1. Employee Who Refuses Promotion Offer Not Entitled To Financial Upgradation Merely Because She Suffered Stagnation : Supreme Court Case Title: Union of India v. Manju Arora Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1 The Supreme Court observed that if a regular promotion is offered but is refused by the employee before becoming entitled to a financial upgradation, she/he shall not be...
Case Title: Union of India v. Manju Arora
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1
The Supreme Court observed that if a regular promotion is offered but is refused by the employee before becoming entitled to a financial upgradation, she/he shall not be entitled to financial upgradation only because he/she has suffered stagnation. The court said that Central Government employees who have refused the offer of regular promotion are disentitled to the financial upgradation benefits envisaged under the O.M. dated 9.8.1999 When an employee refuses the offered promotion, difficulties in manning the higher position might arise which give rise to administrative difficulties as the concerned employee very often refuse promotion in order to continue in his/her own place of posting, the bench comprising Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy observed.
Case Title: I-Pay Clearing Services Private Limited v. ICICI Bank Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 2
The Supreme Court observed that merely because an application is filed under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by a party, it is not always obligatory on the part of the Court to remit the matter to Arbitral Tribunal. "When it prima facie appears that there is a patent illegality in the award itself, by not recording a finding on a contentious issue, in such cases, Court may not accede to the request of a party for giving an opportunity to the Arbitral Tribunal to resume the arbitral proceedings.", the bench comprising Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy observed.
Case Tite: Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Dilip Uttam Jayabhay
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 3
The Supreme Court observed that an acquittal in a criminal trial has no bearing or relevance on the disciplinary proceedings. The standard of proof in both the cases are different and the proceedings operate in different fields and with different objectives, the bench comprising Justices M R Shah and BV Nagarathna observed while setting aside an order passed by Industrial Court which directed Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation to reinstate a driver whose services were terminated by it after holding a disciplinary enquiry. "Therefore, at best even if it is assumed that even the driver of the jeep was also negligent, it can be said to be a case of contributory negligence. That does not mean that the respondent – workman was not at all negligent. Hence, it does not absolve him of the misconduct.", the court said.
Case Title: Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing and Marketing Corporation Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 4
The Supreme Court has rejected the argument raised by the Kerala State Beverages Corporation that it is entitled to deduct the levies made by the state government on it from income. The Beverages Corporation's claim was on the premise that the license given to by the State Government to trade in liquor was not 'exclusive'. Section 40(a)(iib) of the Income Tax Act, which refers to charges paid to the government that are not deductible from income, uses the word "exclusively". The Supreme Court held that this term "exclusively" is not to be understood on the basis of the number of undertakings involved. A bench comprising Justice Subhash Reddy and Justice Hrishikesh Roy observed that, "The aspect of exclusivity under Section 40(a)(iib) is not to be considered with a narrow interpretation, which will defeat the very intention of Legislature. The aspect of 'exclusivity' under S. 40(a)(iib) has to be viewed from the nature of undertaking on which levy is imposed and not on the number of undertakings on which the levy is imposed."
Case Title: Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. v. Maheshbhai Tinabhai Rathod
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 5
The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered last month (16th December 2021), held that Section 5 of Limitation Act cannot be applied to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed under Section 34(3) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In this case, petition under Section 34 was filed before the High Court with a delay of 185 days beyond the time period allowed under Section 34 (3) of the Act. The singe judge refused to condone the delay. In appeal, the Division Bench condoned it and directed to place it before the Single bench for admission. This order was assailed before the Supreme Court. "The scope available for condonation of delay being self contained in the proviso to Section 34(3) and Section 5 of Limitation Act not being applicable has been taken note by this Court in its earlier decisions, which we may note.."
Case Title: Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (RMGB) v. Ramesh Chandra Meena
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 6
The Supreme Court observed there is no absolute right in favour of the delinquent employee to be represented in the departmental proceedings through the agent of his choice and the same can be restricted by the employer. In this case, High Court has permitted the delinquent employee who is facing disciplinary proceedings to represent through ex-¬employee of the Bank. It was observed that the Regulation 44 only restricts representation by a legal practitioner, and even that too is permissible of course with the leave to the competent authority, and there is no complete or absolute bar even on engaging a lawyer, the employee cannot be restrained from availing services of retired employee of a Bank.
The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna noted that the Regulation neither restricts nor permits availing the services of any outsider and / or ex¬-employee of the Bank as DR and to that extent Regulation is silent. But it noticed that the Clause 8 of the Handbook Procedure specifically provides that DR should be serving official / employee from the Bank.
Case Title : Small Industries Development Bank of India v. M/s Sibco Investment Pvt Ltd
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 7
A Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Subhash Reddy and Justice Hrishikesh Roy, while presiding over a matter regarding delayed payments of principal amount and interest accrued on bonds issued by SIDBI, stated that "RBI has wide supervisory powers over financial institutions like SIDBI, in furtherance of which, any direction issued by the RBI, deriving power from the RBI Act or the Banking Regulation Act is statutorily binding. The Apex Court bench while looking into the question of whether the facsimile issued by RBI to the appellant (SIDBI) was a directive or a suggestion. The bench looked at S. 35A of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 which talks about RBI's powers to give directions to banking companies and stated that "It is not necessary for RBI to mention a specific provision before issuing directions for it to have statutory consequences. All that is required is the authority under the law, to issue such a direction. Hence, it is undisputed that any direction by the RBI is compelling and enforceable similarly like the provisions of the RBI Act by its very nature." Thus, the bench concluded that the RBI's communication in question was a direction with appropriate statutory backing traceable to S. 45MB of the RBI Act and S. 35A of the Banking Regulation Act.
Case Title: Ellora Paper Mills Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 8
The Supreme Court held that an arbitral tribunal constituted as per an arbitration clause before the 2015 amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 will lose its mandate if it violates the neutrality clause under Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule, which were incorporated through the 2015 amendment. The Court held that an arbitration clause that prescribes appointment of arbitrators contrary to the amended provision of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot be given effect. "...when the arbitration clause is found to be foul with the amended provision, the appointment of the arbitrator would be beyond the pale of the arbitration agreement, empowering the Court to appoint such an arbitrator as may be permissible.That would be the effect of the non-obstante clause contained in sub-section (5) of Section 12 and the other party cannot insist upon the appointment of the arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement", the Supreme Court observed in the case Ellora Paper Mills Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh.
Case Title: M/s. Durga Welding Works v. Chief Engineer, Railway Electrification, Allahabad And Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 9
The Supreme Court has held that a party to the arbitration agreement can appoint an arbitrator even after an Arbitration Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the other party before the High Court for appointment of an arbitrator if the party has not been given due notice of the same. A bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka dismissed an appeal filed to assail the order the Orissa High Court, which had dismissed an Arbitration Petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Act") for the appointment of an arbitrator, since the appellant himself had selected an arbitrator; filed its statement of claim and the Arbitral Tribunal had passed ex-parte arbitral award almost three years before the Respondents were put to notice of the Arbitration Petition filed before the High Court.
Case Title: Bhadar Ram (D) v. Jassa Ram
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 10
The Supreme Court observed that a person belonging to Scheduled Caste /Scheduled Tribe in relation to his original State of which he is permanent or an ordinarily resident cannot be deemed to be so in relation to any other State on his migration to that State. The court noted that as per Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, there is a restriction on sale, gift or bequest by a member of Scheduled Caste in favour of a person, who is not a member of Scheduled Caste. This provision is to protect a member of the Scheduled Caste belonging to the very State he belongs to, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna observed. It is to be noted that as per Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, there is a restriction on sale, gift or bequest by a member of Scheduled Caste in favour of a person, who is not a member of Scheduled Caste. Looking to the object and purpose of such a provision, it can be said that the said provision is to protect a member of the Scheduled Caste belonging to the very State he belongs i.e., in the present case the State of Rajasthan. Being a Scheduled Caste in the State of Punjab whether the sale transaction in favour of the appellant original defendant could have been saved from the bar under Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 is now not res integra.
Case Title: Shobhabai Narayan Shinde v. The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik And Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 11
The Supreme Court held that no statutory appeal lies against an order passed under Section 14B(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, refusing to disqualify the Sarpanch or Member of Panchayat. The Apex Court clarified that Section 14B(2) of the Act does not provide for an appeal mechanism for the orders passed under Section 14B(1). A bench comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and C.T. Ravikumar allowed an appeal filed assailing the order of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, wherein the order of disqualification passed by the Divisional Commissioner under Section 14B(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 ("Act") setting aside the orders of the Collector under Section 14B(1) was affirmed. The Apex Court set aside the order of the Divisional Commissioner as non-est in law, and restored the orders passed by the Collector rejecting the applications seeking disqualification of the appellants.
12. Tribunal Decisions Can Be Scrutinized Only By A Jurisdictional High Court : Supreme Court
Case Title: Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 12
The Supreme Court has held that any decision of a tribunal (inclusive of one passed under S. 25 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985) can only be scrutinized by a High Court which has territorial jurisdiction over the tribunal in question. "All decisions of tribunals created under Article 323A and 323B of the Constitution will be subject to the scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned tribunal falls", the Court referred to the dictum laid down by the Constitution Bench in L Chandrakumar decision. The Supreme Court faulted the approach of the High Court by noting that it was contrary to the dictum of the Constitution Bench in L Chandrakumar. The judgment authored by Justice Ravikumar held : "When once a Constitution Bench of this court declared the law that "all decisions of Tribunals created under Article 323A and Article 323B of the Constitution will be subject to the scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned Tribunal falls", it is impermissible to make any further construction on the said issue. The law thus declared by the Constitution Bench cannot be revisited by a Bench of lesser quorum or for that matter by the High Courts by looking into the bundle of facts to ascertain whether they would confer territorial jurisdiction to the High Court within the ambit of Article 226(2) of the Constitution."
Case Title: State of UP v. Mcdowell and Company Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 13
The Supreme Court observed that a fire accident cannot be said to be an 'act of God' if it did not happen due to the operation of any forces of nature. "When nothing of any external natural force had been in operation in violent or sudden manner, the event of the fire in question could be referable to anything but to an act of God in legal parlance.", the court said in a judgment delivered on Thursday (6 January 2022). In 2003, a fire incident took place in a godown of the distillery of the Mcdowell & Co. As many as 35,642 cases of Indian Made Foreign Liquor of different brands got destroyed in this fire. After receiving the initial reports that the fire possibly took place due to short circuit of electricity, the Revenue department proposed to recover the amount of excise duty lost, due to such destruction of liquor, from the company. Allowing the writ petition filed by the Company, the Allahabad High Court quashed the demand notice issued by the Department.
Case Title: Ram Ratan v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 14
In a judgement delivered recently, the Supreme Court through a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and Justices A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli clarified two important positions of the law relating to the offence of Robbery under the Indian Penal Code. The question that came up for the Court's consideration was whether the charge under Section 397 of IPC would hold in case the firearm had not been put to use. The judgement authored by Justice Bopanna notes that in order to meet the ingredients of Section 397 of the IPC, first, it is not necessary for the offender to have literally used the weapon for the purpose it serves. Even showcasing the same to create fear in the mind of the victim would be sufficient. The Court held: "It is clear that the use of the weapon to constitute the offence under Section 397 IPC does not require that the 'offender' should actually fire from the firearm or actually stab if it is a knife or a dagger but the mere exhibition of the same, brandishing or holding it openly to threaten and create fear or apprehension in the mind of the victim is sufficient."
Case Title : Gayabai Digambar Puri (Died) v. Executive Engineer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 15
The Supreme Court observed that if a person is deprived of possession of his property on account of acquisition of land, he should be paid compensation immediately. If the same is not paid to him forthwith, he would be entitled to interest on the compensation amount from the date of taking possession of the land till the date of payment, the court said. In this case, the issue was regarding the liability to pay interest whether commences from the date of taking possession or only from the date of award. The Reference Court had directed that the interest has to be paid from 04.04.1997 when possession was taken until 03.04.1998 for the first year at the rate of 9 per cent per annum and thereafter at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from 04.04.1998 till the date of payment, i.e. 08.09.2004. This was altered by the High Court.
Case Title: Asst. Director Enforcement Directorate v. Dr. VC Mohan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 16
The Supreme Court observed that, once the prayer for anticipatory bail is made in connection with offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the underlying principles and rigors of Section 45 of the PMLA Act must get triggered although the application is under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is the duty of court to examine the jurisdictional facts including the mandate of Section 45 of the PMLA Act, which must be kept in mind, the bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar observed while setting aside an order passed by the High Court of Telangana by which it granted anticipatory bail to an accused in connection with offence concerning the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Case Title : Neil Aurelio Nunes and others v. Union of India
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 17
The Supreme Court has allowed the commencement of counselling process for NEET-PG and NEET-UG for 2021-22 admissions on the basis of the existing 27% quota for Other Backward Classes (OBC) and 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections(EWS) in the All India Quota. The Court upheld the constitutionality of 27% OBC reservation. As regards criteria to determine EWS(Rupees 8 lakhs gross annual income cut-off), the Court allowed the existing criteria to operate for the current admission year so as to not delay the admission process further. However, future application of EWS criteria, which has been stipulated in the Office Memorandum of July 2019, will be subject to final outcome of the petitions.
