Tag: Sandeep Mehta J.

Supreme Court Directs Independent Officer to Verify Arrears, Stop Illegal Recoveries from Workers
28Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Directs Independent Officer to Verify Arrears, Stop Illegal Recoveries from Workers

This Supreme Court judgment addresses contempt proceedings for non-compliance with a prior Supreme Court order modifying an industrial tribunal award. The Court appoints an auditor to resolve wage calculation discrepancies, assess excess payment recoveries, and determine statutory gratuity interest. It refrains from intervening in a separate High Court matter concerning provident fund dues, affirming the High Court's competence on that issue. Facts Of The Case: The contempt petition arose from the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation's (BMC) non-compliance with a Supreme Court judgment dated April 7, 2017. That judgment had modified an Industrial Tribunal award, which originally directed the BMC to grant permanent status and retrospective benefits to approximately 2,700 sanitation workers ...
Read More
Society Cannot Evade Decree by Raising Unauthorized Constructions, Rules Supreme Court
24Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Society Cannot Evade Decree by Raising Unauthorized Constructions, Rules Supreme Court

The Supreme Court upheld the enforceability of a cooperative court's decree for specific performance, ruling that subsequent unauthorized constructions and unapproved plot mergers do not render a decree inexecutable. The Court directed the removal of obstructing structures to facilitate the allotment and delivery of vacant possession to the decree-holder, affirming the executability of the award. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Southern Nagpur Co-operative Society Limited, was directed by the Cooperative Court in a 2000 award to allot Plot No. 5A to its member, respondent Ganpati Yadavrao Kumbhare, a decree upheld in subsequent appeals. During execution proceedings, the appellant society objected, claiming the plot had lost its identity as it was merged with adjoining Plots 4 and 4A in...
Read More
Specific Performance Suit Fails: Supreme Court Explains Why Buyer Must Vacate Despite Long Possession
4Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Specific Performance Suit Fails: Supreme Court Explains Why Buyer Must Vacate Despite Long Possession

The Supreme Court affirmed the executability of a warrant of possession, ruling that a party who receives substantial monetary compensation in lieu of specific performance cannot retain possession of the property. The Court held that equity prevents unjust enrichment and that execution proceedings exist to enforce judgments, not to facilitate windfalls for unscrupulous litigants. Facts Of The Case: On 12.06.1989, the defendants agreed to sell a property to the plaintiff for ₹14,50,000, with ₹25,000 paid as earnest money. Possession of the vacant ground floor was handed over to the plaintiff. In 1990, the plaintiff first filed and withdrew a suit for permanent injunction. Subsequently, in June 1990, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance, which was decreed by the Trial Court ...
Read More
Husband’s Income vs Wife’s Rights: Supreme Court’s Decision on Permanent Alimony”
13Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Husband’s Income vs Wife’s Rights: Supreme Court’s Decision on Permanent Alimony”

The Supreme Court enhanced the appellant-wife's permanent alimony to ₹50,000 per month with a 5% increase every two years, modifying the High Court's order. The Court held the previous alimony inadequate given the respondent-husband's income and the appellant's need to maintain her standard of living. Financial support for the 26-year-old son was not mandated. Facts Of The Case: Rakhi Sadhukhan (appellant-wife) and Raja Sadhukhan (respondent-husband) were married on June 18, 1997, and had a son on August 5, 1998. In July 2008, the respondent-husband filed Matrimonial Suit No. 430 of 2008 seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty. The appellant-wife then filed Misc. Case No. 155 of 2008 for interim maintenance, and the Trial Court awarded her ₹8,000 per month and ₹10,000 for litigation expens...
Read More