Tag: Civil Appeal

Tenant Evicted for Wilful Default: Supreme Court Upholds Rent Arrears Ruling
31Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Tenant Evicted for Wilful Default: Supreme Court Upholds Rent Arrears Ruling

The Supreme Court upheld the eviction order, ruling that the lessee’s failure to pay the statutorily fixed fair rent—despite not seeking a stay of the fair rent order—constituted wilful default under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act, 1960. The Court affirmed that pending appeals do not automatically suspend the tenant’s obligation to pay determined rent. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a lease agreement dated 11.10.1999, whereby M/s. Krishna Mills Pvt. Ltd. (landlord) leased portions of a godown in Coimbatore to K. Subramanian (tenant) for a total monthly rent of Rs. 48,000. The tenant, however, contended the rent was only Rs. 33,000. In 2004, the landlord applied for fixation of fair rent. The Rent Controller, on 10.01.2007, fixed the fair rent at Rs. 2,43,6...
Read More
Supreme Court: Immovable Plant Not ‘Goods’, Excise Duty Not Levied on Bought-Out Parts
30Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Immovable Plant Not ‘Goods’, Excise Duty Not Levied on Bought-Out Parts

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that central excise duty is leviable only on movable “goods.” The final assembled boiler, being an immovable plant, is not excisable. Consequently, the value of bought-out items delivered directly to the site cannot be included in the assessable value for duty computation. The extended limitation period for the show-cause notice was also held inapplicable. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Lipi Boilers Ltd., entered into a contract to design, procure, manufacture, and supply machinery for a steam generating plant, including a 50 TPH boiler. The boiler was manufactured and cleared from the factory in a Completely Knocked Down (CKD) condition upon payment of central excise duty. Certain essential items, such as feed pumps and fans, were purchased duty-...
Read More
Supreme Court Upholds Decree for Specific Performance; Unilateral Cancellation Not Permitted
30Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Decree for Specific Performance; Unilateral Cancellation Not Permitted

The Supreme Court upheld the decree for specific performance, ruling that a suit for specific performance is maintainable without a declaratory relief against a unilateral termination when the agreement is not determinable in nature. The subsequent purchasers were held not to be bona fide purchasers for value without notice under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Facts Of The Case: On 28.04.2000, the original vendors executed an unregistered Agreement to Sell (ATS) in favour of the original vendees for agricultural land in Karnataka. The vendees paid a substantial part of the consideration and performed their obligations, including getting the land converted and tenants relocated. In 2003, the original vendors issued a unilateral termination notice citing pending litigation...
Read More
Supreme Court Quashes Service Tax Demand, Says No Suppression If Transactions are Transparent
30Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes Service Tax Demand, Says No Suppression If Transactions are Transparent

The Supreme Court held that transactions involving the outright sale of land, even if accompanied by ancillary facilitation activities, do not constitute taxable services of a ‘Real Estate Agent’ under the Finance Act, 1994. The activity must involve a clear contract of agency. Mere sale of immovable property is excluded from the definition of ‘service’. Facts Of The Case: The respondent, M/s Elegant Developers, entered into three Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. (SICCL) for the identification, acquisition, and development of land parcels for real estate projects. Under these agreements, Elegant Developers was responsible for tasks like purchasing contiguous land blocks, obtaining title clearances, securing necessary government approva...
Read More
Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Order Rejecting Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 is Appealable as a Decree
29Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Order Rejecting Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 is Appealable as a Decree

The Supreme Court held that an order rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is a decree under Section 2(2). Consequently, such an order is appealable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as it constitutes a final adjudication, not merely an interlocutory order restricted by the proviso. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, MITC Rolling Mills Private Limited, filed a commercial suit before the Commercial Court. The respondents, M/s. Renuka Realtors and others, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint. Their ground was that the appellant had not undertaken the mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement (PIMS) as required under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The...
Read More
Supreme Court Reiterates: No Forest Land Acquisition Without Proper Notice
28Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Reiterates: No Forest Land Acquisition Without Proper Notice

This Supreme Court judgement reinforces that for land to vest as a "private forest" under the Maharashtra Private Forests Acquisition Act, 1975, a valid notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act must be properly served on the owner, initiating a live statutory process. Mere issuance or a stale, dormant notice from decades past is insufficient to trigger acquisition. The Supreme Court underscored strict compliance with this mandatory procedure and the binding nature of its precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution. Facts Of The Case: The appellants are landowners in Maharashtra whose properties were claimed by the State to have been declared "private forests" and automatically vested in the government on 30 August 1975 under the Maharashtra Private Forests Acqu...
Read More
Supreme Court: Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contracts, Upholds IRCTC’s Catering Policy
28Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contracts, Upholds IRCTC’s Catering Policy

The Supreme Court held that an arbitral award which contravenes binding government policy circulars—incorporated into the parties' contracts—is patently illegal and in conflict with the public policy of India under Section 34(2A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. An arbitrator cannot rewrite contractual terms that reflect such policy. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from contracts for catering services on premium Indian Railways trains (Rajdhani, Shatabdi, Duronto). The Railway Board initially increased meal tariffs in 2013 but simultaneously introduced a cheaper "combo meal" to replace the second regular meal on long journeys. This combo meal was swiftly discontinued days later, and caterers were directed to serve a second regular meal instead, but were to be reimbu...
Read More
Supreme Court: Registration Authorities Can’t Demand Mutation Proof Before Registering a Sale
28Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Registration Authorities Can’t Demand Mutation Proof Before Registering a Sale

The Supreme Court struck down sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii) of Rule 19 of the Bihar Registration Rules, 2019, holding them ultra vires the Registration Act, 1908. The Court ruled that the rule-making power under Section 69 does not authorize registering authorities to demand proof of mutation or title as a precondition for document registration, deeming such a requirement arbitrary and beyond the scope of the Act. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from challenges to the 2019 amendments to the Bihar Registration Rules, 1989, specifically the introduction of sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii) to Rule 19. These new rules empowered registering authorities to refuse registration of a sale or gift deed if the document did not mention, and the seller did not produce proof of, a "jamabandi a...
Read More