18. Arbitrator Can Grant Post-Award Interest On The Interest Amount Awarded: Supreme Court
Case Title: UHL Power Company Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 18
The Supreme Court observed that post-award interest can be granted by an Arbitrator on the interest amount awarded. In this case, in terms of the award dated 05th June, 2005, the Sole Arbitrator had awarded a sum of ₹26,08,89,107.35 in favour of UHL Power Company Limited towards expenses claimed along with pre-claim interest capitalized annually, on the expenses so incurred. Further, compound interest was awarded in favour of UHL @ 9% per annum till the date of claim and in the event the awarded amount is not realized within a period of six months from the date of making the award, future interest was awarded @ 18% per annum on the principal claim with interest. The court, however, agreed with the view expressed by the Appellate Court that the Single Judge (while considering Section 34 petition to set aside Arbitration Award) committed a gross error in re-appreciating the findings returned by the Arbitral Tribunal and taking an entirely different view in respect of the interpretation of the relevant clauses of the Implementation Agreement governing the parties.
Case Title: Jasdeep Singh Jassu v. State of Punjab
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 19
A mere common intention per se may not attract Section 34 IPC, sans an action in furtherance, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment delivered in a criminal appeal on 7 Jan 2022. In this case, the appellants were convicted under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) with life sentence. They filed appeal challenging the invocation of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to convict them with along with other accused. The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh agreed with the submission on behalf of the appellant that the evidence available is not sufficient enough to hold that Section 34 IPC is attracted as against them. There is no evidence at all on record to hold that A3 and A4 were aware of the fact that A1 was having a gun with him, the court said.
Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi And Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 20
The Supreme Court held that the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board had correctly applied the method of 'Normalisation' of marks at the stage of Written Examination as well as the Final merit list in the process of selection of candidates for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, Platoon Commander and Fire Officer. A Bench comprising Justices U.U. Lalit and Vineet Saran allowed the appeals filed challenging the order of the Special Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, which had quashed the results of the examination of police officials in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The bench held that 'normalisation' was appropriately applied by the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board ("Board") at the stage of written examination.
Case Title: Arjab Jena@ Arjab Kumar Jena v. Utsa Jena @ Pattnaik
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 21
The Supreme Court observed that taking on record the comments made during the course of mediation or settlement proceedings impedes conciliation and impinges on the principle of confidentiality. While disapproving the observations made in the order dated April 20, 2021 passed by the Orissa High Court, bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi in its order said, "We disapprove the observations made in the impugned order which refer to the comments made during the course of the mediation or settlement proceedings. The High Court should not have taken the aforesaid comments on record, as the same would impede conciliation and is contrary to and impinges on the principle of confidentiality. Accordingly, the paragraphs 11 and 12 of the impugned order would be erased from record."
Case Title: Mahendra vs State Of MP
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 22
The Supreme Court reiterated that it is an essential condition of an unlawful assembly that its membership must be five or more. Less than five persons can be charged under Section 149 only if the prosecution has a case that the persons before the Court and other numbering in all more than five composed an unlawful assembly, these others being persons not identified and un¬armed, the bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka said. It may be noticed that the essential ingredients of Section 149 are that the offence must have been committed by any member of an unlawful assembly, and Section 141 makes it clear that it is only where five or more persons constituted an assembly that an unlawful assembly is born, provided, of course, the other requirements of the said section as to the common object of the persons composing that assembly are satisfied. To say in other words, it is an essential condition of an unlawful assembly that its membership must be five or more. At the same time, it may not be necessary that five or more persons necessarily be brought before the Court and convicted. Less than five persons may be charged under Section 149 if the prosecution case is that the persons before the Court and other numbering in all more than five composed an unlawful assembly, these others being persons not identified and un¬armed.
23. Right Of Preemption A Maligned, Feudal, Archaic And Outmoded Law, Reiterates Supreme Court
Case Title: Punyadeo Sharma vs Kamla Devi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 23
The Supreme Court observed that the right of pre-emption is a maligned law and are characterised as 'feudal, archaic and outmoded'. In this case, the appellants are purchasers of the land in question vide sale deed dated 9.2.1990. The sale deed was presented for registration but the registration was completed on 7.1.1992. The proceedings for pre-emption of the land were initiated in terms of Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1 19611 on 31.3.1992. The bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat held that "any other Court" is wide enough to include the Constitutional Courts i.e. the High Court and the Supreme Court.
24. NCLT Must Pass Reasonable Order For Fees & Expenses Of Resolution Professional : Supreme Court
Case Title: Devarajan Raman v Bank of India Limited
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 24
The Supreme Court has held that the NCLT/NCLAT must make a reasonable assessment of the fees and expenses payable to the Interim Resolution Profession and cannot pass an order in an ad-hoc manner. The Court held that an order assigning reasons must be passed in respect of fees of resolution professional; otherwise, it will amount to abdication. A judgement delivered by a Bench of Justices D.Y.Chandrachud and A.S.Bopanna, while considering a dispute relating to the payment of costs and expense incurred by a Resolution Professional, set aside impugned order and judgement of NCLAT and NCLT that awarded an ad-hoc amount to the Interim Resolution Professional without any consideration of the actual amount due as per technical and financial bid.
Case Title: S. Amutha v. The Government Of Tamil Nadu & Ors
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 25
The Supreme Court recently quashed a detention order after noting that the authority considered the representation of the detenu after a long delay. The Court observed that in the matter of considering representation made against detention order, the Competent Authority is duty-bound to do so with "utmost despatch". The bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar was considering a special leave petition assailing order dated November 18, 2021 passed by the Madras High Court, Bench at Madurai ("impugned order").
Case Title: Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. v. Stanford Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. SLP(C) No. 17298 of 2021
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 26
The Supreme Court has observed that the period of limitation which could have been condoned by a Court or a Tribunal is also excluded from the limitation period up to 07.10.2021 in view of the orders passed suo motu by the Top Court to extend limitation period in the wake of COVID-19. "Even as held by this Court in the subsequent orders even the period of limitation which could have been extended and/or condoned by the Tribunal/Court is excluded and/or extended even up to 07.10.2021", observed the Supreme Court. Holding so, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of Madras High Court, which relied on its direction dated 08.03.2020 in Suo Moto Writ (Civil) No 3 of 2020 titled In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation to condone the delay in filing written statements in a commercial suit.
Case Title: Sukriti & Ors v CBSE & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 27
The Supreme Court has struck down Clause 28 of CBSE Policy which held that marks in the later (improvement) exams will be considered final for the assessment of Class 12 exams for the last academic year. The Bench further directed that the CBSE shall provide the option to the candidate to accept the better of the two marks obtained for the final declaration of the results. The Supreme Court in December had asked the Central Board of Secondary Education(CBSE) to reconsider its policy of treating the marks in the improvement exams of Class 12 as final over the marks tabulated as per the Standard Formula.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Bhagwan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 28
The Supreme Court observed that the employees of the autonomous bodies cannot claim, as a matter of right, the same service benefits on par with the Government employees. The State Government and the Autonomous Board/Body cannot be put on par and the employees of the latter are governed by their own Service Rules and service conditions, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed. The court also observed that interference by the Judiciary in a policy decision having financial implications and/or having a cascading effect is not at all warranted and justified.
Case Title: Jayaben V. Tejas Kanubhai Zala & Anr. | Jayaben V. Jaysukhbhai Devrajbhai Radadiya & Anr.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 29
The State of Gujarat and its Director of Prosecution came under the criticism of the Supreme Court for not filing appeal against a High Court order granting bail to the accused in a case where a Dalit man was brutally murdered while he was collecting scrap outside a factory. A bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna noted that the High Court's bail order was "most perfunctory and casual", but the State did not appeal against it. Aggrieved with the High Court order, the complainant(the widow of the victim) filed appeal before the Supreme Court. While allowing the appeal and setting aside the High Court's judgement in Jayaben V. Tejas Kanubhai Zala & Anr, the bench said, "By not filing the appeals by the State against the impugned judgments and orders releasing the accused on bail in such a serious matter, the State has failed to protect the rights of the victim. We are of the opinion that this was the fit case where the State ought to have preferred the appeals challenging the orders passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail. In criminal matters the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of the social interest of the community at large and so it is for the State to take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interest of the community to book."
Case Title: Mahavir Arya Vs State Govt. NCT Of Delhi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 30
The Supreme Court observed that an application seeking exemption from surrendering is not required to be filed along with a special leave petitions against cancellation of bail orders. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, while considering one such case, noted that a large number of such applications for exemptions are routinely filed when there is no need to adopt such a procedure at all. "The officers of the Registry must know the Supreme Court Rules like the back of one's hand. Order XXII Rule 5, applies only to cases where the petitioner is 'sentenced to a term of imprisonment' and it cannot be confused with simple orders of cancellation of bail", the judge said.
Case Title: In Re Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 31
Taking note of the surge in COVID-19 cases across the country, the Supreme Court has ordered the extension of limitation period for filing of cases and applications in courts and tribunals. "The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings", the Court ordered. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice Surya Kant passed the order on an application filed by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) in the suo motu case In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra v. Shri Vile Parle Kelvani Mandal And Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 32
The Supreme Court has held that Charitable Education Institutions are not entitled to the exemption from payment of electricity duty post 08.08.2016 as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Electricity Duty Act, 2016. A bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna allowed the appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra assailing the order of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, which had granted the educational institutions run by a public trust the right to exemption from paying electricity duty under the Maharashtra Electricity Duty Act, 2016.
Case Title: Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 33
In a judgment delivered the Supreme Court summarized the circumstances under which an appeal would be entertained by it from an order of acquittal. The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna also summarized circumstances under which the Supreme Court may entertain an appeal against an order of acquittal and pass an order of conviction The Court said that it is only in rarest of rare cases, where the High Court, on an absolutely wrong process of reasoning and a legally erroneous and perverse approach to the facts of the case, ignoring some of the most vital facts, has acquitted the accused, that the same may be reversed by this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution
Case Title: Rajendra Bhagat vs State of Jharkhand
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 34
Emphasizing the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a man under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'). The Apex Court bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath opined that maintaining the conviction of the appellant of the offence under Section 498-A IPC would not be securing the ends of justice. With such conviction being maintained and the appellant losing his job, the family would again land itself in financial distress which may ultimately operate adverse to the harmony and happy conjugal life of the parties, the bench said.
Case Title: Suresh Kankra vs State Of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 35
The Supreme Court observed that a Judicial Magistrate is required to be conscious of the consequences while passing an Order under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It being a judicial order, relevant materials are expected to be taken note of, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh said while quashing an FIR registered pursuant to an order passed by a Magistrate. In this case, an FIR alleging an offence of rape was lodged against the petitioner. Before the High Court, he contended that the entire complaint is fostered against the petitioner who is a retired person by his estranged sister-in-law out of the family dispute. That he is not even the resident of that area and a similar complaint was given by her against his son which was closed on investigation as false and motivated. That he was actually attending the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat at the time of the alleged incident and a number of litigations going on between the parties. The High Court refused to quash the FIR holding that facts being in the realm of dispute, discretion under Section 482 CrPC cannot be exercised.
Case Title: Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 36
The Supreme Court observed that the failure of a builder to obtain occupation certificate is a deficiency in service under Consumer Protection Act 1986.The flat purchasers are well within their rights as 'consumers' to pray for compensation as a recompense for the consequent liability such as payment of higher taxes and water charges by the owners arising from the lack of an occupancy certificate, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna observed.
37. Section 304B IPC- Demand Of Money For Construction Of A House Is A 'Dowry Demand': Supreme Court
Case Title: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jogendra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 37
The Supreme Court observed that demand of money for construction of a house is a 'dowry demand' to attract offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The word "Dowry" ought to be ascribed an expansive meaning so as to encompass any demand made on a woman, whether in respect of a property or a valuable security of any nature, the bench of CJI NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli said.
Case Title: Haryana Tourism Limited vs M/s Kandhari Beverages Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 38
The Supreme Court observed that a High Court cannot enter into the merits of the claim in an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In this case, the arbitrator directed a party to pay a sum of Rs. 9.5 lakhs.The other party filed an objection petition before Additional District Judge, Chandigarh under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act against the award passed by the arbitrator. The said petition was dismissed. Thereafter, a further appeal before the High Court under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act was filed. The said appeal was allowed by the High Court which considered the merits of the claim and has quashed and set aside the award passed by the arbitrator as well as the order passed by Additional District Judge, Chandigarh.
