Contract Law - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Rules on Loan Disguised as Property Deal, Protects Homeowner from Forced Sale

6Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules on Loan Disguised as Property Deal, Protects Homeowner from Forced Sale

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a valid sale agreement, a prerequisite for specific performance under Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha. The burden of proof was not discharged as the sole evidence was self-serving and key witnesses were not examined. The High Court's reversal of concurrent factual findings was erroneous. Facts Of The Case: The respondents (original plaintiffs) filed a suit for specific performance of an alleged sale agreement dated 12.02.1999, claiming the appellant (defendant) had agreed to sell his house for Rs. 70,000. They asserted having paid Rs. 55,000 as advance and taken possession, subsequently renting the property back to the appellant. The appellant contested the suit, denying any agreement to sell. His defense was that...

Supreme Court Ruling: Courts Must Appoint Arbitrator Even If Serious Fraud is Alleged

5Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling: Courts Must Appoint Arbitrator Even If Serious Fraud is Alleged

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration Act, a court's role is prima facie confined to examining the existence of an arbitration agreement. All other contentious issues, including allegations of serious fraud and non-arbitrability, are jurisdictional matters that must be decided by the arbitral tribunal under Section 16. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, entered into agreements with various rice millers for the custom milling of paddy procured from farmers. The agreements contained an arbitration clause. When the millers allegedly failed to deliver the stipulated quantity of rice, the Corporation initiated recovery proceedings under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914. The millers challe...

Supreme Court Rules: Private Schools Can Sue in Civil Court to Recover Unpaid Fees

5Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Private Schools Can Sue in Civil Court to Recover Unpaid Fees

The Supreme Court held that the civil courts retain jurisdiction to adjudicate fee recovery suits filed by unaided private schools, as there is no express or implied ouster of jurisdiction under the Haryana School Education Act and Rules. The statutory remedy before the Fee and Fund Regulatory Committee is available only to parents/students to challenge excessive fees, not to schools for recovery. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Apeejay School, an unaided private institution, filed suits for recovery of fees against students and their parents. The dispute arose from a fee hike implemented by the school for the academic year 2009-10, which the respondents refused to pay, continuing instead to remit only the pre-hike amount. The school's suits were initially decreed by the trial court. W...

Supreme Court Quashes Decree Against Odisha Corp, Clarifies Law on Interest for Pre-1992 Transactions

5Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes Decree Against Odisha Corp, Clarifies Law on Interest for Pre-1992 Transactions

The Supreme Court held that the suit against the State Financial Corporation was not maintainable due to non-compliance with the mandatory notice under Section 80 CPC. The decree was declared a nullity as it erroneously applied the Interest on Delayed Payments Act, 1993, to a pre-enactment transaction and fastened liability without privity of contract. Execution proceedings were quashed. Facts Of The Case: In 1985, Respondent No. 1, M/s. Vigyan Chemical Industries, supplied raw materials to Respondent No. 2, an industrial unit. Due to a loan default, the Appellant, Odisha State Financial Corporation (OSFC), took possession of Respondent No. 2's unit in 1987 under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. In 1988, Respondent No. 1 filed a recovery suit for its unpaid dues. OSFC was impl...

Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Orders Eviction of Bidder Who Failed to Pay for 3 Decades

16Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Orders Eviction of Bidder Who Failed to Pay for 3 Decades

The Supreme Court upheld the Tamil Nadu Housing Board's cancellation of allotment due to the respondent's chronic default in payment over decades. The Court emphasized that public property must be managed transparently and in the public interest, rejecting the respondent's claims. It ruled that prolonged non-payment justified eviction, denying further indulgence and ordering possession to be surrendered within four months. The judgment reinforced that contractual obligations must be honored and that courts cannot indefinitely protect defaulters at the cost of public welfare. Facts Of The Case: In 1986, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board auctioned a prime commercial plot in Chennai, with S. Ganesan emerging as the highest bidder at ₹4,78,921. Despite the Board's acceptance of his bid, Gan...

Death of a Partner Doesn’t End Business: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Reconstituted Firm

22Jul

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Death of a Partner Doesn’t End Business: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Reconstituted Firm

The Supreme Court upheld the Calcutta High Court’s decision, ruling that a partnership firm does not automatically dissolve upon a partner’s death if the partnership deed permits continuation with surviving partners. The Court held that Indian Oil Corporation (IOCL) could not arbitrarily stop kerosene supply without terminating the dealership agreement. It clarified that reconstitution of the firm does not require all legal heirs to join, emphasizing IOCL’s obligation to act fairly as a state instrumentality. The judgment reinforced that contractual terms and partnership deeds override rigid policy guidelines in commercial disputes. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a dispute between Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) and M/s Shree Niwas Ramgopal, a partnership firm operating as a ...

Supreme Court Late Payment Surcharge Valid: Coal India’s Levy Ruled as ‘Change in Law’

11Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Late Payment Surcharge Valid: Coal India’s Levy Ruled as ‘Change in Law’

The Supreme Court upheld the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity's (APTEL) ruling that a Coal India Limited (CIL) notification imposing Evacuation Facility Charges (EFC) constitutes a "change in law" event under the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). The judgment affirmed that the power generator is entitled to compensation from the notification date with carrying cost at Late Payment Surcharge (LPS) rates on a compounding basis, based on restitutionary principles. The Court clarified that only a substantial question of law is appealable, and the supplementary bill is required only after due adjudication. Facts Of The Case: A Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) was signed on January 28, 2010, between Rajasthan Discoms and Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. for 1200 MW. On December 19, 2017, Coal India ...

Supreme Court Backs Arbitrator’s Power to Award Compound Interest :Rules on Interest Calculation in Award Enforcement

25May

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Backs Arbitrator’s Power to Award Compound Interest :Rules on Interest Calculation in Award Enforcement

The Supreme Court ruled that arbitral tribunals have the power to award compound interest (interest on interest) under Section 31(7) of the Arbitration Act, 1996. It clarified that the "sum awarded" includes both principal and pre-award interest, and post-award interest can be calculated on this total amount. The judgment overruled earlier contrary interpretations, affirming arbitrators' discretion in interest calculations unless expressly barred by contract. The Court emphasized this aligns with the compensatory purpose of arbitration awards for delayed payments. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a contractual dispute between M/s Interstate Construction (appellant) and National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. (respondent) regarding construction work for Ramagundam Super Therma...

Supreme Court Clarifies: When Does a Dispute Resolution Clause Qualify as Arbitration? Mediation or Arbitration

22May

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: When Does a Dispute Resolution Clause Qualify as Arbitration? Mediation or Arbitration

The Supreme Court ruled that Article 20 of the Concession Agreements between MCD and private contractors did not constitute a valid arbitration clause under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court emphasized that clauses lacking mutual intent, impartial adjudication, and procedural fairness cannot be enforced as arbitration agreements, directing parties to pursue alternative remedies. The judgment reiterated the essential elements of arbitration clauses from K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi (1998) and upheld precedent in SDMC v. SMS AAMW Tollways (2019). Facts Of The Case: The case involved three separate appeals before the Supreme Court concerning Concession Agreements between the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and private contractors (SMS Ltd., DSC Ltd., and CCC ...

Supreme Court Decides “what It Means for Future Agreements” : Lead Partner Liable for Full Payment in Power Project Dispute

19May

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Decides “what It Means for Future Agreements” : Lead Partner Liable for Full Payment in Power Project Dispute

The Supreme Court upheld the doctrine of privity of contract, ruling that Brua Hydrowatt Pvt. Ltd. (BHP) was solely liable for transmission bay costs under its agreement with HP Power Transmission Corporation (HPPTC), despite internal arrangements with third parties. The Court held that non-signatories (Respondent Nos. 2 & 3) could not be bound by the contract, reversing APTEL’s order. The judgment reaffirmed that contractual obligations apply only to parties to the agreement, unless explicitly extended. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose between HP Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. (HPPTC) and M/s Brua Hydrowatt Pvt. Ltd. (BHP) over the liability for construction and maintenance costs of a 66kV power transmission bay at Urni, Himachal Pradesh. BHP, along with two other power com...