Civil – Supreme Court
Rent Law–Bona fide requirement–There is no bar for someone who is pursuing higher studies, to start a business. (2) Eviction petition filed on two grounds (1) wilful default in payment of rent (2) personal bonafide necessity of premises for own use of landlord–High Court found that landlord was carrying on business and he had children, for whom he wanted to set up a business-On ground that eldest son of landlord was still pursuing studies, High Court held that requirement of landlord was not bonafide- Hence this appeal-Held, there is no bar for someone who is pursuing higher studies, to start a business-Order of High Court set aside- Petition allowed. (3) There was a dispute as to what the agreed monthly rent was-Landlordwho purchased property from previous owner in September 2013, relied upon a letter of Attornment of Tenancy issued by erstwhile landlord, indicating monthly rent to be Rs.3,200-High Court held that previous landowner ought to have been examined by landlord in this regard- Held, proceedings before Rent Controller are summary in nature-Purchase of building by landlord in September 2013 is not disputed- Therefore, landlord was entitled to rely upon letter of Attornment of Tenancy-Order of High Court set aside-Petition allowed.
Date of decision–01.11.2022
Civil – Supreme Court
Rent Law-In a dispute between husband and wife under Domestic Violence Act, landlord, who otherwise is entitled to decree of eviction, should not be made to suffer-Dispute between husband & wife under DV Act shall not preclude and affect right of landlord to get possession if otherwise he is entitled to-If wife has any grievance against husband, may be in respect of alternative accommodation, same is required to be adjudicated in proceeding under D.V Act or any other remedy which may be available to her against husband.
Date of decision–04.03.2022
Civil – Supreme Court
Medical Negligence–Trainee Doctor–Deficiency in Service– Complainant had undergone a major surgery of left lung and post operation, he developed hoarseness in his voice–Expert doctors in the field opined that hoarseness in voice developed due to wrong intubation during anaesthesia procedure at Hospital–Surgery relating to cancer of lung is a specialized surgery and needs a specialized anaesthetist but Anaesthesia was administered by a trainee doctor, which is deficiency of services on part of Hospital–Complainant was working as an Area Sales Manager in private sector and was deprived of his promotions due to hoarseness of his voice–Compensation awarded @ Rs.10 lakhs–Complaint allowed.
Date of decision–06.02.2024
Civil – Supreme Court
Agreement to Sell–Limitation for filing a suit for specific performance, as per Article 54 of Schedule to Limitation Act, is 3 years ‘from date fixed for performance or if no such date is fixed, when plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. — When deciding upon question of limitation, it is mainly required to see the plaint, allegations and how plaintiff has pleaded accrual of cause of action for filing of suit. — Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when statute so prescribes–Court has no power to extend period of limitation on equitable grounds.
Date of decision–22.09.2023
Civil – Supreme Court
Transfer of Property Act–Section 58 (c)–Mortgage by conditional sale–A transaction shall not be deemed to be a mortgage unless condition for reconveyance is contained in document which purports to effect the sale. — Distinction between mortgage by conditional sale and a sale with a condition of repurchase–In a mortgage, debt subsists and a right to redeem remains with debtor, but a sale with condition of re-purchase is not a lending and borrowing arrangement–if condition for re-transfer is not embodied in document which effects or purports to effect a sale, transaction shall not be regarded as a mortgage. — A mortgage by conditional sale must be evidenced by one document whereas a sale with a condition of retransfer may be evidenced by more than one document–A sale with a condition of retransfer, is not mortgage–It is not a partial transfer–By reason of such a transfer, all rights have been transferred reserving only a personal right to purchaser and such a personal right would be lost, unless the same is exercised within stipulated time. (Para 23 to 25)
Date of decision–18.08.2023
Civil – Supreme Court
Departmental Proceedings–Judicial Review–Constitutional Court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or 136 of Constitution, would not interfere with findings of fact arrived at in departmental enquiry proceedings, except in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity, could have arrived at those findings–So long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by departmental authority, same has to be sustained–Scope of judicial review cannot be extended to examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.
Date of decision–17.05.2023
