Important Judgments of Supreme Court 8th Feb 2019
1. Tanu Ram Bora V. Promod Ch. Das (D) through Lrs. & Others
Applying the principle of “feeding the grant by estoppel” under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, the Supreme Court granted relief to a party, who was misled to purchase a property by erroneous representation of title by by declaring his title over a property.
The Court held that the intention behind Sectiomn 43 was based on the “principle of estoppel as well as the equity”.
“The intention and objects seems to be that after procuring the money (sale consideration) and transferring the land, thereafter the transferor is estopped from saying that though he has sold/transferred the property/land on payment of sale consideration, still the transfer is not binding to him. That is why Section 43 of the T.P. Act gives an option to the transferee and not the transferor. The intention of Section 43 of the Act seems to be that no body can be permitted to take the benefits of his own wrong”.
SC bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and M R Shah
Application for condonation of delay under proviso to Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962
2. ER. K. ARUMUGAM V/S V. BALAKRISHNAN & ORS.
“In the contempt jurisdiction, the court has to confine itself to the four corners of the order alleged to have been disobeyed.”
The bench referred to judgment in Sudhir Vasudeva v. M. George Ravishekaran, in which the Apex court had observed thus:
“The Courts must not, therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order violation of which is alleged. Only such directions which are explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self-evident ought to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to whether there has been any disobedience or willful violation of the same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor can the plea of equities be considered. The Courts must also ensure that while considering a contempt plea the power available to the Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is not trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental to what has been already expressed should be issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such an exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in the Court, as noticed above.”
The bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice R. Subhash Reddy
For Daily Supreme Court Judgments updates visit
3. Jai Prakash Associates Limited v. Tehri Hydro Development Corporation (THDC) Limited & Anr
Arbitrator cannot award interest on award if the agreement expressly prohibits grant of interest.
4. Deepak Tandon & Anr. V. Rajesh Kumar Gupta
“it is a settled law that if the plea is not taken in the pleadings by the parties and no issue on such plea was, therefore, framed and no finding was recorded either way by the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court, such plea cannot be allowed to be raised by the party for the first time in third Court whether in appeal, revision or writ, as the case may be, for want of any factual foundation and finding”,
Bench: Justices A M Sapre and Dinesh Maheswari
OurLegalWorld as the Media & Marketing Partner for your College Event: Make Your Event Successful: Click here