Landmark Supreme Court Judgment, 2020 – Civil Laws

Landmark Supreme Court Judgment, 2020- Civil Laws

  • Landlord-Tenant disputes are arbitrable as the Transfer of Property Act does not forbid or foreclose arbitration

In a significant judgment, three judge bench of the Apex Court overruled its 2017 verdict in  Himangni Enterprises v. Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia to observe that,  Landlord-tenant disputes are arbitrable as the Transfer of Property Act does not forbid or foreclose arbitration but  with the exception of when they are covered by specific forum created by rent control laws.

“We overrule the ratio laid down in Himangni Enterprises and hold that landlord-tenant disputes are arbitrable as the Transfer of Property Act does not forbid or foreclose arbitration. However, landlord-tenant disputes covered and governed by rent control legislation would not be arbitrable when specific court or forum has been given exclusive jurisdiction to apply and decide special rights and obligations. Such rights and obligations can only be adjudicated and enforced by the specified court/forum, and not through arbitration,” it said.

Case Name: VIDYA DROLIA AND OTHERS V/S DURGA TRADING CORPORATION

Citation: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 5605-5606 OF 2019 AND SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. 11877 OF 2020

Coram: Justices NV Ramana, Krishna Murari and Sanjiv Khanna

Read More: Landlord-Tenant Disputes are Arbitrable as the Transfer of Property Act does not Forbid or Foreclose Arbitration: SC

  • A show cause notice, to constitute the valid basis of a blacklisting order, must spell out clearly

The Supreme Court while setting aside a blacklisting order issued against Umc Technologies Private Limited had ruled that a show cause notice, to constitute the valid basis of a blacklisting order, must spell out clearly, or its contents are such that it can be clearly inferred therefrom, that there is an intention on the part of the issuer of the notice to blacklisting the noticee. A vague show cause notice will be in violation of the principles of natural justice, it added.

Case: UMC TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA

Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3687 OF 2020

Coram: Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and BR Gavai

Read More: A Show Cause Notice to Constitute the Valid Basis of a Blacklisting Order Must Spell Out Clearly: SC

  • Interim Orders in Writ Petitions Challenging SARFAESI Proceeding, Generally not be Passed Without Hearing the Secured Creditor

The Supreme Court in a significant pronouncement has noted that interim orders in writ petitions challenging SARFAESI proceedings should generally not be passed without hearing the secured creditor. Interim orders defeat the very purpose of expeditious recovery of public money. Therefore, the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion to grant stay in such matters, the court said.

The Court further added that time limit stipulation in Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act mandating the District Magistrate to deliver possession of a secured asset, is a directory and not mandatory and that the inability to take possession within time limit does not render the District Magistrate Functus Officio.

Case Name: C. BRIGHT vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3441 OF 2020

Coram: Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and Ajay Rastogi

Read More: Interim Orders in Writ Petitions Challenging SARFAESI Proceeding, Generally not be Passed Without Hearing the Secured Creditor

  • High Court can dismiss second appeal without even formulating the substantial question of law

The Supreme Court has noted that a High Court isn’t required to frame substantial question of law while dismissing a second appeal. The formulation of a substantial question of law or reformulation of the same arises only if there are some questions of law and not in the absence of any substantial question of law, observed the Court.

Case Name: KIRPA RAM (DECEASED) vs. SURENDRA DEO GAUR

Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8971 OF 2010

Coram: Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and Ajay Rastogi

Read More: High Court can Dismiss Second Appeal without even Formulating the Substantial Question of Law: SC

  •  Non-payment of complete sale consideration can’t be a ground for cancellation of sale deed

While interpreting Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, the Top Court ruled that actual payment of the whole of the price at the time of the execution of the sale deed is not a sine qua non

Advertisement
 for completion of the sale.

Case name: Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhansuli (Gajra) (D) Thr LRs 

Citation: 2020 SCC OnLine SC 562

Coram: L Nageswara Rao and Indu Malhotra JJ.

[ Landmark Supreme Court Judgment, 2020- Civil Laws ]

  • The Complaint before Consumer Fora by Allottees against Builders is not Barred by the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016

The Supreme Court has ruled that a complaint before Consumer Fora by allottees against builders is not barred by the RERA Act (Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016).

“Again, insofar as cases, where such proceedings under the CP Act are initiated after the provisions of the RERA Act, came into force, there is nothing in the RERA Act which bars such initiation. The absence of bar under Section 79 to the initiation of proceedings before fora which cannot be called a Civil Court and express saving under Section 88 of the RERA Act, make the position quite clear. Further, Section 18 itself specifies that the remedy under said Section is “without prejudice to any other remedy available”. Thus, the parliamentary intent is clear that a choice or discretion is given to the allottee whether he wishes to initiate appropriate proceedings under the CP Act or file an application under the RERA Act,” the bench said.

Case Name: IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD. vs. ANIL PATNI

Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3581-3590 OF 2020

Coram: Justices UU Lalit and Vineet Saran

Read More: The Complaint before Consumer Fora by Allottees against Builders is not Barred by the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016: SC

  • Supreme Court upholds Travancore Royal Family’s right to administration of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Kerala

The Apex Court upheld the right of the Travancore Royal Family to management and control of the Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Kerala. It noted that the death of the Travancore ruler, who signed the covenant, does not affect the rights of the Shebaitship of family over the Temple and it will survive as per the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950.

Case name: Sri Marthanda Varma & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 

Citation: 2020 SCC OnLine SC 569]

Coram: UU Lalit and Indu Malhotra JJ.

[ Landmark Supreme Court Judgment, 2020- Civil Laws ]

  •  Procedure of dissolution of partnership firm which consists of only two partners, explained

The Court held that when there are only two partners and one has agreed to retire, then the retirement amounts to the dissolution of the firm. The Court also stated the distinction between ‘retirement of a partner’ and ‘dissolution of a partnership’.

Case name: Guru Nanak Industries, Faridabad v. Amar Singh 

Citation: 2020 SCC OnLine SC 469

Coram: NV Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna and Krishna Murari JJ.

  • Right of wife to reside in matrimonial home can’t be imposed against the development authority or builder

The Court observed that a wife’s right to reside in her matrimonial home does not flow from the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act 1976. Therefore, it can’t be enforced against the builder or development authority. In the instant case, the Court was deciding an appeal filed by a woman, seeking right to reside in the homes allotted to her husband under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act 1976.

Case name: Aishwarya Atul Pulsalkar v. Maharashtra Housing Development Authority & Ors.

Citation: 2020 SCC OnLine SC 408

Coram: Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose JJ.

Landmark Supreme Court Judgment, 2020- Civil Laws

Also Read: Landmark Supreme Court 2020 Judgment On Bail

Also Read: The Constitution Bench Judgments/Orders Of The Supreme Court, 2020

One thought on “Landmark Supreme Court Judgment, 2020 – Civil Laws

  • Dec 31, 2020 at 8:09 pm
    Permalink

    Sorting out the impotant rulings of Hon’ble Supreme Court so given recently is an excellent approach .It provides a helping hand to the Legal Faternity to provide proper guidance to their clients in shortest possible time….Prabir Basu,Adv.,pbasu1948@gmail.com

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *