Indian Contract Act - 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

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...

“Can Employers Enforce a Minimum Service Period” Supreme Court Upholds Employees Must Pay for Premature Resignation

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Vijaya Bank's employment bond clause requiring a minimum 3-year service period or payment of Rs. 2 lakhs for premature resignation. The Court ruled this condition does not violate Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act (restraint of trade) as it applies during employment, nor is it opposed to public policy under Section 23. The judgment clarified that while standard form contracts reflect unequal bargaining power, such terms remain enforceable unless proven unconscionable or unreasonable. The Court recognized the bank's legitimate interest in maintaining workforce stability through such reasonable restrictions. This decision reinforces the distinction between restraints during employment versus post-employment and sets parameters for evaluating liqui...