Mr. Bharat Gandhi, Advocate, Mumbai has informed us that in respect of the parties whose cases are pending in DRTs, if one approaches the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is issuing ex-parte stay orders restraining further action under the SARFEASI Act. The matters are tagged with the case of Khaja Industries in respect of which the vires of notification has been challenged, issued by the Central Govt in 2003, by which the co-operatives banks are invoking provision of SARFEASI Act. Mr. Bharat Gandhi has obtained such stays in few cases recently.
Mohammad Ahmad & Anr. Versus Atma Ram Chauhan & Ors. One half of the lis between landlord and tenant would not reach courts, if tenant agrees to pay the present prevalent market rate of rent of the tenanted premises to the landlord. In that case landlord would also be satisfied that he is getting adequate, just and proper return on the property. But the trend in the litigation between landlord and tenant shows otherwise. Tenant is happy in paying the meagre amount of rent fixed years ago and landlord continues to find out various grounds under the Rent Acts, to evict him some how or the other. This case appears to be another classic example of the aforesaid scenario.
The Supreme Court last week ruled that the criminal trial of directors of a company accused of forging documents to get loan from a bank could not be quashed merely because the loan has been repaid with interest. In this case, Sushil Suri vs CBI, some directors of a pharmaceutical firm, Morpen Laboratories Ltd of Delhi, were charge-sheeted for fabricating false invoices to obtain a hire purchase loan from Punjab & Sind Bank. On information, CBI investigated and charged the directors with fraud, forgery, conspiracy and other criminal offences. Some directors moved the Delhi high court seeking to quash the charge sheet. They argued that they had repaid the loan with interest and therefore the bank or anyone else has not suffered any loss. The high court dismissed their petition. The Supreme Court stated that the high court was justified in doing so as a prima facie case for trial has been made out despite the repayment of the loan.
The Supreme Court last week set aside a Delhi high court judgment holding that the high court had no power to entertain an international arbitration petition in the appeal case, Videocon Industries Ltd vs Union of India. A production sharing contract was entered into between the government and a consortium of four companies consisting of […]
In a landmark judgment, Supreme Court restores Rs. 5,05,053 compensation for permanent injury in motor accident, emphasizing pain and suffering.
The company had challenged the government policy of not allowing existing operators to bid for the immediate next terminals. According to the policy, The court asserted that the government has the right to make a policy to prevent companies from bidding for the immediate next terminals so that no monopoly of cargo firm is created. The court upheld the policy. APM Terminals B.V. Vs. Union of India & ANR. (Supreme Court -11.05.2011)
State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. – The Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of the Allahabad high court, stating that the high court had inserted words in a Uttar Pradesh notification which it had no power to do. The court should only interpret provisions of tax laws; it should not take over the role of the supervisor or legislator, the court stated in the judgment, State of UP vs Mahindra & Mahindra. The case arose when the tractor manufacturer moved the high court seeking exemption in the sale/excise duty for tractor engines specifying cubic capacity not exceeding 1800 cc. The high court allowed the writ petition. The government appealed to the Supreme Court. It remitted the matter to the excise tribunal for reconsideration, asking it not to alter the scope of the state notification.
Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. Vs. SBI Home Finance Ltd. & Ors.- All disputes are not capable of settlement through arbitration; some by nature have to be adjudicated by courts, according to the Supreme Court. A suit for sale, foreclosure or redemption of mortgaged property should be tried by a court and not by arbitral tribunal, the court stated in the judgment, Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. Vs SBI Home Finance Ltd. In this case, two firms took loan from SBI to buy flats in Mumbai and they entered into leave and licence agreements with Booz. The borrowers did not repay the loan and so SBI filed a mortgage suit before the Bombay high court. Booz moved the high court for arbitration which was dismissed. Its appeal was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. It stated that a court where the mortgage suit is pending should not refer the parties to arbitration as it is not an “arbitrable” issue. This is so because only a court can protect the interests of third parties. Arbitration deals with only disputes between parties to the arbitration agreement. The court gave similar instances where arbitration should not be attempted, like insolvency and winding up matters, tenancy, wills, criminal offences, matrimonial disputes and guardianship issues.
A gift of immovable property made by a Muslim is valid even if it is not registered under the Transfer of Property Act or the Stamps and Registration Act, the Supreme Court today ruled. The apex court said though the TP Act mandates registration of a gift, the same would not apply to a Muslim donor as the community has been exempted from the provision.
Supreme Court restricts cultivation of cash crops like areca nut, coconut, cashew, and black pepper in Karnataka’s reserved forests. Lease cancellations justified.
