full and final settlement - The Legal Chamber

Decade-Long Separation Ends: Supreme Court Grants Divorce Under Article 142

15Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Decade-Long Separation Ends: Supreme Court Grants Divorce Under Article 142

The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage on grounds of irretrievable breakdown. It awarded Rs. 1 crore as permanent alimony and full settlement of all claims, quashing all related proceedings. The decree was conditional upon payment within three months. Facts Of The Case: The marriage between Rekha Minocha (appellant-wife) and Amit Shah Minocha (respondent-husband) was solemnized on October 5, 2009. The wife alleged mental and physical harassment by her in-laws, leading her to leave the matrimonial home on April 15, 2010. While residing at her parental home, she gave birth to their son on December 28, 2010. Subsequently, she initiated legal proceedings, including an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC in 2013 and a case unde...

Clarity on Post-Award Interest: Supreme Court Explains When Hyder Consulting Judgment Applies

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that an arbitral award granting a composite interest rate from the cause of action until the date of repayment, based on a contract between the parties, excludes the default application of separate post-award interest under Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Party autonomy governs, and a decree-holder cannot claim compound interest at the execution stage if it was not stipulated in the contract or awarded by the tribunal, as this would amount to impermissibly modifying the award. Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated from a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 09.04.2014 between HLV Limited and PBSAMP Projects Pvt. Ltd. for the sale of land in Hyderabad. PBSAMP paid an advance of Rs. 15.5 crores to HLV. After...

Supreme Court Landmark Settlement : Order Caps Pending Debt at ₹15 Lakhs in Mortgage Case

The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, modifying the High Court's order by reducing the appellant's liability to ₹15 lakhs as full and final settlement of the decree. The Court exercised its discretionary power under Article 142 to ensure complete justice, considering prolonged litigation, and clarified that the order was fact-specific and not a precedent. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a money recovery suit filed by the respondent, V. Sudarsanan, against the original defendants for ₹79,69,544/- with 9% interest on a principal loan of ₹58,50,000/- secured by a mortgage. During the pendency of the suit, the appellant, Umedraj Jain, purchased the mortgaged property from the defendants and attempted to implead himself in the proceedings, but his application was dismiss...