Skip to main content

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


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
Labels:
Location: Tilak Marg, Supreme Court, Mandi House, New Delhi, Delhi 110201, India

Popular posts from this blog

Presumptions are the Bats of the Law, Flitting in the Twilight, but Disappearing in the Sunshine of Actual Facts [ORDER]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -  Section 138 -  failure on the part of the complainant to produce his account statement and absence of entry in accounts maintained by him regarding loan advanced to the accused, does show that there was no material to support the basic facts on which the entire case of the complainant was based. Sufficient material was available on record    whereby the defence of the accused became probable. In such a situation, the presumption under the provisions of the Act ceased to operate and the burden fell upon the complainant to prove his case, which he failed to do by placing on record cogent evidence.
Post a Comment
Read more

500+ Supreme Court of India Judgments on Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Head Notes & Citations

1. Mallamma (dead) By Lrs. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [07-04-2014] 
2 comments
Read more

Adverse Possession | Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, C.A. No. 7764 of 2014 07-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |  Arun Mishra , S. Abdul Nazeer & M.R. Shah C.A. No.7764 of 2014 with S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8332 - ­8333 of 2014 Radhakrishna Reddy (d) Through Lrs. v. G. Ayyavoo & Ors. August 07, 2019 Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Adverse Possession - Plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff. A person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years' period of adverse possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed. In our opinion, consequence is that once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well...
Post a Comment
Read more