3 Important Supreme Court Judgments April 4, 2019

1. Atul Chandra Das (d) Tr. Lrs. v. Rabindra Nath Bhattacharya (d) tr. Lrs.

The Constitution of India - Article 254 - The Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940 - Section 37A - The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 58(c) - Mortgage by Conditional Sale - Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States - Held, despite the inconsistency, Section 37(A) of the State Act will prevail in the State - the provisions of 37(A) is traceable to the Entry ‘Transfer of Property’ in the Concurrent List and that Article 254(2) saves the provision.

Case Number : C.A. No. 8793 - 8794 of 2013 04-04-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Shekhar Kumar

Respondent's Advocate : Rameshwar Prasad Goyal

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph

2. Bhagwan Das Goel (dead) Through His Lrs. v. Pyare Kishan Agarwal

The Arbitration Act, 1940 - Section 20 - The Partnership Act, 1932 - Sections 20 and 69 (3) - “Unregistered Partnership" - Civil Judge held that the application filed by the plaintiff is maintainable - defendants felt aggrieved and filed writ petition - the High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of the Civil Judge - Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellants’ writ petition -  Held, the High Court did not decide the issue, which was the subject matter of the writ petition, keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in the case of Krishna Motor Service by its Partners v. H.B. Vittala Kamath, 1996 (10) SCC 88 - the High Court should have noticed the aforementioned decision and decided the question accordingly in the light of law laid down therein.

Case Number : C.A. No. 3399 of 2019 04-04-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Rishi Malhotra

Respondent's Advocate : Krishan Singh Chauhan

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

3. Ajit Kaur @ Surjit Kaur v. Darshan Singh (dead) Thr. Lrs.

Property Law - the mutation of a property in the revenue records are fiscal proceedings and does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation has been ordered, to pay the land revenue. At the same time, the effect of a declaratory decree to restore the property alienated to the estate of the alienor and until and unless the alienees are able to convince the court that they have no subsisting interest in the property, the heirs of the alienees would be entitled to the benefits of the property as per the law of succession.

Case Number : C.A. No. 226 of 2010 04-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : J.M. Khanna
Respondent's Advocate : S. Janani
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi