N. Mohan v. R. Madhu
[Hon’ble Justices R.Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy; 21-11-2019]
SC-The Hon’ble SC while dealing with the Appeal against the Madras HC order has held that when the defendant has filed appeal under Section 96(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure against an ex-parte decree and if the said appeal has been dismissed, thereafter, the defendant cannot file an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC which speaks of conditions under which an ex-parte decree can be set aside. This is because after the appeal filed under Sec. 96(2) of the Code has been dismissed, the original decree passed in the suit merges with the decree of the appellate court. Hence, after dismissal of the appeal filed under Sec. 96(2) CPC, the appellant cannot fall back upon the remedy under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.
Kapilaben v. Ashok Kumar Jayantilal Sheth Through Poa Gopalbhai Madhusudan Patel
[Hon’ble Justices Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Aniruddha Bose; 25-11-2019]
SC – Partly allowing the Appeals and directing the original vendees to pay the damages, the Hon’ble SC has opined that in order to assess the assignment of the interest it has to be seen whether the terms of the contract, and the circumstances in which the contract was entered into, lead to an inference that the parties did not intend to make their interest therein assignable. In a case where the contract is of personal nature, the promisor must necessarily show that the promisee was agreeable to performance of the contract by a third person/assignee, so as to claim exemption from the condition specified in Section 40 of the Indian Contract Act. If the promisee’s consent is not obtained, the assignee cannot seek specific performance of the contract.
Gurjit Singh v. The State Of Punjab
[Hon’ble Justices Navin Sinha and B.R. Gavai; 26-11-2019]
SC – Maintaining the conviction under Section 498-A of IPC and setting aside the conviction under Section 306 of IPC, the Hon’ble SC has held that merely because an accused is found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and death has occurred within a period of seven years of marriage, the accused cannot be automatically held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC by employing the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act. Unless the prosecution establishes that some act or illegal omission by the accused has driven the deceased to commit suicide, the conviction under Section 306 would not be tenable.
M/S. Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited(UPNL) v. Northern Coal Field Limited
[Hon’ble Justices Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi; 27-11-2019]
SC – Directing the issue of limitation to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal, the Hon’ble SC opined that Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is an inclusive provision which would comprehend all preliminary issues touching upon the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. The issue of limitation is a jurisdictional issue, which would be required to be decided by the arbitrator under Section 16, and not the High Court at the pre-reference stage under Section 11 of the Act. Once the existence of the arbitration agreement is not disputed, all issues, including jurisdictional objections are to be decided by the arbitrator.
Union Of India v. Ramesh Bishnoi
[Hon’ble Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran; 29-11-2019]
SC – In a case involving denial of appointment of the respondent to the post of sub-inspector, the Hon’ble SC held that even if a juvenile is convicted, the same should be obliterated so that there is no stigma with regard to any crime committed by such person as a juvenile. The respondent, who was a minor when the charges had been framed against him, had disclosed about the charges and his acquittal on the basis of no evidence having been adduced by the complainant. The SC ruled that the same can also not be said to be a suppression on the basis of which he could be deprived of a job for which he was selected after following due process and appointment having been offered to him.