Case Title: Garment Craft vs Prakash Chand Goel
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 39
Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not to correct a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment delivered on Tuesday (11 Jan 2022). The bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi observed that the power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to.
Case Title: Meera v. State By the Inspector of Police Thiruvotriyur Police Station Chennai
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 40
Observing that when cruelty is committed by one woman against another woman the offence becomes more serious, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a mother-in-law for the offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The mother-in-law was found guilty of having committed cruelty against the daughter-in-law when her husband was abroad. "Being a lady, the appellant, who was the mother-in-law, ought to have been more sensitive vis-à-vis her daughter-in-law. When an offence has been committed by a woman by meting out cruelty to another woman, i.e., the daughter-in-law, it becomes a more serious offence. If a lady, i.e., the mother-in-law herein does not protect another lady, the other lady, i.e., daughter-in-law would become vulnerable", observed a bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna.
Case Title: Union of India And Anr. v. Shaikh Istiyaq Ahmed And Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 41
The Supreme Court has delivered a notable judgment laying down the principles for repatriation of prisoners as per the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003. The Court discussed the issue whether the sentence imposed by a foreign court on an Indian convict, who has been repatriated to India, can be higher than the sentence for a similar offence in India. The Court held that the duration of the sentence will be governed by the agreement of transfer between the foreign country and India. The Indian Government can modify the sentence of the foreign court only if such sentence is "incompatible with Indian law". However, the Court added that merely because the foreign court's sentence is higher than that under the Indian law, it does not become "incompatible with Indian law". "Incompatibility" herein would signify being contrary to the fundamental laws of India.
Case Title: The Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. Versus The Registrar, Cooperative Societies And Others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 42
The Supreme Court has held that an amendment that has retrospective applicability and takes away the benefit which was already available to an employee under the existing set of rules would divest the employee of his vested/accrued rights and thus, will violate the rights guaranteed under A.14 and A.21 of the Constitution. "...if the employee who had already been promoted or fixed in a particular pay scale, if that is being taken away by the impugned scheme of rules retrospectively, that certainly will take away the vested/accrued right of the incumbent which may not be permissible and may be violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution", the Court observed.
Case Title: Lawyers Voice v. State of Punjab
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 43
The Supreme Court has appointed former Supreme Court judge Justice Indu Malhotra to head the Committee to enquire into the security lapse which happened during the visit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Punjab on January 5. The Court opined that the "questions cannot be left to one-sided enquiry" and a judicially trained mind needs to oversee the probe. The Director-General of the National Investigation Agency or his nominee not below the rank of IG, Director General of Police of Union Territory of Chandigarh, ADGP (Security) of Punjab and the Registrar General of the Punjab and Haryana High Court (who has seized the records relating to PM's visit) are the other members of the Committee.
Case Title: Hardev Singh v. Prescribed Authority, Kashipur And Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 44
The Supreme Court held that if subletting is in derogation of the terms of the Lease Deed, then the sub-lessee continues to be the ostensible tenure holder of land and the lessee the real holder for the purposes of Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. A Bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari dismissed the appeals filed challenging the order of the Uttarakhand High Court, which refused to extend the benefits of independent tenure holder to sub-lessees as the subletting itself was in violation of the pre-conditions stipulated in the Government Lease Deed.
Case Title: Phoenix ARC Private Limited v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 45
The Supreme Court observed that a writ petition challenging proceedings under SARFAESI Act initiated by private banks/Asset Reconstruction Companies is not maintainable. "If proceedings are initiated under the SARFAESI Act and/or any proposed action is to be taken and the borrower is aggrieved by any of the actions of the private bank/bank/ARC, borrower has to avail the remedy under the SARFAESI Act and no writ petition would lie and/or is maintainable and/or entertainable.", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna said. The court said that the activity of the bank/ARC (of lending the money to the borrowers) cannot be said to be as performing a public function which is normally expected to be performed by the State authorities.
Case Title: Shri Kshetrimayum Maheshkumar Singh vs The Manipur University & Ors
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 46
The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal against Manipur High Court's order upholding the decision of Manipur University to reduce reservation in admission for Scheduled Caste candidates from 15% to 2%, OBC quota from 27% to 17% and increase for Scheduled Tribes candidates from 7.5% to 31%, in terms of amendment to the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act 2006. A Bench comprising Justice Nageswara Rao and Justice Hima Kohli has issued the direction in an appeal challenging Manipur High Court's order which upheld the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, in 2012 under which the Manipur University was required to follow the reservation norms of 2% for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste [SC], 31% for the Scheduled Tribes [ST] and 17% for the Other Backward Classes [OBC] for purposes of admission in the University.
Case Title: Government Of NCT Of Delhi Through Its Secretary & Ors. V. Om Prakash & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 47
The Supreme Court has observed that once the High Court has passed an order of lapsing acquisition proceedings by virtue of Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("Act"), landowners cannot revert back on the plea that they are entitled to seek release of land in terms of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian was considering a Special Leave Petition assailing Delhi High Court's order dated September 23, 2014 ("impugned judgement"). In the impugned judgement, the High Court had allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents holding that acquisition proceedings stand lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Act.
48. Rights Of Parents Irrelevant When Court Decides Custody Of Their Child: Supreme Court
Case Title: Vasudha Sethi vs Kiran V. Bhaskar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 48
The Supreme Court has observed that the rights of the parents are irrelevant when a Court decides the issue of custody of their minor child. The issue of custody of a minor, whether in a petition seeking habeas corpus or in a custody petition, has to be decided on the touchstone of the principle that the welfare of a minor is of paramount consideration, the bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka observed. In this case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court issued several directions while allowing a petition for habeas corpus filed by the husband seeking custody of the minor child. The mother was directed to return to USA along with minor child on or before 30.09.2021. Challenging this order, the mother approached the Apex Court.
Case Title: Sharada Dayadhish Shetty v. The Director, CSIR-NCL And Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 49
The Supreme has Court held any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research ("CSIR") is public premises under Section 2(e)(2)(ii) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. "A perusal of the written statement filed by the respondent before the District Judge shows that it was averred that National Chemical Laboratory (NCL) is a constituent laboratory of CSIR. It is an autonomous body under the auspices of Department of Science and Industrial Research, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India. Hon'ble the Prime Minister of India is the ex- officio President and the Minister-in-charge of the Ministry or Department dealing with CSIR is the ex-officio Vice President of CSIR", the Court noted. A bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian refused to entertain an appeal challenging the order passed by the Bombay High Court, which chose not to interfere with an eviction order passed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 for a premises belonging to CSIR.
Case Title: Disabled Rights Group v Union of India
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 50
A Bench of Justices D.Y.Chandrachud and A.S.Bopanna has directed the University Grants Commission to finalize guidelines for the inspection of educational institutions and commence inspection work proactively. The Bench was hearing a Miscellaneous Application arising out of the Apex Court's judgement dated 15.12.2017 - in Disabled Rights Group & Another v Union of India- wherein the Court had accepted the suggestions by the petitioner that educational institutions must ensure proper infrastructure in including special classrooms, sports facilities, libraries, laboratories, teaching methods, recreational facilities etc.
Case Title: State of Orissa & Ors v. Prasanta Kumar Swain
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 51
While considering a SLP assailing Orissa High Court's order, the Supreme Court recently deprecated the High Court's action of disposing a writ petition without applying its mind to the grounds or challenge of submission.While setting aside the High Court's judgement and remitting the proceedings back for a fresh decision, the bench in State of Orissa & Ors v. Prasanta Kumar Swain, the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna observed, "Ex facie, there has been no application of mind by the High Court to the grounds of challenge or to the submissions. In fact, the concluding line of the order of the High Court indicates that the decision will not be treated as a precedent. This was an inappropriate manner of disposing of a substantive petition under Article 226 of the Constitution since the High Court is duty bound to apply its mind to whether the judgment of the Tribunal is sustainable on facts and law."
Case Title: Deepak Sharma vs State of Haryana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 52
Taking custody of jewellery for safety cannot constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the Supreme Court observed. In this case, an FIR was filed by the complainant against her husband and in-laws under Sections 323, 34, 406, 420, 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Complainant's brother in law (who was employed in Texas in the United States of America) was arrayed as one of the accused. The Apex Court was considering an appeal against the order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which dismissed an application filed by him for permission to travel back to the United States of America.
Case Title: Nagar Panchayat, Kymore v. Hanuman Prasad Dwivedi
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 53
Holding that a stale claim cannot be revived by a representation, the Supreme Court has set aside a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which directed the reinstatement of an employee with back-wages. The Court noted that in an earlier proceeding, the High Court had upheld the termination of the services of the employee for misconduct. Fifteen years later, the employee filed a representation seeking reinstatement, and the High Court directed the consideration of the same, leading to a second round of litigation which resulted in the impuged judgment delivered on September 1, 2020.
Case Title: M/s. Premier Sea Foods Exim Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Caravel Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 54
The Supreme Court has held that a reference to Section 37 instead of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would not matter as long as the jurisdictional court has the power to adjudicate the appeal. "Even if the appeal under Section 37 would not be maintainable, objection/appeal under Section 34 would be maintainable. Reference to wrong provision, as long as power exists would not matter", the Court observed. A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi allowed an appeal filed challenging the order of the Madras High Court, wherein the arbitrator's order rejecting the application of the appellant to revive its counterclaim was affirmed.
55. Cryptic & Casual Bail Orders Without Relevant Reasons Liable To Be Set Aside : Supreme Court
Case Title: Manoj Kumar Khokhar v. State of Rajasthan And Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 55
The Supreme Court held that bail cannot be granted by a cryptic and causal order without considering the material aspects of the case. The Apex Court further clarified that even if no new circumstances have developed after the grant of bail, the State is entitled to seek cancellation of bail, if it had been granted ignoring material aspects which establish a prima facie case against the accused. A Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna allowed the appeal filed challenging the order of the Rajasthan High Court granting bail to the accused without assigning reasons for the same.
Case Title: M/S Mangilal Vishnoi vs National Insurance Company Ltd, CA 291/2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 56
The Supreme Court has held that denying the insurance coverage under the Employees Compensation Act 1923 for the reason that deceased was engaged as a "helper" and not a "cleaner" is wholly unjustified, considering the absence of any clear demarcation of duties and the fact that the terms "Helper" and "Cleaner" are interchangeably used. A Bench comprising Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V Ramasubramanian observed that the High Court has accepted the Insurance Company's appeal on a "make-believe argument that Cleaner or Helper engaged by the employer are engaged in two different duties and that a Helper is not covered by the insurance policy".
Case Title: Devas Multimedia Private Ltd vs Antrix Corporation Ltd and another
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 57
The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Devas Multimedia challenging the orders passed by the NCLT and NCLAT allowing the winding up on a petition filed by ISRO's commercial arm Antrix Corporation Ltd. A bench comprising Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V Ramasubramanian dismissed the appeals filed by Devas Multimedia and its shareholder Devas Employees Mauritius Pvt Ltd. The Court undertook a detailed analysis of Rule 5 of the Companies (Winding up) Rules, 2020 and notes that the purpose of advertisement is to provide an opportunity to all the stakeholders to either support or oppose the proceedings and to serve as a warning to all those dealing with the company so that they would know there there is an element of risk involved. The Court also notes that advertisement has been said to cause more harm to the company than the benefits it brings.
Case Title: Seethakathi Trust Madras v. Krishnaveni
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 58
The Supreme Court has observed that a decree for obtaining specific performance of a decree cannot be obtained behind the back of a bona fide purchaser especially when the transaction has taken place prior to the institution of the suit for specific performance. A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, setting aside a judgment of the Madras High Court, observed: "...it is not possible for us to accept that a decree could have been obtained behind the back of a bona fide purchaser, more so when the transaction had taken place prior to the institution of the suit for specific performance".
Case Title: B.L. Kashyap And Sons Ltd. v. JMS Steels And Power Corporation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 59
The grant of leave to defend (with or without conditions) is the ordinary rule; and denial of leave to defend is an exception, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment in which it discussed the scope of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The bench comprising Justices Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari observed that a prayer for leave to defend is to be denied in such cases where the defendant has practically no defence and is unable to give out even a semblance of triable issues before the Court.
Case Title: Bhagwani v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 60
The Supreme Court commuted death sentence awarded on a man convicted of rape and murder of eleven year old girl. The court, however, took into account 'the barbaric and savage manner in which the offences of rape and murder were committed', sentenced him to life imprisonment for a period of 30 years during which he shall not be granted remission. Bhagwani was convicted and sentenced to death by the Trial Court under Sections 363, 366A, 364, 346, 376D, 376A, 302, 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5(g) (m) read with Section 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the appeal filed by him and confirmed the death sentence.
