Justice Nagarathna Disagrees With Justice MR Shah In Two Civil Appeals

On January 13, Supreme Court judge Justice Nagarathna delivered two judgments expressing disagreement with the views expressed by her senior colleague Justice MR Shah in two cases.

Both cases were civil appeals. The first one, C Haridasan versus Anappath Parakkattu Vasudev Kurup was an appeal arising from a judgment of the Kerala High Court which set aside the decree of specific performance of agreement to sell passed in a suit. While Justice Shah allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court judgment, Justice Nagarathna disagreed and affirmed the judgment.

The second case is Manik Majumdar and others versus Dipak Kumar Saha and others - a civil appeal arising out of a judgment passed by the Tripura High Court which affirmed the decree passed in a title suit. Justice Shah set aside the High Court judgment, while Justice Nagarathna affirmed the same.

The disagreement in both cases are largely on the appreciation of evidence and factual circumstances than on points of law.

"I have had the advantage of reading the judgment proposed by His Lordship M.R. Shah, J. However, I am unable to agree with the reasoning as well as the result arrived at by His Lordship. Hence, my separate judgment", Justice Nagarathna stated in the beginning of both her judgments.

In another judgment delivered on the same day, Justice Nagarathna wrote a separate judgment stating reasons for concurring with the view of Justice MR Shah in Old Settlers of Sikkim vs Union of India.

It may be recalled that Justice Nagarathna had delivered two dissenting judgments last week as well. In the demonetisation case(Vivek Narayan Sharma vs Union of India), she was the lone dissenting voice in the 5-judge Constitution Bench. While the majority comprising upheld the decision making process related to demonetisation as legal and valid, Justice Nagarathna held the decision as illegal. 

Also, in the other Constitution Bench judgment delivered last week, in Kaushal Kishor versus State of Uttar Pradesh, Justice Nagarathna dissented from the majority on some aspects. Justice Nagarathna did not agree with the majority view that fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution should be made horizontally applicable against non-state entities and private persons. Justice Nagarathna also differed from the majority view that statement made by a Minister in official capacity is not vicariously attributable to the Government.