary to Government, Department of School Education, J&K, challenging the orders dated 19th October 2020, 20th November 2020 and 11th  December 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge dealing with the contempt petition CPSW No. 380/2018 arising out of judgment and order dated 12th February 2015 passed by the writ court.." Dismissing the appeal, the HC held that in State of J&K & Ors vs. Mohd. Tayoub Leharwal and Anr. 2018 (1) JKJ 627 (HC) a Division Bench of this court held that under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1997 Right to Appeal is available only against an order or decision of the High Court to punish for contempt. It has further relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Midnapore People’s Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Chuni Lal Nanda 2006 (5) SCC 399 to hold that under

In M/s.kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd v. K.bharathi And Ors, the petition has been filed under the writ of Mandamus directing the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai (NCLT) to dispose of the application filed by M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (the Petitioner) in MA No.538 of 2019 in CP No. 710 of 2018 under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The NCLT vide its order dated March 26, 2021 observed that IBC is time-bound. The complexities in this matter and pending litigations before various courts have been a major impediment in conducting corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”). Since there is an ongoing matter in the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, It instructed all the parties to thereby for direction as whether the NCLT can proceed according to the IBC rules and regulations. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras held that the NCLT has “sought to pass the buck”. Noted that the NCLT irreverently has stated that NCLT working on time bound basis might

In Prabhat Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. Etc, appeals were filed before the Supreme Court against the judgment and order dated passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna, whereby the summoning order passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna was set aside. The appellant had filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court at Patna against the private respondents for offence punishable under Section 304, 316/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court after recording the evidence of three witnesses produced by the complainant and other materials on record, was persuaded to issue summons to the private respondents in connection with the stated offence vide order dated 24.12.2016. The private respondents, therefore, assailed that order by way of writ petitions before the High Court. The SC held that the High Court, in our opinion, completely glossed over the reasons which had weighed with the Trial Court as noted in o

In The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon (deceased) Through His Legal Representative Narinder Kahlon Gosakan And Another, appeal was filed before the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court. "The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the original claimant was severely injured in a motor accident on 02.05.1999. He filed a claim for compensation under Section 166(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on 02.11.2006 awarded him a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- only with 9% interest. Dissatisfied, the original claimant preferred an appeal before the High Court. Unfortunately, he was deceased on 06.11.2015 during the pendency of the appeal, not attributed to the injuries suffered in the accident. The daughter of the claimant, who was an unmarried girl aged 21 years at the time of the accident, was substituted in the appeal. The High Court substantially enhanced the compensation

In Hemraj Ratnakar Salian vs Hdfc Bank Ltd. & Ors, appeal was filed before the Supreme Court against the Orders passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai, rejecting the Application  filed by the appellant herein for restraining HDFC Bank, the first respondent herein, from taking possession of the property in the appellants possession. The SC observed that in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar v. International Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2014) 6 SCC 1, this Court has categorically held that if the tenancy claim is for any term exceeding one year, the tenancy can be made only by a registered instrument. A Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal v. Central Bank of India & Anr. (2019) 9 SCC 94 , after considering almost all decisions of this Court, in relation to the right of a tenant in possession of the secured asset, has held that if a valid tenancy under law is in existence even prior to the creation of the mortgage, such tenan

In K. Muruganandam & Ors vs State Rep. By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police & Anr, appeal was filed before the Supreme Court against the judgment and order dated 16.02.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras wherein the HC said that when the matter was taken up for hearing on 15.02.2018, there was no representation for the appellant and hence, the case was directed to be listed under the caption for dismissal on 16.02.2018. Even today, (16.02.2018), there is no representation on behalf of the appellant either in person or through the learned counsel on record. Therefore, the criminal appeal is dismissed for non prosecution. The SC held that it is well settled that if the accused does not appear through counsel appointed by him/her, the Court is obliged to proceed with the hearing of the case only after appointing an amicus curiae, but cannot dismiss the appeal merely because of non-representation or default of the advocate for the accused (see Kabira vs. State o

In WELSPUN SPECIALTY SOLUTIONS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS REMI METALS GUJARAT LTD.) vs OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD., appeal was filed against the  judgment of High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital setting aside an arbitration award. The entire dispute and claim before the Arbitrator revolved around the question whether time is of the essence in a contract. The Tribunal noted that the supply of material in the instant case was not for any specific purpose or urgent requirement. The tender was a global tender for general requirement. Besides, the contract provides for imposition of LD and/or termination of the contract. It may also be noticed that ONGC could extend the time for delivery and in fact ONGC did extend the delivery period without levying any LD. These and other stipulations in the contract are a clear indication that the time was not the essence of contract. The Arbitral Tribunal, at the outset, had held that merely having a clause in the contract making time the esse

In Dlf Home Developers Limited v. Rajapura Homes Private Limited & Anr, on the issue of jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 11 or Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, the Supreme Court observed that - "There is no gainsaying that by virtue of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, by which Section 11 (6-A) was introduced, the earlier position of law as to the scope of interference by this Court at the stage of referral has been substantially restricted. It is also no more res integra that despite the subsequent omission of Section 11(6-A) by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019, the legislative intent behind thereto continues to be a guiding force for the Courts while examining an application under Section 11 of the Act. 18.  The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 11 is primarily to find out whether there exists a written agreement between the parties for resolution of disputes through arbitration and whether the aggrieved party h

In The Jamia Masjid v. Sri K V Rudrappa (since Dead) By Lrs. & Ors, appellant moved the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition to challenge the decision of the Single judge wherein the Hobble Judge had dismissed their appeal being barred by the principle of res judicata. The Supreme Court when into a detailed analysis of the said principal and concluded that in order to attract the principles of res judicata, the following ingredients must be fulfilled: (i) The matter must have been directly and substantially in issue in the former suit; (ii) The matter must be heard and finally decided by the Court in the former suit; (iii) The former suit must be between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title; and (iv) The Court in which the former suit was instituted is competent to try the subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised. A three judge bench of SC in Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ra