61. Subordinate Legislation/Statutory Rules Also A 'Law' Under Section 23 Contract Act: Supreme Court
Case Title: G.T. Girish v. Y. Subba Raju (D)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 61
The Supreme Court held that Subordinate Legislation in the form of Statutory Rules is a 'law' under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. Section 23 of the Contract Act states that the consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless it is forbidden by law. The court was considering an appeal that arose from a specific performance suit in which the defendant pointed out that Bangalore Rules of Allotment, 1972 Rule 18(2) had an embargo against alienation for a period of ten years and therefore the contract is not lawful. The issue raised was whether the enforcement of an agreement to sell expressly or impliedly, lead to palpably defeat this Rule.
Case Title : Bank of Baroda and another v. MBL Infrastructures Ltd and others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 62
The Supreme Court has delivered an important judgment interpreting the scope of Section 29A(h) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Section 29A IBC specifies the categories of persons who are not eligible to be resolution applicants. Sub-section (h) of Section 29A refers to persons whose guarantees stand invoked by the creditors of the corporate debtor. The exact wordings of the provision are as follows : "has executed a guarantee in favour of a creditor in respect of a corporate debtor against which an application for insolvency resolution made by such creditor has been admitted under this Code and such guarantee has been invoked by the creditor and remains unpaid in full or part".
Case Title: Atlanta Limited Thr. Its Managing Director v. Union of India Represented By Chief Engineer Military Engineering Service
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 63
The Supreme Court reiterated that the Appellate Court exercising power under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 ought not to reassess or re appreciate evidence or examine the sufficiency of the evidence. The Apex Court also held that the arbitral award ought not to be challenged on the ground that the arbitrator had drawn his own conclusion or had failed to appreciate facts. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India, N.V. Ramana and Justices A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli allowed an appeal assailing the order passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, which had set aside the order and decree of the Single Judge upholding the arbitral award to the extent that it granted money for idle hire charges and value of tools and machineries.
Case Title: Sushil Kumar vs State of Haryana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 64
In judicial review proceedings, the Courts are concerned with the decision-making process and not the decision itself, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment this week. In this case, the appellant, a head constable, had approached the High Court seeking retrospective promotion with effect from 21.01.2004. His grievance was that he should have been promoted in the year 2004 itself and that the delay in appointing him in 2008 is illegal and arbitrary. The Single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that selection is not a matter of right. Writ appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench. In appeal, it was contended that the Inspector General of Police (IG) has no power to interfere with the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police (SP). That when the SP has forwarded the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), the IG does not act as the appellate authority and cannot substitute his decision to that of the DP.
Case Title: Renaissance Hotel Holding Inc v. B. Vijaya Sai
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 65
The Supreme Court observed that, in an action for infringement, when the trade mark of the defendant is identical with the registered trade mark of the plaintiff and that the goods or services of the defendant are identical with the goods or services covered by registered trade mark, the Court shall presume that it is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public. In an infringement action, an injunction would be issued as soon as it is proved that the defendant is improperly using the trademark of the plaintiff, the bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna observed.
Case Title: Indian Overseas Bank And Ors. v. Om Prakash Lal Srivastava
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 66
In a case of a bank clerk forging signatures to encash a Demand Draft, the Supreme Court held that it is not necessary to call for a handwriting expert in departmental proceedings. The Court upheld the procedure adopted by the inquiry officer to compare the signatures himself, from a "banker's eye". The Supreme Court has held that the test of criminal proceedings ought not to be applied in departmental proceedings to call for handwriting experts to examine signatures. The Apex Court clarified that the standard of proof in departmental proceedings was based on 'preponderance of probability' and therefore somewhat lower than that of criminal proceedings based on 'proved beyond reasonable doubt'.
67. Supreme Court Grants Reprieve To A Software Developer Who Was "Hounded" By Her Employer
Case Title: Ms Sarita Singh v. M/s Shree Infosoft Private Limited
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 67
The Supreme Court has granted reprieve to a software developer who was "hounded" by her employer which instituted a suit claiming money spent on her "overseas deputation" after she resigned from the company. The Court has affirmed that "a deputation involves a tripartite consensual agreement between the lending employer, borrowing employer and the employee", and "a transient business visit without any written agreement detailing terms of deputation will not qualify as a deputation."
68. High Court Cannot Issue Direction To State To Form A New Policy: Supreme Court Reiterates
Case Title: Krishan Lal & Ors. V. Vini Mahajan Secretary & Anr.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 68
The Supreme Court recently reiterated that the High Court cannot issue direction to the State to form a new policy.The bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar was considering SLP assailing Punjab and Haryana High Court's order dated March 27, 2017 of rejecting the contempt petition filed by the petitioners for non compliance of the direction given on August 27, 2014. The High Court had opined that it was not a case for initiating contempt action as there was no intentional non compliance by the Department in the order dated August 27, 2014.
69. Confessional Statement Recorded Under Section 67 NDPS Act Inadmissible, Reiterates Supreme Court
Case Title: State By (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 69
The Supreme Court reiterated that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. The bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justices Surya Kant, Hima Kohli was considering an appeal filed by Narcotics Control Beauro challenging the orders passed by the High Court of Karnataka released on bail the persons accused of the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 8A read with Sections 20(b), 21, 22, 27A, 27B, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The court noted that except for the voluntary statements of accused/co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, there was no substantial material available with the prosecution at the time of arrest to connect the accused with the allegations levelled against them of indulging in drug trafficking.
70. Reach Out To Children Orphaned Due To COVID To Pay Compensation : Supreme Court Directs States
Case Title: Gaurav Bansal v. Union of India
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 70
The Supreme Court has directed the States to reach out to children who were orphaned due to COVID-19 for paying them ex-gratia compensation of Rs 50,000. The Court noted that the orphans may not be in a position to submit applications to claim compensation and hence the State authorities should reach out to them. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights(NCPCR) has told the Court that about 10,000 children have become orphans in the pandemic, as per the data uploaded by the States in the Bal Swaraj portal.
Case Title: Arunachala Gounder (Dead) Vs Ponnusamy
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 71
The Supreme Court observed that inherited property of a female Hindu dying issueless and intestate, goes back to the source. "If a female Hindu dies intestate without leaving any issue, then the property inherited by her from her father or mother would go to the heirs of her father whereas the property inherited from her husband or father-in-law would go to the heirs of the husband", the bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari observed in a judgment arising out of a partition suit.
Case Title: State of UP v. Jai Dutt
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 72
The mere fact that no fracture was noticed and/or found cannot take the case out of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code when the deceased died due to head injury, the Supreme Court observed while convicting a murder accused. The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed that the injury on the head can be said to be causing injury on the vital part of the body for attracting Section 302 IPC.
Case Title: Neil Aurelio Nunes and Ors v. Union of India & Ors
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 73
The Supreme Court has held that there is no prohibition for introducing reservation for socially and educationally backward classes (or the OBCs) in Post-Graduate courses. "In our opinion, it cannot be said that the impact of backwardness simply disappears because a candidate has a graduate qualification", the Court said. The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna was considering the writ petitions filed by NEET aspirants challenging the Central Government's decision to introduce 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes ("OBC") and 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Section ("EWS") in NEET All India Quota.
74. Conduct Of Plaintiff Crucial In A Suit Of Specific Performance: Supreme Court
Case Title: Shenbagam v. KK Rathinavel
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 74
The Supreme Court observed that the conduct of a plaintiff is very crucial in a suit for specific performance and the same has to be assessed by the Courts. In evaluating whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his obligations under the contract, it is not only necessary to view whether he had the financial capacity to pay the balance consideration, but also assess his conduct throughout the transaction, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna said. The court observed thus while allowing an appeal filed against Madras High Court judgment that had confirmed the decree for specific performance.
Case Title: Competition Commission of India v. State of Mizoram And Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 75
The Supreme Court held that even though lottery is a regulated commodity under the Regulation Act, anti-competitive elements in business related to lotteries would continue to be governed by the Competition Act, 2002. The Apex Court further held that there was no bar on the Competition Commission of India to investigate anti-competitive practices like bid rigging, collusive bidding and cartelisation in the tendering process for lottery business, which is in the nature res extra commercium. A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh allowed an appeal assailing the order of the Gauahati High Court, which had set aside the preliminary order of the Competition Commission of India ("CCI") and the report of the Director General, primarily, on the ground that CCI had no jurisdiction to inquire into allegations of bid rigging, collusive bidding, and cartelisation in the tender process for appointment of selling agents and distributors for lotteries organised by State.
Case Title: Bangalore Development Authority Vs State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 76
The Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Act are not applicable for the acquisitions made under the Bangalore Development Authority Act. The bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna observed that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, continue to apply for acquisitions made in the BDA Act so far as they are applicable as it is a legislation by incorporation.
77. Revisional Jurisdiction Of NCDRC Extremely Limited, Reiterates Supreme Court
Case Title: Sunil Kumar Maity v. State Bank Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 77
The Supreme Court observed that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi observed.
Case Title : The Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Union of India and others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 78
The Supreme Court has held that in the event of a conflict between a statement in an advertisement and service regulations, the latter shall prevail. The Court added that an erroneous advertisement would not create a right in favour of applicants who act on such representation. The Court further held that "regulations framed by statutory authorities have the force of enacted law and in the event of a conflict between an executive instruction, an office of memorandum in this case and statutory regulations, the latter prevails."
Case Title: State of Gujarat v. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 79
The Supreme Court reinstated the order of the Revenue levying demand of purchase tax and imposing penalty on Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited (erstwhile Essar Steel Ltd.) for availing tax benefits without fulfilling all the eligibility criteria/condition of the Scheme For Special Incentives to Prestigious Units floated by the Gujarat Government in 1991. The Court held that tax exemption notifications must be construed strictly( State of Gujarat v. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited). "An exception and/or an exempting provision in a taxing statute should be construed strictly and it is not open to the court to ignore the conditions prescribed in industrial policy and the exemption notifications".
Case Title: Smruti Tukaram Badade v. The State Of Maharashtra and Anr
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 80
Noting that "the need for and importance for setting up special facilities which cater to the creation of a safe and barrier-free environment for recording the evidence of vulnerable witnesses has been engaging the attention of this court over the last two decades", the Supreme Court issued comprehensive directions in this regard. The bench of Justices Chandrachud and Surya Kant was hearing a Miscellaneous Application as to the wider issue on the need to set up vulnerable witness court rooms in compliance with the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Bandu. In 2019, notices were directed to be issued to all the High Courts through the Registrars of the respective High Courts, for status report with regard to the establishment of the vulnerable witness deposition court rooms in compliance of the directions of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Bandu [(2018) 11 SCC 163].
Case Title: Brijesh Chandra Dwivedi (Dead) & Thr LRs vs Sanya Sahayak & Ors
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 81
While dealing with the case of an employee's dismissal from service after being found guilty of driving under influence of alcohol, the Supreme Court of India has observed that merely because no major accident occurred leneincy can't be shown for the micconduct of drunken driving. The Court stated that driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol is not only a misconduct but it is an offence also. "Nobody can be permitted to drive the vehicle under the influence of alcohol", Supreme Court said. A Bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna made the observation in a civil appeal filed by an employee charged with causing an accident under influence of alcohol, against Allahabad High Court's judgement dismissing a writ petition refusing to set aside the order of his dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
Case Title: Keshav v. Gian Chand
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 82
The Supreme Court observed that voluntariness and animus are necessary for the execution of a valid gift deed."When a person obtains any benefit from another, the court would call upon the person who wishes to maintain the right to gift to discharge the burden of proving that he exerted no influence for the purpose of obtaining the document.", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna observed.
Case Title: Joseph Stephen vs Santhanasamy
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 83
The Supreme Court observed that a High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure cannot convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. "If the order of acquittal has been passed by the trial Court, the High Court may remit the matter to the trial Court and even direct retrial. However, if the order of acquittal is passed by the first appellate court, in that case, the High Court has two options available, (i) to remit the matter to the first appellate Court to rehear the appeal; or (ii) in an appropriate case remit the matter to the trial Court for retrial," the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna observed.
84. Mandamus Cannot Be Issued To Provide For Reservation: Supreme Court
Case Title: State of Punjab v. Anshika Goyal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 84
The Supreme Court observed that no mandamus can be issued to the State Government to provide for reservation.The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed thus while quashing a direction issued by Punjab and Haryana High Court to provide for a sports quota of 3% in Government Medical/Dental Colleges in the State of Punjab. In this case, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana allowed writ petitions and directed the State to issue a notification providing for 1% reservation/quota for children/grand children of terrorist affected persons/Sikh riots affected persons in all private unaided non-minority Medical/Dental institutions in the State of Punjab. The court further directed that the said reservation/quota shall apply to management quota seats as well. It further directed that the fresh notification shall also provide for a sports quota of 3% in Government Medical/Dental Colleges. The State of Punjab challenged this judgment before the Apex Court.
