prolonged litigation - The Legal Chamber

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

4Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

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...

Public Trust Doctrine Violated in Hasty Land Allotment :Supreme Court Upholds Land Allotment Cancellation

The Supreme Court upheld the cancellation of land allotment by UPSIDC due to the allottee's persistent payment defaults and failure to fulfill contractual obligations. The Court found that UPSIDC had followed the prescribed procedure for cancellation, including issuing multiple notices. The Court also annulled a subsequent allotment of the same land, emphasizing the need for transparent and non-discriminatory allocation of public resources in line with the Public Trust Doctrine Facts Of The Case: Kamla Nehru Memorial Trust (KNMT) applied in March 2003 to purchase 125 acres of land in Uttar Pradesh for floriculture. On September 18, 2003, Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC) allotted the land, conditional upon certain terms, including a payment schedule. KNMT de...

Supreme Court Directs Faster Resolution for Temple Disputes in Mathura & Vrindavan

The Supreme Court ruled on the appointment of temple receivers under Order XL Rule 1 CPC, emphasizing that advocates should not routinely manage religious institutions due to potential conflicts of interest. It directed courts to appoint administrators with religious and administrative expertise while prioritizing expedited dispute resolution. The Court also permitted the state to utilize temple funds for land acquisition under strict conditions, ensuring ownership remains with the deity/trust. The judgment reinforces judicial restraint in prolonged receiverships and aligns with Article 25(2) of the Constitution, allowing state intervention for public order and pilgrim welfare. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a dispute over the management of Sri Giriraj Temple, Govardhan, Ma...