Legal News & Views

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1638 OF 2019, M/S SCG CONTRACTS INDIA PVT. LTD. vs K.S. CHAMANKAR INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. & ORS., a Special Leave Petitions was filed before the Supreme Court against Delhi High Court orders allowing a written statement filed by the defendants even though 120 days had elapsed from the date of service of summons of this Suit. The Supreme Court has observed that proviso added to the Code of Civil Procedure by Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015, is mandatory and no written statement can be taken on record in commercial suits, if it is not filed within 120 days from the date of service of summons of the Suit.

In Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. vs. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola ,  the Supreme Court was considering correctness of a labour court decision, which had, based only on a concession made before it by the advocate of the appellant on a mixed question of fact and law at the stage of arguments. The bench referring to 2002 judgment in Swami Krishnanand Govindananad v. Managing Director, Oswal Hosiery, observed that even a concession on facts disputed by a respondent in its written statement cannot bind the respondent. The court further referred to C.M. Arumugam v. S. Rajgopal, which had observed thus: "That question is a mixed question of law and fact and we do not think that a concession made by the first respondent on such a question at the stage of argument before the High Court, can preclude him from reagitating it in the appeal before this Court, when it formed the subject-matter of an issue before the High Court and full and complete evidence in regard to such issue was led by ...

In M/s Annapurna Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s. SORIL Infra Resources Ltd., Disputes arose between Annapurna Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Annapurna) and SORIL Infra Resources Ltd. (SORIL) relating to non-payment of rent by SORIL (the lessee) to Annapurna and others (the lessors).  Arbitration clause in the lease deed between the parties was invoked and an arbitral award was passed in favour of Annapurna and others. The arbitral award was challenged by SORIL in an application under Section 34 of the A&C Act, which was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Soon thereafter, the award holders, which included Annapurna, issued Demand Notices on SORIL under Section 8 (1) of IBC as operational creditors of SORIL, demanding the amounts stated in the arbitral award.  A reply was issued by SORIL under Section 8 (2) of IBC, stating that there is an “existence of dispute” between the parties, principally on the ground that an appeal under Section 37 of the A...

In CIVIL APPEAL NO.2024 of 2019, VINOD JAIN vs SANTOKBA DURLABHJI MEMORIAL HOSPITAL & ANR., before the Supreme Court in appeal the complaint, had alleged that the following acts and omissions on part of the hospital constituted medical negligence: (a) inappropriate and ineffective medication; (b) failure to restart the cannula for IV medication; (c) premature discharge of the deceased despite her condition warranting treatment in the ICU; (d) oral administration of Polypod antibiotic, despite her critical condition, which actually required intravenous administration of the medicine. Though the state commission allowed his complaint and ordered a compensation of Rs.15 lakh, the national commission had set it aside. The Apex Court bench, while considering his appeal, discussed the legal principles which would apply in cases of medical negligence (Bolam Test, Kusum Sharma & Ors. v. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre and Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab). The Supr...

In RATHEESH M.N vs THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, the High Court of Kerala has set aside an auction sale held for recovery of arrears due to a bank on the ground that it was done beyond the period of three years from the end of financial year in which recovery certificate was issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal(DRT) on the basis of Section 29 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act,1993 (RDDBFI) read with Rule 68B of Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act,1961. The Court noted that as per Section 29 of the RDDBFI Act, provisions of second and third schedule of the Income Tax Act should apply to procedure for recovery of debts as far as possible. Sale of immovable property in respect of income tax arrears is carried out as per Rule 68B of Second Schedule of Income Tax Act, as per which sale has to be carried out within 3 years from the end of financial year in which the order giving rise to dues under the Income Tax Act has become final or conclusive. In ...

In Mahendran vs. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court again dealt with the contention put  forth on behalf of the accused-appellant that, if the testimony of the witness is found to be unreliable in respect of part of the statement, then the other part of the statement cannot be made basis to convict the accused. The court relying on a 2002 judgment in Gangadhar Behera vs. State of Orissa said that the entire testimony of the witnesses cannot be discarded only because, in certain aspects, part of the statement has not been believed. The general principle of appreciation of evidence is that even if some part of the evidence of witness is found to be false, the entire testimony of the witness cannot be discarded. Article referred:https://www.livelaw.in/know-the-law/falsus-in-uno-falsus-in-omnibus-not-applicable-in-india-143083

In CIVIL APPEAL NO.1052 OF 2019,  SHIVNARAYAN vs MANIKLAL, the Supreme Court issued several clarifications with regard to ambit and scope of Section 17 of C.P.C. :- (i) The word ‘property’ occurring in Section 17 although has been used in ‘singular’ but by virtue of Section 13 of the General Clauses Act it may also be read as ‘plural’, i.e., ”properties”. (ii) The expression any portion of the property can be read as portion of one or more properties situated in jurisdiction of different courts and can be also read as portion of several properties situated in jurisdiction of different courts. (iii) A suit in respect to immovable property or  properties situate in jurisdiction of different courts may be instituted in any court within whose local limits of jurisdiction, any portion of the property or one or more properties may be situated. (iv) A suit in respect to more than one property situated in jurisdiction of different courts can be instituted in a court w...