Case Title: Sunil Kumar v. The State of Bihar
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 85
The Supreme Court pulled up the Patna High Court while hearing a challenge to a decision of the High Court granting bail to the accused. Setting aside the decision and quashing the bail granted, a Division Bench of M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna noted that the High Court did not record reasons for the grant of bail, not considering the gravity nature and seriousness of the offences alleged against the accused. In the present matter, the Patna High Court had released the respondent accused on bail in connection with alleged charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 427, 504, 506, 307, and 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Case Title: Musst Rehana Begum vs State of Assam & Anr
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 86
The Supreme Court recently observed that a High Court's decision to allow the criminal proceeding to proceed for offences under Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code - which deal with bigamy - despite the Family Court's finding that the wife did not have a subsisting prior marriage, would constitute an abuse of the process.The Cout observed reference to the Family Court's conclusive findings will not amount to relying on evidentiary materials which are subject matter of trial. The observation was made considering that in the present case, the appellant wife and her husband (second respondent) were parties to the decision of the Family Court and no contentious material or disputed issues of evidence arise.
Case Name: Assistant Commissioner (ST) And Ors. v. M/s. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 87
The Supreme Court has observed that non-extension of e-way bill would not automatically amount to evasion of tax, especially when the non-delivery of goods within the validity period of the e-way bill was due to external factors, like, traffic blockage. A Bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy dismissed an appeal filed by the Revenue Department assailing the order of the Telangana High Court, which had set aside the order, imposing tax and penalty passed by a Deputy Sales Tax Officer, with cost.
Case Title: Manno Lal Jaiswal vs State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 88
The Supreme Court reiterated that the gravity and nature of the offences alleged against the accused are relevant considerations while considering his bail application. In this case, the accused persons allegedly attacked the deceased by sword, hockey, stick and rod and killed the son of the complainant. Taking note of this, the Sessions Court rejected their bail application. The Allahabad High Court allowed the bail application by making the following observation: "The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, prima facie, quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail."
Case Title: Sunil Kumar vs State of Bihar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 89
The same bench, in another judgment, allowing an appeal against the Patna High Court order granting bail to murder accused, made similar observations. In this case, the younger brother of the deceased Shardanand Bhagat lodged F.I.R against the accused named in the F.I.R. for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 427, 504, 506, 307 and 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act for having assaulted them and killed his elder brother Shardanand Bhagat, who succumbed to the bullet injury. The High Court granted bail to the accused.
Case Title: B.B. Patel v. DLF Universal Ltd
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 90
The Supreme Court observed that Section 12-B of the Monopolies And Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 Act empowers the MRTP Commission to grant compensation only when any loss or damage is caused to a consumer as a result of a monopolistic, restrictive or unfair trade practice. The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna noted that there are five ingredients to constitute an offence of unfair trade under the MRTP Act.
Case Title: Ashish Shelar And Ors. Versus The Maharashtra Legislative Assembly & Anr.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 91
The Supreme Court has quashed the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly's resolution of July 5, 2021, which suspended 12 BJP MLAs for a period of one year for alleged disorderly behaviour in the house. The Court held that the resolution to suspend the MLAs beyond the session is "unconstitutional", "illegal" and "beyond the powers of the assembly". It held that such suspension could be limited only to the ongoing session, which was the Monsoon Session of 2021(case :Ashish Shelar And Ors. Versus The Maharashtra Legislative Assembly & Anr). "...we have no hesitation in allowing these writ petitions and to declare that the impugned resolution directing suspension of the petitioners beyond the period of the remainder of the concerned Monsoon Session held in July 2021 is non-est in the eyes of law, nullity, unconstitutional, substantively illegal and irrational. The impugned resolution is, thus, declared to be ineffective in law, insofar as the period beyond the remainder of the stated Session in which the resolution came to be passed."
Case Title: K. Arumuga Velaiah v. P.R. Ramasamy
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 92
A document of partition which provides for effectuating a division of properties in future is not compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, the Supreme Court has observed. The bench comprising of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna observed that a document which does not by itself create a right or interest in immovable property, but merely creates a right to obtain another document, does not require registration and is accordingly admissible in evidence.
Case Title: Deepak S/o Laxman Dongre Vs State Of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 93
The Supreme Court observed that externment is not an ordinary measure and it must be resorted to sparingly and in extraordinary circumstances. The effect of the order of externment is of depriving a citizen of his fundamental right of free movement throughout the territory of India and therefore the restriction imposed by passing an order of externment must stand the test of reasonableness., the bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka observed. In this case, a resident of District Jalna was directed to remove himself outside the limits of District Jalna within 5 days. Invoking powers under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, the competent authority had passed this order of externment on the ground that his activities are very dangerous and the offences registered against him under the Indian Penal Code are of grave and serious nature which are causing disturbance to the public at large. The Bombay High Court dismissed his writ petition challenging this order.
Case Title: Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta and Other Connected Matters, SLP(c) No.30621/2011
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 94
The Supreme Court has delivered the judgment in the issue relating to reservation in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Centre and States had urged the Supreme Court to settle the confusion regarding the norms for reservation in promotions saying that several appointments have been stalled due to ambiguities. A Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna and B.R.Gavai had reserved judgment on October 26, after hearing the matter following the reference answered in 2018 by a 5-judge bench in the case Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta. The bench made the following pronouncements: i. Court cannot lay down any yardstick to determine inadequacy of representation. ii. State is obligated to collect quantifiable data regarding adequacy of representation. iii. Cadre should be unit for collection for quantifiable data for reservation. The collection cannot be with respect to the entire class/class/group, but it should be relatable to Grade/Category of post to which promotion is sought. Cadre should be the unit for collecting quantifiable data. it would be meaning less if collection of data is w.r.t the entire service. iv. Nagaraj judgment of 2006 would have a prospective effect. v. The conclusion in BK Pavitra (II) approving the collection of data on the basis of groups and not cadres is contrary to the dictum in Jarnail Singh.
Case Title: M/s. Griesheim GmbH (Now Called Air Liquide Deutschland GmbH v. Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 95
The Supreme Court held that a High Court of Delhi, having original civil jurisdiction, can entertain a petition for executing a money decree(in excess of Rs.20 lakhs)of a foreign Court which is notified as a superior Court of reciprocating territory under Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The term "District Court" referred under Section 44A of the Code refers to the local limits of the jurisdiction of a principal civil Court of original jurisdiction and it includes the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of a High Court. A Bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka allowed an appeal assailing the order of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, which held that High Courts have no jurisdiction to execute foreign decrees under Section 44A even when it falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court, as Section 44A is an independent provision distinct from execution of domestic decrees.
96. State Cannot Dictate What Decisions Can Or Cannot Be Taken By A Public Trust: Supreme Court
Case Title: Parsi Zoroastrian Anjuman, Mhow v. The Sub-Divisional Officer/The Registrar of Public Trusts And Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 96
The Supreme Court held that self-governed organisations, such as public trusts, cannot be subjected to overarching state control in derogation of principles of autonomy and democratic decision making. The Apex Court was of the view that public control cannot be expanded even by law, to the extent that it renders freedom of association, envisaged in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, 1950, meaningless. "The aim of public control is to ensure that the trust is administered efficiently and smoothly. The state interest is that far, and no more; it cannot mean that the state can dictate what decisions can or cannot be taken."
Case Title: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. RD Sharma
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 97
"Equal pay for equal work" is not a fundamental right vested in any employee, though it is a constitutional goal to be achieved by the Government, the Supreme Court remarked in a judgment. The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Bela M. Trivedi observed that the equation of post and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary. Therefore ordinarily courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions, the court added.
Case Title: Amar Nath vs Gian Chand
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98
The Supreme Court observed that the production of the original power of attorney is not necessary, if the document is presented for registration by the power of attorney holder who executed the document on the strength of it. "The inquiry contemplated under the Registration Act, cannot extend to question as to whether the person who executed the document in his capacity of the power of attorney holder of the principal, was indeed having a valid power of attorney or not to execute the document or not," the bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and PS Narasimha. In this case, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he is the owner in possession of that property and the mutation showing the sale in favor of the first defendant, by the second defendant, was null and void, and that the second defendant was not having any authority to sell the land owned by the plaintiff, and hence the defendant be restrained from interfering with the ownership and possession of the plaintiff.
Case Title: The Director, Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. v. K. Sudheesh Kumar & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 99
The Supreme Court has observed that Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme has nothing to do with the next promotional post and what the employee would be entitled would be the immediate next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands. The bench of Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna was considering a civil appeal assailing Kerala High Court's order dated October 23, 2019 in which the court while setting aside Central Administrative Tribunal's order declared that the respondents are entitled to grade pay of Rs 6600 on their third financial upgradation as per the MACP Scheme and thereby be paid the pension accordingly with effect from April, 2015.
Case Title: Dayalu Kashyap v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 100
The Supreme Court, in an order passed, rejected an interpretation that if the personal search is vitiated by violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the recovery made otherwise also would stand vitiated. "We cannot give such an extended view", the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh said while dismissing an appeal filed by an accused who was concurrently (by the Trial Court and Chhattisgarh High Court) convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act.
Case Title: Subhash Chander And Ors. v. M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 101
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka has held that the jurisdiction of civil courts are excluded from landlord-tenant disputes when they are specifically covered by the provisions of the State Rent Acts, which are given an overriding effect over other laws. The Court held this while explaining the interplay between the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings) Act, 1976 and the Haryana (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973.
Case Title: Ajaya Kumar Das Vs. Divisional Manager
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 102
The Supreme Court observed that interest on compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923, shall be paid from the date of the accident and not the date of adjudication of the claim. In appeal, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Dinesh Maheshwari noted that Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act stipulates that the Commissioner shall direct the employer to pay interest of 12% or at a higher rate, not exceeding the lending rates of any scheduled banks specified, if the employer does not pay the compensation within one month from the date it fell due.
Case Title: The Chief Personnel Officer & Ors. v. A Nishanth George
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 103
The Supreme Court has reiterated that the Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff notified by the Railways ("LARSGESS Scheme") provides an avenue for backdoor entry into service and is contrary to the mandate of Article 16 which guarantees equal opportunity in matters of public employment. The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna was considering civil appeals assailing Madras High Court's judgements dated March 21, 2018 and September 3, 2019.
While allowing the appeal(s) and setting aside the impugned judgment(s) the bench observed, "We have addressed in detail the history of the LARSGESS scheme and the doubt expressed on its validity by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kala Singh (supra) which eventually led to the decision of the Union government to terminate the scheme. While noticing the above backdrop, the three judge Bench of this Court in Manjit (supra) clearly noted that the Scheme provided an avenue for backdoor entry into service and was contrary to the mandate of Article 16 which guarantees equal opportunity in matters of public employment. In this backdrop, the impugned judgment of the High Court of Madras issuing a mandamus for the appointment of the respondent cannot be sustained."
Case Title: Shiv Developers Through Its Partner Sunilbhai Somabhai Ajmeri Vs Aksharay Developers
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 104
The Supreme Court held that to attract the bar of Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932, the contract in question must be the one entered into by partnership firm with the third-party defendant and must also be the one entered into by the plaintiff firm in the course of its business dealings. The bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath observed that Section 69(2) is not a bar to a suit filed by an unregistered firm, if the same is for enforcement of a statutory right or a common law right.
Case Title: Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Resoursys Telecom
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 105
The author of the tender document is the best person to interpret its documents and requirements, the Supreme Court reiterated in a judgment delivered on Monday (31 Jan 2022). The bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath observed that the interference by the Court would arise only if the questioned decision suffers from illegality, irrationality, mala fide, perversity, or procedural impropriety. The court added that a decision of the administrative authority cannot be called arbitrary or whimsical merely because it does not appear plausible to the Court.
Case Title: Jayahari & Anr v. State of Kerala and Anr
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 106
The Supreme Court recently quashed a cheating FIR lodged by a businessman based in Gulf, stating that he being a man well versed in commerce should have checked the valuation of the property before entering into the transaction. The bench of Justices UU Lalit and Bela M Trivedi was considering a criminal appeal assailing Kerala High Court's judgment dated September 29, 2020 by which the High Court had rejected the application filed u/s 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings initiated pursuant to the FIR. While allowing the appeal the bench in Jayahari & Anr v. State of Kerala and Anr said, "As the facts on record show the complainant is a businessman working in Gulf. A man, well versed in commerce, would certainly be expected to check the valuation of the property before entering into any transaction. The dispute in question being purely civil in nature, the adoption of remedy in a criminal court would amount to abuse of the process of Court."
197. Burden Of Proof To Establish Plea Of Alibi On Accused Is Heavy: Supreme Court
Case Title: Pappu Tiwary vs State of Jharkhand| CrA 1492 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 107
The Supreme Court bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh observed that the burden of establishing the plea of alibi on accused is heavy. The plea of alibi in fact is required to be proved with certainty so as to completely exclude the possibility of the presence of the accused at the place of occurrence, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh noted.
