6 Important Supreme Court Judgments January 23, 2019

1. Radhamma v. H.N. Muddukrishna

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 30 - Testamentary Succession - Section 30 of the Act permits the disposition by way of Will of a male Hindu in a Mitakshara coparcenary property.

It is true that prior to coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, no coparcener could dispose of whole or any portion of his undivided coparcenary interest by Will but by virtue of Section 30 of the Act read with explanation, a coparcener derives his right to dispose of his undivided share in Mitakshara joint family property by Will or any testamentary disposition i.e. by virtue of law.

The significant fact which may be noticed is that while the legislature was aware of the strict rule against alienation by way of gift, it only relaxed the rule in favour of disposition by way of a Will of a male Hindu in a Mitakshara coparcenary property. Therefore, the law insofar as it applies to joint family property governed by the Mitakshara school, prior to the amendment of 2005, when a male Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 leaving at the time of his death an interest in Mitakshara coparcenary property, his interest in the property will devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary. An exception is contained in the explanation to Section 30 of the Act making it clear that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, the interest of a male Hindu in Mitakshara coparcenary property can be disposed of by him by Will or any other testamentary disposition.

Citations : JT 2019 (1) SC 482 : 2019 (1) SCALE 617
Case Number : C.A. No. 7092 of 2010 23-01-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Vaijayanthi Girish

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

2. Rajasthan Small Industries Corportion Limited v. M/s Ganesh Containers Movers Syndicate

Act

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 11 & 15 - Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 - Section 12 - Mere neglect of an arbitrator to act or delay in passing the award by itself cannot be the ground to appoint another arbitrator in deviation from the terms agreed to by the parties.

In the case in hand, to relegate the respondent to challenge the award under Section 34 of the Act, it would further prolong the litigation between the parties. Considering the facts of the case and in order to do complete justice between the parties, in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the award dated 21.01.2016 is set aside.

Constitution of India - Article 142 - It is open to the court to mould the relief by safeguarding the interest of parties. The paramount consideration in such cases should be to ensure that there is no injustice caused.

The phrase “complete justice” engrafted in Article 142(1) is the word of width couched with elasticity to meet myriad situations created by human ingenuity or cause or result of operation of Statute law or law declared under Articles 32, 136 and 141 of the Constitution. 

Question of Law

In deviation from the terms of the agreement, whether the respondent was right in filing arbitration petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act ?

The legislative intent is that the parties should abide by the terms of the arbitration agreement. Having participated in the entire arbitration proceedings and acquiesced in the proceedings, the respondent is estopped from challenging the competence of the arbitrator. The respondent was not justified in filing the arbitration petition seeking appointment of an independent arbitrator.

Whether by virtue of Section 12 of the Amendment Act, the Managing Director has become ineligible to act ?

The arbitration proceedings started way back in 2009 long before 2015 Amendment Act came into force and therefore, 2015 Amendment Act is not applicable to the case in hand.

Whether the High Court was right in terminating the mandate of the arbitrator appointed as per the agreement ?

The High Court, in our view, was not right in appointing an independent arbitrator without keeping in view the terms of the agreement between the parties and therefore, the impugned order appointing an independent arbitrator/retired District Judge is not sustainable.

Citations : 2019 (1) SCALE 670
Case Number : C.A. No. 1039 of 2019 23-01-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Annam D. N. Rao

Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi

3. Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam State Electricity Board

The Interest on Delayed Payment to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial 4 Undertakings Act, 1993 - Sections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 - “appointed day” - definition of - Liability of buyer to make payment - Date from which and rate at which interest is payable - Liability of buyer to pay compound interest - Recovery of amount due - Act shall apply with regard to supplies made after the date of enforcement of Act i.e. 23.03.1992.

Questions of Law

1. Whether Act, 1993 is not applicable when the 24 contract for supply was entered between the parties prior to enforcement of the Act i.e. 23.09.1992 ? 
2. Whether in the event it is found that Act is applicable also with regard to contract entered prior to Act, 1993 in pursuance of which contract, supplies were made after the enforcement of Act, 1993, the Act, 1993 can be said to have retrospective operation ? 
3. Whether money suit by M/s. Shanti Conductors was barred by limitation ? 
4. Whether judgment of this Court in Purbanchal Cables dated 31.08.2016 by which appeal of M/s. Shanti Conductors was also dismissed is binding between the parties i.e. M/s. Shanti Conductors and Assam Electricity Board and the appellant cannot be allowed to question the said judgment in these appeals ? 
5. Whether the suit filed by the appellants for recovery of only interest when admittedly entire principal amount was paid prior to filing of the suit can be said to be maintainable ? 
6. Whether appeal filed by M/s Trusses and 25 Towers Pvt. Ltd. challenging the review judgment dated 19.03.2003 cannot be entertained since no liberty was granted by this Court in SLP(C)No.12217 of 2001 when the SLP filed against the main judgment of the High court dated 05.04.2001 was dismissed as withdrawn ? 
7. Whether the High court while considering the Review petition no.75 of 2001 M/s Trusses & Towers Pvt. Ltd. even after expressing that Act, 1993 is not applicable could have allowed 9% interest to the plaintiff?

Citations : JT 2019 (1) SC 486 : 2019 (1) SCALE 747
Case Number : C.A. No. 8442 of 2016 23-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Devashish Bharuka
Respondent's Advocate : Dushyant Parashar

Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice A.K. Sikri, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

4. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation v. M/s Anoj Kumar Agarwala

Contract Law - Tender - the words used in the tender document cannot be ignored or treated as redundant or superfluous – they must be given meaning and their necessary significance.

Citations : 2019 (2) SCALE 134
Case Number : C.A. No. 1049 of 2019 23-01-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Rameshwar Prasad Goyal
Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman

5. Malaichamy v. State of Tamil Nadu

The Indian Penal Code, 19860 - Sections 449 and 302 read with Section 34 - The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - The Investigating Officer deposed that after the seizure of the knives, the same were not sealed at all, and he merely put them in a box and sent the same to the Judicial Magistrate. Such procedure adopted by the prosecution is highly improper and illegal, inasmuch as the box could have been opened at any stage by anybody and the weapon tampered with or replaced. Hence, the aspect of recovery is also not proved in accordance with law. Even otherwise, the circumstance of recovery from Accused No.1 alone will not be sufficient to convict him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, when all the remaining evidence of the prosecution is unbelievable. Thus, the accused are entitled to get the benefit of doubt and are entitled to be acquitted.

Citations : 2019 (2) SCALE 128
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 1932 of 2010 23-01-2019

Petitioner's Advocate A. Radhakrishnan
Respondent's Advocate M. Yogesh Kanna
Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheswari

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

6. Basavaraj @ Basya v. State of Karnataka

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 396, 397, 302, 201, 109 read with Section 149 - The Karnataka Police Act, 1963 - Section 98 - Taking into account the circumstances in which the crime was committed and the fact that the charges against three of the co-accused have failed, the sentence imposed on the accused No.2 would require modification. The sentence of death imposed on the accused No.2 ought to be commuted to one of imprisonment for life.

Citations : 2019 (2) SCALE 318

Case Number : Crl.A. 1031 of 2016 23-01-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : S.N. Bhat

Respondent's Advocate : V.N. Raghupathy

Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Ranjan Gogoi (CJI), Hon'ble Mrs. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sanjiv Khanna

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Ranjan Gogoi (CJI)