Justice Bagchi - The Legal Chamber

Delayed Counter-Claim for Specific Performance Dismissed by Supreme Court

1Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Delayed Counter-Claim for Specific Performance Dismissed by Supreme Court

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that a counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC must be filed against the plaintiff, not solely against a co-defendant. Furthermore, while no specific time limit is prescribed, a counter-claim cannot be permitted after the framing of issues in the suit, as it defeats the purpose of speedy justice and procedural efficiency. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Rajul Manoj Shah, filed a suit in 2012 concerning a bungalow she jointly owned with her sister-in-law (defendant no.1). She sought a declaration that her sister-in-law had no right to transfer the property and to nullify an Agreement to Sell dated 21.10.2011 executed in favor of respondent no.1, Kiranbhai Patel (defendant no.2). After the sister-in-law passed away in ...

“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...

Supreme Court Upholds MSMED Act’s Supremacy, Rejects Bengaluru Arbitration Clause : “MSMED Act Overrides Arbitration Agreements”

The Supreme Court ruled that the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMED) Act, 2006 overrides arbitration agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, affirming its special law status. It held that the supplier’s location determines arbitration jurisdiction, disregarding contractual seat clauses. The judgment reinforces statutory protection for MSMEs, ensuring disputes proceed before designated Facilitation Councils as per Section 18(4). Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a construction contract between M/s Harcharan Dass Gupta (Appellant), an MSME-registered supplier, and ISRO (Respondent), following a 2017 tender for staff quarters in Delhi. The agreement included an arbitration clause designating Bengaluru as the seat. When conflicts emerged, the supplier app...