Case Name: National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited v. Montecarlo Limited And Anr. | Civil Appeal No. 6466 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 108
On Monday, the Supreme Court held that while entertaining writ petitions challenging the tender process or the award of contract with respect to Mega projects funded by foreign countries, the High Courts ought to bear in mind the principles of judicial restraint laid down by the Apex Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, 1994 6 SCC 651. A Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna allowed an appeal assailing the order of Delhi High Court, inter alia, on the ground that the High Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to have interfere with the ongoing tender process of a Foreign funded project in the absence of specific allegations of mala fide and/or favoritism.
Case Title: United Bank Of India V. Biswanath Bhattacharjee| Civil Appeal No. 8258 Of 2009
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 109
The Supreme Court on Monday observed that remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution are available and intervention is warranted when disciplinary authority's findings are malafide or perverse, not based on evidence or are based on consideration of irrelevant material or by ignoring relevant material, or are such that they could not have been rendered by any reasonable person placed in like circumstances. While dismissing the appeal the bench Justices KM Joseph and S Ravindra Bhat said,
"The bank is correct, when it contends that an appellate review of the materials and findings cannot ordinarily be undertaken, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Yet, from H.C. Goel onwards, this court has consistently ruled that where the findings of the disciplinary authority are not based on evidence, or based on a consideration of irrelevant material, or ignoring relevant material, are mala fide, or where the findings are perverse or such that they could not have been rendered by any reasonable person placed in like circumstances, the remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution are available, and intervention, warranted. For any court to ascertain if any findings were beyond the record (i.e., no evidence) or based on any irrelevant or extraneous factors, or by ignoring material evidence, necessarily some amount of scrutiny is necessary. A finding of "no evidence" or perversity, cannot be rendered sans such basic scrutiny of the materials, and the findings of the disciplinary authority. However, the margin of appreciation of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution would be different; it is not appellate in character."
Case name: Veena Mittal vs State of Uttar Pradesh|CrA 122 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 110
The Supreme Court bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Dinesh Maheshwari has reiterated that the jurisdiction to quash under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised only if no offense is made out on reading the allegations in the FIR as they stand. The allegation of the complainant in this case, was that at the time of the marriage, the mother in law and brother in law of her daughter had induced her to hand over stridhan in the nature of silver utensils weighing about 5 kg, gold jewelry weighing about 400 gms, utensils of the value of Rs 1,00,000 and other items.
111. Conviction Can be Solely Based Upon Dying Declaration Without Corroboration: Supreme Court
Case name: State of U.P. vs Veerpal| CrA 34 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 111
The Supreme Court observed that there can be a conviction solely based upon the dying declaration without corroboration. "If the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base its conviction on it, without corroboration", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed. The court observed this while restoring the conviction of the murder accused recorded by the Trial Court.
Case Title: State of Manipur vs Surjakumar Okram| CA 823-827 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 112
The Supreme Court observed that a law passed by the legislature is good law till it is declared as unconstitutional by a competent Court or till it is repealed. The very declaration by a Court that a statute is unconstitutional obliterates the statute entirely as though it had never been passed, the bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna observed. The court observed thus in a judgment in which it upheld the law passed by the Manipur assembly repealing the Manipur Parliamentary Secretary (Appointment, Salary and Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2012. The court also struck down the saving clause in the Repealing Act.
Case Title: State of Manipur vs Surjakumar Okram| CA 823-827 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 113
The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that the legislature cannot infuse life into a legislation, which it itself recognised as unconstitutional, by enacting a saving clause. The bench of Justices LN Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna was considering special leave petitions challenging the Manipur High Court's order of striking down the Manipur Parliamentary Secretary (Appointment, Salary and Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2012 ("Act, 2012) and the Manipur Parliamentary Secretary (Appointment, Salary And Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Repealing Act, 2018 ("Repealing Act, 2018") as unconstitutional. While striking down the saving clause the bench in The State of Manipur & Ors. v. Surjakumar Okram & Ors. observed,
"As is evident from the preamble of the Repealing Act, 2018, the repeal of the 2012 Act is a procedural formality by the Manipur Legislature to give the statute a logical conclusion, in light of the pending public interest litigations challenging its constitutional validity before the High Court. Bearing in mind these exceptional facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that by means of the saving clause in the Repealing Act, 2018, the Manipur Legislature could not have infused life into a legislation, which was recognised by the Legislature itself as unconstitutional and thereby, a nullity, prompting its repeal. In light of the above, the Manipur Legislature cannot be said to have the competence to enact the saving clause in the Repealing Act, 2018."
Case Titles: Future Retail Ltd v Amazon.com Investment Holdings & Ors, Future Coupons Pvt Ltd & Ors vs Amazon.com Investment Holdings & Ors| Civil Appeal Nos. 859860 Of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 114
While setting aside the order of the Delhi High Court which initiated coercive steps against the Future Group companies and its promoters, the Supreme Court of India bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli on Tuesday observed that contempt of a civil nature can be made out under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure only when there has been "wilful disobedience" and not on mere "disobedience". According to the Court, the allegation of wilful disobedience being in the nature of criminal liability, the same has to be proved to the satisfaction of the court that the disobedience was not mere "disobedience" but "wilful" and "conscious".
Case name: Jogi Ram vs Suresh Kumar| CA 1543-1544 OF 2019
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 115
The Supreme Court has held that Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act does not bar the bequeathing of a limited estate to a female by way of a Will; but if the limited estate is given to the wife for her maintenance, then it would mature into an absolute estate under Section 14(1) of the Act. "The objective of Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 cannot be that a Hindu male who owned self-acquired property is unable to execute a Will giving a limited estate to a female if all other aspects including maintenance are taken care of", the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh observed.
Case Title : State of Sikkim vs Jasbir Singh| CrA 85 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 116
The Supreme Court observed that the intent of the Army Act is not to protect army personnel by awarding them lesser punishment even for serious offenses. "If that was the intent of the legislature- that is to protect persons subject to the Army Act by awarding them lesser punishment even for serious offenses - then the Act would not have provided for concurrent jurisdiction of court-martial and ordinary criminal courts at all", the bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Surya Kant observed while allowing an appeal filed by the State of Sikkim against an order passed by the Sikkim High Court which directed that a criminal case against an army officer be handed over to court-martial.
Case Name: Southern Power Distribution Power Company Limited of Andhra Pradesh (APSPDCL) And Anr. v. M/s. Hinduja National Power Corporation Limited And Anr. | Civil Appeal No. 1844 of 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC)117
The Supreme Court held that the instrumentalities of the State cannot change a consistent stand taken by them, all of a sudden, at their whims and fancies, especially when it is arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable and against public interest. A Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai rejected an appeal filed by power distribution companies assailing the order of Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi which had directed the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission to dispose of two applications filed by the parties before it. Displeased with the conduct of the appellants in the dispute the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 5,00,000 (five lakhs) on them.
Case name: Mata Prasad vs State of UP| WP(Crl) 256 of 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 118
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh has asked the Uttar Pradesh Government to re-examine its policy for premature release prescribing a minimum age of 60 years. As per the prevailing policy, convicts "who have completed age of 60 years" and have undergone custody of 20 years without remission and 25 years with remission, are eligible to be considered for premature release. The court said this policy does not seem to be sustainable since it implies that a young offender of 20 years will have to serve 40 years before his case for remission can be considered.
119. Special Leave Petition Against A Review Order Alone Is Not Maintainable, Reiterates Supreme Court
Case name: RK Singh vs General Manager| SLP(C) 23924/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 119
The Special Leave Petition against a review order alone is not maintainable, the Supreme Court reiterated in a recent order. The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh observed thus while dismissing a special leave petition filed against an order passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court. The bench noted that the petitioner had earlier withdrawn the Special Leave Petition. At the stage of withdrawal, no liberty was granted.
Case name: Mohammed Masroor Shaikh v. Bharat Bhushan Gupta| CA 874 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 120
The Supreme Court observed that while dealing with petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Court by default would refer the matter when contentions relating to non-arbitrability are plainly arguable. In such case, the issue of non-arbitrability is left open to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal, the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and Abhay S. Oka observed. The bench observed thus while disposing the appeals against orders passed by a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court on the petitions under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Case name: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar| CA 837-838 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 121
The role of the Arbitrator is to arbitrate within the terms of the contract, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment passed on Tuesday (1 Feb 2022). The bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and Abhay S. Oka observed that an award can be said to be patently illegal where the Arbitral Tribunal has failed to act in terms of the contract or has ignored the specific terms of a contract.
Case name: Devesh Chourasia vs District Magistrate, Jabalpur| CrA 125 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 122
The Supreme Court reiterated that the failure of the government to communicate the rejection of the representation in a time bound manner would vitiate the order of detention. The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Dinesh Maheshwari allowed an appeal filed against a judgment passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court which had upheld an order of detention passed against a person named Devesh Chourasia under Section 3 of the National Security Act 1980.
123. Award Passed By Lok Adalat Is Not A Compromise Decree: Supreme Court
Case name: New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) vs Yunus|CA 901 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 123
The Supreme Court observed that an Award passed by the Lok Adalat is not a compromise decree.
This observation was made by the bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and PS Narasimha in its judgment holding that an Award passed by a Lok Adalat under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 cannot be the basis for redetermination of compensation as contemplated under Section 28A of the the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
124. NGT's Adjudicatory Functions Cannot Be Delegated To 'Expert Committees': Supreme Court
Case name: Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Trust vs State of Gujarat|CA 1046/2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 124
The Supreme Court observed that adjudicatory functions of National Green Tribunal (NGT) cannot be delegated to administrative expert committees. "An expert committee may be able to assist the NGT, for instance, by carrying out a fact-finding exercise, but the adjudication has to be by the NGT. This is not a delegable function," the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Bela M. Trivedi observed.
Case Title : Anamika Varun Rathore versus Varun Pratap Singh Rathore
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 125
The issue of whether a single judge of the Supreme Court can exercise powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to pass a decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent has been referred to a larger bench. On February 1, a single bench of Justice Krishna Murari noted that the issue has been referred to a larger bench. "The issue as to whether a Judge sitting singly can pass an order granting decree of divorce to the parties on the basis of the Settlement Agreement in exercise of powers conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution of India has been referred for adjudication by a larger Bench", Justice Murari noted.
126. Court Can't Impose Time-Bar On Convict To Seek Sentence Suspension: Supreme Court
Case Title: Krishan Kumar v. State of Haryana SLP (Crl) No. 612 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 126
The Supreme Court held that seeking relief of suspension of execution of sentence and to be released on bail being statutory right of the accused, time-specific debarment on the same cannot be created by judicial orders.
"…such kind of time-specific debarment is not envisaged by the law."
A Bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath was dealing with an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had denied the prayer of the petitioner for suspension of execution of sentence at the given point in time.
127. Consent Decree Cannot Be Modified/Altered Unless The Mistake Is A Patent Or Obvious One: Supreme Court
Case name: Ajanta LLP vs Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha d/b/a Casio Computer Co. Ltd| CA 1052 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 127
The Supreme Court has held that a consent decree cannot be modified/ altered unless the mistake is a patent or obvious mistake. Or else, there is a danger of every consent decree being sought to be altered on the ground of mistake/ misunderstanding by a party to the consent decree, the bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai observed.
Case name: Central Industrial Security Force Vs HC (GD) Om Prakash| CA 5428 OF 2012
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 128
The Supreme Court has held that an order of premature retirement is required to be passed on the basis of entire service records. The recent reports would carry their own weight, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian added. The court also noted that such an order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by the Court merely for the reason that uncommunicated adverse remarks were taken into consideration.
Case name: Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited vs Hitro Energy Solutions Private Limited| CA 2839 of 2020
Citation. : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 129
The Supreme Court has held that limitation does not commence when the debt becomes due but only when a default occurs. The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath that the debt is defined in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code as the non-payment of the debt by the corporate debtor when it has become due. In this case, the appellant placed orders with the Proprietary Concern, which was the supplier of Thorn Lighting India Private Limited through three purchase orders dated 24 June 2013. The contention raised in this case was that the date of default mentioned is 7 November 2013, when the cheque was issued by CMRL to the Proprietary Concern and therefore the limitation of three years under Article 137 of the Limitation Act would expire on 7 November 2016, while the application under Section 9 was only filed on 1 November 2017.
Case name: Bombay Chemical Industries vs Deputy Labor Commissioner| CA 813 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 130
The Supreme Court observed that, in an application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction and cannot adjudicate dispute of entitlement or the basis of the claim of workmen. It can only interpret the award or settlement on which the claim is based, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed. In this case the workman filed an application before the Labor Court under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, demanding a difference of wages from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2012. This application was contested by the M/s Bombay Chemical Industries denying any relationship of employee-employer. The Labor Court allowed the said application and directed the M/s Bombay Chemical Industries to pay the difference of wages from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2012 as claimed in the application. The writ petition filed challenging this order passed by the labor court was dismissed by the High Court and therefore M/s Bombay Chemical Industries approached the Apex Court.
