Weekly Overview | Supreme Court Judgments: July 4 – July 8, 2022
|1. Motor Accident Claim – Non-Pecuniary Damages Also Have To Be Considered Incase of 100% Disability – SC Enhances Compensation – The Supreme Court enhanced the compensation amount granted to a lawyer who suffered 100% disability due to a motor accident.
The Bench held that while granting compensation in case of permanent disability, non-pecuniary damages also have to be considered while deciding the just compensation to be paid to the claimant.
While granting compensation for non-pecuniary damages including pain, suffering, loss of amenities, loss of marriage prospects in case of 100% disability, the Court further observed.
Cause Title – Abhimanyu Pratap Singh v. Namita Sekhon & Another
Date of Judgment – July 6, 2022
Coram – Justice Indira Banerjee & Justice JK Maheshwari
2. Court's Power Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC Discretionary, Should Only Be Exercised On Clear Admission Of Facts – Supreme Court – The Court held that the Court's power to pass a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is discretionary.
The Bench further held that the power should only be exercised when specific, clear, and categorical admission of facts and documents are on record, other the Court can refuse to invoke the power under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
Order XII Rule 6 of CPC states - (1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions. (2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1) a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.
Cause Title – Karan Kapoor v. Madhuri Kumar
Date of Judgment – July 6, 2022
Coram – Justice Indira Banerjee & Justice JK Maheshwari
3. Order XXI Rule 99 CPC – Person Never Dispossessed From Property Cannot Make Application Objecting To Execution Proceedings - The two-judge Bench of the Apex Court held that a person who was never dispossessed from the property is not entitled to under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC to make an application for objecting to the execution proceedings.
The Court also considered Rule 97 to 102 CPC and held that under Rule 97, it is only the decree-holder who is entitled to make an application for objecting to execution proceedings in case of resistance or obstruction by any person.
Cause Title – Sriram Housing Finance and Investment India Ltd. v. Omesh Mishra Memorial Charitable Trust
Date of Judgment – July 6, 2022
Coram – Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice JK Maheshwari
4. Landlord Entitled To Mesne Profits If Decree For Eviction Is Stayed – Supreme Court – The Apex Court observed that after passing the decree of eviction the tenancy terminates and from the said date the landlord is entitled to mesne profits or compensation depriving him of the use of the premises.
In this case, an SLP was filed by a tenant who had challenged the order of the Rajasthan High Court that had put a condition to pay Rs. 2,50, 000 as monthly rent to the landlord, to stay the execution of the eviction decree.
The Supreme Court relied on a catena of judgments including Marshall Sons & Co. Ltd. vs Sahi Oretrans Ltd. and Another, to opine that once a decree for possession has been passed and the execution is delayed, depriving the decree-holder to reap the fruits, it is necessary for the Appellate Court to pass appropriate orders fixing reasonable mesne profits which may be equivalent to the market rent required to be paid by a person who is holding over the property.
Cause Title - M/s. Martin & Harris Private Limited & Anr. v. Rajendra Mehta & Ors.
Date of Judgment – July 6, 2022
Coram – Justice Indira Banerjee & Justice JK Maheshwari
5. Section 25 CPC – Scope Cannot Be Extended To Determine Territorial Jurisdiction Of Proceedings Under Transfer Petition – Supreme Court – A single Bench of the Apex Court heard a Transfer Petition and held that there is limited scope vested in the Supreme Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 25 CPC and the same cannot be extended to determine the question of territorial jurisdiction of the proceedings.
In this case, the Petitioner sought the transfer of a case filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the CCH83 LXXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (Commercial Court) at Bengaluru, Karnataka to the Bombay High Court or any other court of competent jurisdiction in Mumbai, Maharashtra. This was in light of the Petitioner having filed an Arbitration Petition before the Bombay High Court under Sections 47 and 48 of the Act for the enforcement of arbitral award dated 27 September 2018 passed by Arbitral Tribunal in ICC International Court of Arbitration in London under the ICC Rules 2012.
Cause Title - Neilan International Co. Ltd. v. Powerica Limited & Ors.
Date of Order – July 6, 2022
Coram – Justice JK Maheshwari