Search Judgments

Specific Relief Act 1963- Section 9 And 10 –  Agreement for Sale of Immovable Property: The buyer was denied the discretionary relief of specific performance by the trial court, which was overturned by the High Court. The Supreme Court analyzed the parties’ conduct, especially the seller’s inconsistent behavior and the buyer’s consistent readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract. The Court upheld the High Court’s decision, granting specific performance to the buyer, finding that she had not engaged in dilatory tactics and had demonstrated sufficient readiness and willingness.

Specific Relief Act 1963 – Section 20 And 31 – Suit Maintainability: A suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale, which was unilaterally terminated by the seller, is maintainable even without a specific prayer to declare the termination invalid.

Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 – Rule 14 – The appellant, initially penalized with stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect for allegedly deserting his family, challenged the order after a delay of 425 days. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed his application for condonation of delay, a decision affirmed by the Delhi High Court. The initial charge stemmed from his wife’s complaint, which she later withdrew, stating a misunderstanding. Despite this, an inquiry proceeded, finding him guilty of desertion but not of living with another woman.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (1986 Act) – Section 2(1)(d), 2(1)(g), 2(1)(m), and 2(1)(o) – This statutory appeal arose from the NCDRC’s dismissal of a consumer complaint filed by a company (appellant) against Vijaya Bank. The appellant had deposited Rs. 9 Crores in a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR), but the Bank subsequently adjusted its maturity value against an alleged overdraft facility, claiming the FDR was pledged. The appellant contended this pledge was fraudulent, as no such facility was sanctioned.

Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 Section 3 – The case revolves around an application filed by the second respondent, a Technical Assistant (Civil) at the appellant-sugar mill, seeking permanent status under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981. The first respondent granted the permanent status, leading the appellant-sugar mill to file a writ petition challenging the order.

The sugar mill argued it was a seasonal establishment and hence, the Act wouldn’t apply. The court considered whether the sugar mill was seasonal, if the second respondent was a seasonal employee, and if the Act was applicable.

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) Section 2(o), 2(m), 2(f)  Section 11 – This judgment addresses an appeal against a decision of the Delhi High Court, which upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) order regarding the jurisdiction of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under the POSH Act. The core issue is whether an ICC constituted in one government department can entertain a sexual harassment complaint against an employee of a different government department.

Key Facts:

An IAS officer (aggrieved woman) filed a complaint against an IRS officer (appellant) for sexual harassment at her workplace.
The aggrieved woman filed a complaint with the ICC in her department.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34(2)(b)(ii), 34(2A), 14(2) – This judgment addresses the validity of an arbitral award challenged due to undue delay in pronouncement and its failure to resolve the core disputes, essentially compelling the parties to further litigation. The court examined whether such an award can be set aside for perversity, patent illegality, or being against public policy.

The Arbitrator’s award, pronounced nearly four years after reserving it, declared sale deeds executed by one party (the Company) as illegal but failed to provide any equitable relief, instead directing a fresh round of arbitration/litigation.

The court analyzed previous judgments on the impact of delayed awards and highlighted that while delay isn’t a standalone ground for setting aside an award, it can contribute to the award being against public policy or patently illegal if it affects the findings.

The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) Section 129(3)(5) –  The Supreme Court addressed whether a final order is mandatory under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), even if tax and penalty are paid following a notice. The appellant, a dealer, had their goods detained during transit for alleged discrepancies. A notice under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act was issued. Due to business exigencies, the appellant paid the demanded tax and penalty via Form GST DRC-03, and the goods were released.

Fundamental Rule (FR) 101(a) and Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 – Sections 5 and 27 – The case concerns an appeal against a judgment of the Madras High Court, which denied maternity leave to the appellant, a government employee in Tamil Nadu. The appellant, already a mother of two from her first marriage (children not in her custody), sought maternity leave for her first child from her second marriage.

The Tamil Nadu government rejected her request, citing Fundamental Rule (FR) 101(a), which restricts maternity leave to women with less than two surviving children. The High Court’s Division Bench upheld this decision, stating that maternity leave is not a fundamental right and the state policy limits benefits to two children.

Contract Act, 1872 – Section 25 – Lack of Consideration: A sale deed can be challenged if it’s proven that no consideration passed, as a contract without consideration is void.

Evidence Act – Adverse Inference – Non-examination of Parties/Key Witnesses: If a party to a suit, particularly a purchaser, fails to examine themselves as a witness to prove their case, or if a crucial witness (like a power agent or a named farm servant) is not examined, an adverse inference may be drawn against that party.

Registration Act – Territorial Jurisdiction – Composite Property: For a sale deed involving multiple properties located in different sub-registry jurisdictions, registration in a sub-registrar office having jurisdiction over at least one part of the property is generally permissible under the Registration Act. However, if the inclusion of a property under that jurisdiction is found to be a fraudulent setup to gain jurisdiction, the registration may be challenged.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100 & 103: A High Court’s jurisdiction in a second appeal is limited to adjudicating on a substantial question of law. It cannot re-appreciate evidence to arrive at a different conclusion on a question of fact, especially when the first appellate court’s finding is plausible and based on evidence. The power to determine issues of fact under Section 103 can only be exercised in specific circumstances, such as when a crucial issue was not determined by the lower courts or when a finding is based on a wrong application of law.

Hindu Law – Hindu Succession Act Section 6 – Ancestral vs.