Search Judgments

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 5, 31, 33, 34, 37, 43, and 48 – The Supreme Court, in a five-judge bench, addressed the critical question of whether Indian courts possess the power to modify arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The judgment analyses conflicting judicial opinions and arguments for and against modification, emphasizing the Act’s intent to limit judicial intervention. It examines the scope of Section 34, severability of awards, differences between setting aside and modification, and the role of the Model Law.

The Court clarifies the contours of Section 34 and emphasizes that arbitrators possess to address computational, clerical, or typographical errors under Section 33.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 21 Rule 90, Section 2(9); Limitation Act – Section 5, Article 127- This revision petition was filed by the judgment debtor challenging the dismissal of his application to condone a 539-day delay in filing an application to set aside a sale under Order 21 Rule 90 of the CPC. The initial suit was for recovery of money, decreed ex parte. The property was sold in execution proceedings where the decree holder’s brother was the sole bidder. The judgment debtor claimed irregularities in the sale, including undervaluation of the property and non-compliance with Section 2(9) read with Order 20 Rule 4 of CPC regarding the ex parte decree.

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 13(1-A); Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5; Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order XX Rule 1 – This case involves a challenge to the High Court of Jharkhand’s decision, which rejected the petitioner’s application to condone a 301-day delay in filing a commercial appeal under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The original suit was filed by Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) against the petitioners for recovery of a significant sum based on an MSME Council award.

The petitioners argued that the delay should be condoned because the High Court failed to consider Order XX Rule 1 CPC, which mandates providing a free copy of the judgment, and that the limitation period should only start after the copy is provided. They relied on previous Supreme Court judgments to support this view.

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Sections 4, 5 and 23 – Eviction of Son from Parents’ Property – Whether mandatory in every case.

The case involves a dispute between a senior citizen, Samtola Devi, and her son, Krishna Kumar, regarding a house originally owned by her late husband, Kallu Mal. The parents initiated proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act, seeking eviction of their son, Krishna Kumar, from the property, alleging mistreatment and neglect. The Maintenance Tribunal initially directed Krishna Kumar to not encroach upon the property, but the Appellate Tribunal ordered his eviction. The High Court set aside the eviction order, prompting Samtola Devi to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Sections 4, 5 and 23 – Eviction of son from parents’ property – This case involves a dispute between an elderly mother and her son regarding eviction from a house that was originally the self-acquired property of the deceased father. The mother sought eviction of her son under the Senior Citizens Act, alleging harassment and lack of maintenance. The son claimed a share in the property and challenged the validity of gift deeds made by his father in favor of his daughters.

The Maintenance Tribunal initially directed the son not to encroach upon any part of the house without permission, while the Appellate Tribunal ordered his eviction.

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act) – Sections 37, 91, and 94; University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (UGC Act) – Section 22(3) – This case concerns an appeal by candidates with post-graduate degrees in Microbiology and Food Science and Technology who were disqualified from being appointed as Food Safety Officers (FSO) in Jharkhand. The Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) had issued a notification in 2015, stating that a “degree” in specific subjects (Food Technology, Dairy Technology, etc.) or a Master’s degree in Chemistry was required. The appellants were successful in the written exam but were later disqualified due to their Master’s degrees not being considered valid.

The appellants argued that the term “degree” should include Master’s degrees, referencing the UGC Act and the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act), which stipulates qualifications for FSOs should be prescribed by the Central Government.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order 21 Rule 97(1) & (2), Order XXXVIII Rule 11-B (Madras High Court Amendment), Section 64: An attachment before judgment is ineffective against the doctrine of lis pendens when a suit for specific performance concerning the same property was filed prior to the attachment order. For an attachment order to bind third parties, it must be communicated to the Sub-Registrar as mandated by High Court Amendments. A sale in execution of a specific performance decree, based on an agreement executed prior to an attachment in a money suit, takes precedence over the subsequent court auction sale in the money decree.

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 52 (Doctrine of Lis Pendens): The doctrine of lis pendens applies to involuntary sales (like court auctions) and takes precedence over an earlier attachment in a money decree, especially when the property is the subject of a prior, non-collusive specific performance suit.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34

This petition challenges an Arbitral Award dated 24.01.2022, filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The petitioner, a contractor, raised disputes with the respondent and invoked arbitration as per the contract clause.
The petitioner contested the award partially, specifically concerning Claim Nos. 3, 5, 13-16, and 24-26, alleging that the arbitrator provided non-speaking reasons.

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) Section 17; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) Order 7 Rule 11 – The case involves a civil suit filed by the plaintiff seeking declarations regarding the illegality of a sale deed and a mortgage deed, along with a request for possession of the suit property. The bank, a defendant in the suit, argued that the civil court’s jurisdiction was barred under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, as the matter fell within the purview of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The trial court initially rejected the plaint, but the High Court reversed this decision, holding that the civil court’s jurisdiction was not ousted.

The Supreme Court analyzed the scope of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, emphasizing that the civil court’s jurisdiction is barred only in matters that the DRT is empowered to determine under the Act.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 96; Indian Evidence Act – Section 114(e) (Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Section 119(e)); Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Section 25; Registration Act, 1908 – Sections 34 and 60. – This Second Appeal was filed against the concurrent judgments of the lower courts, which had dismissed the plaintiff’s (appellant) suit for declaration of title, mandatory injunction, and recovery of possession of property. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the ‘B’ schedule property, alleging it was part of ‘A’ schedule property purchased through various sale deeds. The defendant (respondent) contested, asserting his ownership of 6 cents purchased from Kamalatchi Nadachi via a sale deed (Ex.B9).