Case Title: The State of Uttarakhand vs Sachendra Singh Rawat| Crl Appeal No 143 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 131
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court discussed the circumstances which can be used to infer if there was an intention to cause death in a murder case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. A Bench of Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna was considering the State of Uttarakhand's appeal challenging High Court's order setting aside the conviction of the accused for the offense under Section 302 IPC and seeking restoration of the order passed by the trial Court convicting the accused for the offense under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment.
Case Name: Missu Naseem & Anr. V. The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.| Criminal Appeal No. 160/ 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 132
The Supreme Court recently set aside the High Court's order which gave an effect to the reasoning that fabrication of documents was permissible if it did not cause loss to the revenue. The bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh while setting aside Andhra Pradesh High Court's order dated November 9, 2011 said, "We find the aforesaid reasoning totally unsustainable. The effect of this reasoning is that fabrication of documents is permissible if it does not cause loss to the revenue! We have thus no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the impugned order must go and is consequently set aside."
133. SLP Against HC Order Dismissing Bail Application As Not Pressed Cannot Be Entertained: Supreme Court
Case name: Santo Devi vs State of UP| SLP(Crl) Diary 1652/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 133
The Supreme Court observed that a Special Leave Petition against a High Court order dismissing a bail application as not pressed cannot be entertained.
In this case, the Allahabad High Court, in the impugned order, recorded the submission made by the counsel for the accused that he does not want to press this bail application at this stage and the same may be dismissed as withdrawn. Therefore, the application was dismissed as withdrawn. Against this order, an SLP was filed before the Supreme Court.
"The application filed by the petitioner having been dismissed as not pressed, the question of interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India cannot and does not arise," the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and Abhay S. Oka observed.
Case name: Hazrat Deen vs State Of Uttar Pradesh| SLP(Crl) 9552/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 134
The Supreme Court observed that discrepancies between the FIR and any subsequent statement under Section 164 of the CrPC cannot be a ground for discharge without initiation of trial. Such discrepancies may be a defense during the trial, the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari noted.
135. Consumer Complaints Cannot Be Transferred To High Court : Supreme Court Rejects YES Bank's Plea
Case name: Yes Bank Limited vs 63 Moons Technologies Ltd.| T.P.(C) 968-971 of 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 135
The Supreme Court observed that consumer complaints cannot be transferred to the High Court.
The bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian dismissed the Transfer petitions filed by YES Bank seeking transfer of some consumer complaints filed in District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions in Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh and New Delhi.
"The consumer complaints are filed under the Consumer Protection Act, therefore, such consumer complaints cannot be transferred to the High Court exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the request for transfer of the consumer complaints is declined.", the court said.
Case Name: State Of Andhra Pradesh (Now State Of Telangana) Vs A.P. State Wakf Board| CA 10770 OF 2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 136
Land dedicated for pious and religious purpose is not immune from its vesting with the State, the Supreme Court observed while setting aside the action of the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board that declared land measuring 1654 acres and 32 guntas as wakf property.
The bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian held that the said land vest with the state and/or Telangana Infrastructure Development Corporation Corporation free from any encumbrance. It added that 90% of the gross basic sum referred to in Section 4 of the Commutation Regulation is payable to the Dargah within 6 months.
Case name : Rajesh Yadav vs State of UP| CrA 339-340 OF 2014
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137
The Supreme Court observed that the trial courts shall endeavor to complete the examination of the private witnesses both chief and cross on the same day as far as possible.
"We would expect the trial courts to take up the examination of the private witnesses first, before proceeding with that of the official witnesses", the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh said while disposing of a criminal appeal. The court noted that long adjournments given after the completion of the chief examination, only helps the defense to win them over at times, with the passage of time.
Case name: Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs Rahul Modi|CrA 185-186 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 138
The Supreme Court observed that an accused cannot seek default bail merely on the ground that cognizance has not been taken before the expiry of 60 days or 90 days, as the case may be, from the date of remand if charge sheet was already filed. The indefeasible right of an accused to seek statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure arises only if the charge-sheet has not been filed before the expiry of the statutory period, the bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai observed.
139. Post Office/Bank Can Be Held Liable For Frauds Or Wrongs Committed By Its Employees: Supreme Court
Case Name: Pradeep Kumar And Anr. v. Post Master General And Ors.| Civil Appeal No. 8775-8776 of 2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 139
On Monday, the Supreme Court held that once it is established that fraud or any wrongful act was perpetrated by an employee of a post office during the course of their employment, the post office would be vicariously liable for the wrongful act of such employee. The Apex Court clarified that the post office is entitled to proceed against the concerned officer, but the same would not absolve them from their liability. A Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna and B.R. Gavai allowed an appeal challenging the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ("NCDRC"), which held that filed against postal department authorities cannot be held vicariously liable for the fraud committed by a postal agent with respect to encashment of Kisan Vikas Patras.
Case name: R. Muthukumar Vs Chairman And Managing Director TANGEDCO| CA 1144 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 140
The Supreme Court has observed that Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality. If there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people, without legal basis or justification, that benefit cannot multiply, or be relied upon as a principle of parity or equality, the bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela M. Trivedi observed.
Case Name: Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State Of Bihar|CrA 195 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141
The Supreme Court observed that prosecution of relatives of husbands based on general and omnibus allegations leveled against them is an abuse of process of law.
The court also expressed its concern about increased tendency to employ provisions such as Section 498A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives. The bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari said that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged. General and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial, the bench said.
Case Name: Nawabuddin vs State of Uttarakhand|CrA 144 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 142
The Supreme Court observed that no leniency should be shown to a person who has committed the offence under the POCSO Act. The Court observed that children are precious human resources. However, in our country, a girl child is in a very vulnerable position, the Court lamented.
"By awarding a suitable punishment commensurate with the act of sexual assault, sexual harassment, a message must be conveyed to the society at large that, if anybody commits any offence under the POCSO Act of sexual assault, sexual harassment or use of children for pornographic purposes they shall be punished suitably and no leniency shall be shown to them", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed while dismissing an appeal filed by a man convicted under POCSO Act.
143. Separate Suit Challenging Consent Decree Not Maintainable : Supreme Court
Case Name: Sree Surya Developers and Promoters vs N. Sailesh Prasad
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 143
The Supreme Court has held that a separate suit challenging a consent decree is not maintainable.
A party to a consent decree based on a compromise to challenge the compromise decree on the ground that the decree was not lawful i.e., it was void or voidable has to approach the same court, which recorded the compromise, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna observed.
Case Title: Pappu vs State of Uttar Pradesh| CrA 1097-1098 OF 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 144
The Supreme Court observed that the abhorrent nature of crime alone cannot be the decisive factor for awarding death sentence. Due consideration should also be given to the equally relevant aspect pertaining to mitigating factors before arriving at a conclusion that option of any other punishment than the capital one was foreclosed, the court said while commuting the death sentence awarded to a man accused of rape and murder of a seven year old girl.
The bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar noted that the accused has no criminal antecedents, comes from a very poor socio-economic background, has a family comprising wife, children and aged father, and has unblemished jail conduct.
"When all these factors are added together and it is also visualized that there is nothing on record to rule out the probability of reformation and rehabilitation, in our view, it would be unsafe to treat this case as falling in 'rarest of rare' category.", the court said.
Case Title: Dr. Jagathy Raj V.P. v. Dr. Rajitha Kumar S. & Ors.| SLP(Civil) No(s). 6392 of 2021
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 145
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and AS Oka has observed that under Statute 18 framed by the Kerala Government which envisages the appointment of Director/HOD of Cochin University a teacher who was being considered for HOD on a rational basis would not be prohibited from being considered for appointment when second rotational term becomes due if he/she during the first term makes a request of being relieved from the responsibility for academic reason.
146. Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To TMC Leader Sheikh Sufiyan In WB Post-Poll Murder Case
Case Title: SK. Supiyan @ Suffiyan @ Supisan Versus The Central Bureau Of Investigation| SLP(Crl) No. 9796/2021
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 146
The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted anticipatory bail to Trinamool Congress leader Sheikh Sufiyan in a case relating to the murder of a BJP supporter during the West Bengal post-poll violence. "We have granted pre-arrest bail but we have imposed several conditions", Justice Abhay S Oka said, pronouncing the operative portion of the verdict.
Case Title: Siddharthshankar Sharma v. Union Of India And Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 147
Recording the Centre's clarification that the Aadhaar card is neither mandatory for registration on the COWIN portal nor a precondition for availing of vaccination facilities at a COVID Vaccination Centre, and that any one of nine identity documents can be produced, the Supreme Court on Monday directed that all concerned authorities shall act in pursuance of this stated policy.
Case Title: Mongia Realty and Buildwell Private Limited vs Manik Sethi| CA 814 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 148
The Supreme Court bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant observed that the issue of limitation cannot be decided as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure if it is not a pure question of law.
Order XIV Rule 2(2) provides that if issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to- (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in-force.
Case Title: The Surat Parsi Panchayat Board & Anr. v. Union Of India & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 149
In view of the agreement between Surat Parsi Panchayat Board and the Centre over the SOP for disposal of bodies of individuals of Zoroastrian faith who succumbed to COVID, the Supreme Court gave it imprimatur to the protocol of placing iron rods and grills above the towers of silence across India so that no bird can feed on the bodies and carry COVID strains and the bodies are disposed off only by sun rays.
Case Title: X v. Registrar General And Anr. W.P. (C) No. 1137 of 2018| WP(C)1137 OF 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 150
The Supreme Court, on Thursday, reinstated a woman Additional District and Sessions Judge ("AD&SJ"), who was constrained to resign, after she raised allegations of sexual harassment against a then sitting Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The Court's indulgence was, inter alia, sought in directing the reinstatement of the petitioner as AD&SJ from the date of resignation, i.e., 15.07.2014 with continuity in service, back wages and consequential reliefs. Acknowledging the petitioner's resignation was not voluntary, the Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai quashed the order passed by the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Law and Legislative Affairs Department, accepting the resignation of the petitioner and directed her reinstatement with continuity in service and all consequential benefits w.e.f. 15.07.2014, but without any back wages.
Also read: Persuade Judicial Officers Having Good Track Record To Withdraw Resignation : Supreme Court To HCs
Case Name: State of Madhya Pradesh vs Krishna Modi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 151
The Supreme Court observed that benefits under freedom fighters pension schemes should be awarded only to those persons who are entitled for the same. In this case, the writ petitioner approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (for short 'SSS Pension Scheme') introduced by the Central Government on 15.08.1981. He contended that from the period of 21.11.1942 to 20.08.1943 (during which he did not attend the school), he remained underground and hence, would be entitled for pension under the said SSS Pension Scheme. The High Court directed to grant pension to him along with 6% interest per annum.
Case Name: R. Valli Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd| CA 1269 OF 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 152
The Supreme Court observed that the method of determination of compensation applying two multipliers is erroneous.
The suitable multiplier is to be applied keeping in view the age of the deceased, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian said.
Case Name: Shafiya Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati vs State Of U.P.| CrA 200 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 153
At least there has to be some factual supporting material for what has been alleged in the FIR, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and AS Oka observed while quashing criminal proceedings against a woman.
Case Name: Jaina Construction Company Vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited| CA 1069 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 154
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi observed that the Insurance Company cannot repudiate a claim merely on the ground that there was a delay in intimating the Insurance Company about the occurrence of the theft if the FIR was lodged immediately.
Case name: Umesh Kumar Pahwa vs Board of Directors Uttarakhand Gramin Bank| CA 796-799 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 155
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna has observed that a High Court, while exercising its powers of judicial review, is not required to re-appreciate the evidence and/or interfere with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer accepted by the disciplinary authority.
Case name: Ravindra vs Union of India| WP (Crl) 45/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 156
The Supreme Court bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh observed that life imprisonment without any remission till the last breath can be imposed as a substitution of death sentence.
The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh rejected an argument raised in a case that the minority view in Union of India vs. V. Sriharan - (2016) 7 SCC 1 should be looked into as two of the Judges opined one way in the Constitution Bench.
Case name: Bimal Chandra Ghosh vs State of Tripura| SLP (Diary) 2339/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 157
The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition filed by a man convicted under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused, whose conviction under Section 354 IPC was upheld by the High Court, had submitted before the Apex Court that a compromise had been entered into between him and the complainant/victim. "We find no reason to grant any credence to such compromise which is being entered into after the conviction has been confirmed by the High Court under the judgment impugned.", the bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka said.
Case Title: State of Rajasthan v. Tejmal Choudhary| CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1647 OF 2021
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 158
The Supreme Court has observed that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("PC Act") is not retrospective in nature. Section 17A of the Act came into force on 26th July 2018, and provides that there cannot be any enquiry, inquiry, investigation without prior approval of the appropriate authority.
Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice J.K. Maheshwari, while allowing the appeals, ruled,
"In his usual fairness, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent does not seriously dispute the proposition of law that Section 17A does not have retrospective operation. Learned Senior Counsel, however, argues that the Court might have looked into the merits and, in particular, the fact that investigation had ultimately been closed. We need not go into that aspect since the High Court has quashed the proceedings only on the ground of permission not having been obtained under Section 17A of the PC Act."
Case Title: Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. V. The State Of Maharashtra & Anr.| Civil Appeal Nos. 26712672 of 2016
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 159
While dealing with section 23(1)(iv) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("Act") the Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanianhas observed that injurious affection to property, in any other manner, may stand on a different footing from injurious affection to earnings.
Case Title: B. Boraiah Rep. Thr. Lrs. V. M.G. Thirthaprasad & Ors.| SLP(C) No. 31174 of 2016
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 160
The Supreme Court bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar has observed that in cases where the decree passed by the trial court merges with judgment and decree passed by the High Court, then the application for correction of decree can only be maintained before the High Court where the decree was confirmed.
161. PMLA - Quashing Of Provisional Attachment Will Not Impact Adjudication Proceedings Before Adjudicating Authority : Supreme Court
Case Name: Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Union of India Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 161
The Supreme Court bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar has observed that High Court's order of setting aside the provisional attachment order does not per se nullify the adjudication proceedings under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ("PMLA") and that the Adjudicating Authority can proceed for taking it to its logical end in accordance with law.
162. Suo Motu Limitation Extension Orders Applicable To Filing Of Written Statements In Commercial Suits : Supreme Court
Case Name: Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 162
The Supreme Court observed that its suo motu limitation extension orders applies in relation to the period prescribed for filing the written statement in commercial suits.
"The period envisaged finally in the order dated 23.09.2021 is required to be excluded in computing the period of limitation even for filing the written statement and even in cases where the delay is otherwise not condonable", the bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath said.
163. Court U/Sec 34 Arbitration Act Can Remand Matter To Arbitrator For Fresh Decision If Both Parties Consented: Supreme Court
Case Name: Mutha Construction v. Strategic Brand Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 163
The Supreme Court observed that the principle that a court while deciding a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has no jurisdiction to remand the matter to the Arbitrator for a fresh decision is applicable only when the said petition is decided on merits. This principle is inapplicable when both the parties agreed to set aside the award and to remit the matter to the Arbitrator for fresh reasoned Award, the bench comprising Justice MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed. The court added that even in a case where the award is set aside on whatever the grounds, the parties can still agree for the fresh arbitration may be by the same arbitrator.
Case Name: United Bank of India v. Bachan Prasad Lall
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 164
The Supreme Court has observed that superannuation of an employee does not absolve him from the misconduct committed in discharge of his duties. The bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and AS Oka was considering SLP assailing Patna High Court's order dated 11th May 2010. ("impugned judgment"). In the impugned judgment the High Court had upheld Tribunal's finding wherein it was observed that the punishment awarded to the respondent employee of dismissal was not commensurate with the charge leveled against him.
165. Order II Rule 3 CPC Does Not Compel A Plaintiff To Join Two Or More Causes Of Action In A Single Suit: Supreme Court
Case Name: B.R. Patil v. Tulsa Y. Sawkar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 165
The Supreme Court observed that Order II Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not compel a plaintiff to join two or more causes of action in a single suit. The Code of Civil Procedure indeed permits a plaintiff to join causes of action but it does not compel a plaintiff to do so, the bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy observed. The court, however, added that the consequences of not joining all claims arising from a cause of action may be fatal to a plaintiff in a future litigation.
166. Section 30(5) Partnership Act Not Applicable To A Minor Partner Who Was Not A Partner At The Time Of His Attaining Majority: Supreme Court
Case Name: State of Kerala v. Laxmi Vasanth
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 166
The Supreme Court observed that Sub-Section (5) of Section 30 of the Partnership Act shall not be applicable to a minor partner who was not a partner at the time of his attaining the majority. He/she shall not be liable for any past dues of the partnership firm when he was a partner being a minor, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
167. 'She Has Not Established Any Reasonable Cause For Staying Away From Matrimonial Home': Supreme Court Dissolves A Marriage On Ground Of 'Desertion'
Case Name: Debananda Tamuli v. Smti Kakumoni Kataky
Citiation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 167
The Supreme Court dissolved marriage on the ground of desertion observing that the 'wife' has not pleaded and established any reasonable cause for remaining away from her matrimonial home.
The petition filed by the 'husband' on the grounds of cruelty and desertion was dismissed by the District Court. The appeal preferred by the husband was dismissed by the Gauhati High Court. While considering the appeal filed by Husband, the Apex Court bench noted that from 1st July 2009 till date, they are staying separately. Merely because on account of her mother in law, the wife visited her matrimonial home in December 2009 and stayed there only for one day, it cannot be said that there was a resumption of cohabitation, the court said.
Case Name: ECGC Ltd. v. Mokul Shriram EPC JV
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 168
The Supreme Court held that the onerous condition of payment of 50% of the amount awarded to file appeal against NCDRC order will not be applicable to the complaints filed prior to the commencement of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Case Name: Satye Singh v. State of Uttarakhand
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 169
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is not intended to relieve the prosecution from discharging its duty to prove the guilt of the accused, the Supreme Court observed while acquitting murder accused. The bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi observed that the burden could not be shifted on the accused by pressing into service the provisions contained in section 106 of the Evidence Act when the prosecution could not prove the basic facts as alleged against the accused.
170. Plea Of Juvenility Has To Be Raised In A Bonafide And Truthful Manner: Supreme Court
Case Name: Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 170
The Supreme Court observed that the plea of juvenility has to be raised in a bonafide and truthful manner. If the reliance is on a document to seek juvenility which is not reliable or dubious in nature, the accused cannot be treated to be juvenile, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian said.
Case Name: Union Bank of India v. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 171
The Supreme Court upheld a Rajasthan High Court judgment which held that the Real Estate Regulatory Authority can entertain complaints by home buyers against the bank which took possession of a real estate project as a secured creditor(Union Bank Of India vs Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority).
172. Council Of Architecture Can Prescribe Minimum Standards Of Architectural Education Without Approval Of Central Govt : Supreme Court
Case Name: Council of Architecture v. Academic Society of Architects (TASA)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 172
The Supreme Court observed that the Council of Architecture may prescribe minimum standards of architectural education, either by way of regulations issued under Section 45(2) of the Architects Act or even otherwise. It is only in cases where the Council chooses to prescribe standards in the form of regulations that the requirement of approval of the Central Government under Section 45(1) would become necessary, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian said.
Case Name: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Karuna Shanker Puri
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 173
The Supreme Court observed that the quantity of the neutral substance is not to be excluded and to be taken into consideration along with the actual content of the weight of the offending drug while determining small and commercial quantities.
Case Name: Regional Transport Authority v. Shaju
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 174
The Supreme Court upheld Rule 174(2)(c) of Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 which enables the road transport authority to reject an application for replacement if the proposed vehicle is older than the one covered under the existing permit. The court observed that under this Rule, the Authority can apply discretion, wherever necessary, while exercising the power to grant replacement of a vehicle under a permit. Where the vehicle sought to be substituted is marginally and inconsequentially older than the vehicle covered under the permit, the Authority may perhaps be justified in permitting such an application, the bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and PS Narasimha said.
Case Name: Union of India v. Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 175
The High Courts shall refrain from making sweeping observations which are beyond the contours of the controversy and/or issues before them, the Supreme Court observed while expunging some remarks made in Delhi High Court judgment on "Make in India (Atma-Nirbharta)". Bharat Fritz Werner Limited had approached the Delhi High Court challenging a Letter of Acceptance issued by the Union of India in favour of another company in respect of the award of tender. Taking note of in the fact that substantial time has elapsed since the award of the tender, the High Court disposed of the writ petition reserving liberty in favour of the writ petitioner to raise all its pleas and claim the reliefs available to him at this stage in an appropriate civil proceedings.
Case Name: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. President, Oil Field Employees Association
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 176
The Supreme Court has held that a minority Union of workers, who were not party to the settlement entered between the majority Union and the employer, is not bound by the same and is free to raise an industrial dispute claiming to be workmen directly under the principal employer. A Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose refused to interfere with the order of the Bombay High Court, which largely upheld the decision of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai, that the demands of the workers' Union to have uniform policies for all workmen irrespective of contracts in ONGC was justified.
Case Name: Satya Dev Bhagaur v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 177
The Supreme Court has observed that the Top Court's interference is not required in policy decision when a State is in a position to point out that there is intelligible differentia in application of policy and that such intelligible differentia has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
The bench of Justices LN Rao and BR Gavai was considering appeal assailing Rajasthan High Court's order dated August 13, 2019 wherein the High Court had allowed State's appeal challenging Single Judge's order.
Case Name: State of Haryana v. Faridabad Industries Association
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 178
The Supreme Court had set aside the interim order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which stayed the operation of the Haryana law(The Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act 2020) which provided 75% reservation for local people in private sector jobs having a monthly salary of less than Rs 30,000.
Noting that the High Court has not recorded any reasons for its stay order, the Supreme Court set it aside and requested the High Court to finally decide the matter within four weeks. The Supreme Court further ordered that there should be no coercive steps against employers under the Act in the meantime and directed that the parties should not seek adjournments.
Case Name: Sharafat Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 179
The Supreme Court observed that an applicant's prior criminal history, conduct and behaviour in jail, possible danger to society, etc. are relevant considerations while considering an application for premature release.
Such an application has to be considered on the basis of the policy as it stood on the date when the applicant was convicted of the offence, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath observed.
Case name: T. Takano vs Securities and Exchange Board of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 180
The Supreme court observed that a quasi-judicial authority has a duty to disclose the material that has been relied upon at the stage of adjudication.
Keeping a party bereft of the information that influenced the decision of an authority undertaking an adjudicatory function undermines the transparency of the judicial process, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Sanjiv Khanna observed. The court added that an ipse dixit of the authority that it has not relied on certain material would not exempt it of its liability to disclose such material if it is relevant to and has a nexus to the action that is taken by the authority.
Case Name: Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 181
The Supreme Court observed that a Magistrate cannot entertain an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when the complaint was not supported by an affidavit.
With such a requirement, the persons would be deterred from causally invoking authority of the Magistrate, under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. In as much as if the affidavit is found to be false, the person would be liable for prosecution in accordance with law, the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Krishna Murari noted.
Case Name: K. Kumara Gupta v. Sri Markendaya and Sri Omkareswara Swamy Temple
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 182
The Supreme Court observed that a sale pursuant to public auction cannot be set aside on the basis of some offer made by third parties subsequently and that too when they did not participate in the auction proceedings.
Under normal circumstances, unless there are allegations of fraud and/or collusion and/or cartel and/or any other material irregularity or illegality, the highest offer received in the public auction may be accepted as a fair value. Otherwise, there shall not be any sanctity of a public auction, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna said.
Case Name: Deenadayal Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Munjaji
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 183
The Supreme Court held that once the borrower fails to apply to the Recovery Officer to set aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity within a period of thirty days from the date of sale of the immovable property as prescribed under Section 107(14) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, the borrower cannot be subsequently permitted to challenge the same.
" Therefore, once the borrower failed to apply to the Recovery Officer to set aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity within a period of thirty days from the date of sale of the immovable property and thereafter the Sale Certificate has been issued, normally the borrower cannot be permitted to challenge the same subsequently, having not raised any objection at the appropriate time and stage as per the statute, otherwise the statutory provisions would become nugatory and unworkable."
Case Name: New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Ravindra Kumar Singhvi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw SC 184
Holding that affidavits are not mere sheets of paper but solemn statements on oath and that fraud vitiates all proceedings, the Supreme Court has upheld the cancellation of an allotment of plot by NOIDA authority. The Court observed that cancellation of allotment of plot obtained after filing false affidavit is a legitimate ground of cancellation of lease.
Case Title: Universal Petro Chemicals Ltd. v. B.P.PLC
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 185
The Supreme Court disallowed the claim for damages raised in lieu of specific performance of contract citing the reason that the plaintiff had not specifically sought the relief of compensation in the plaint.
Case Name: Hotel Priya A Proprietorship v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 186
In a significant judgment disapproving gender-based stereotypes, the Supreme Court held that the condition imposing a gender cap as to the number of women or men, who can perform in orchestras and bands, in licenced bars, is unconstitutional. While the overall limit of performers in any given performance cannot exceed eight, the composition (i.e., all female, majority female or male, or vice versa) can be of any combination, the Court clarified, while allowing the appeal filed by a hotel challenging the restrictions imposed by Mumbai Police
187. Denying Pension To Ad-hoc Employee After 30 Years Service Is Unreasonable: Supreme Court
Case Name: State of Gujarat v. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 187
The Supreme Court recently expressed its displeasure on State of Gujarat denying pension to an ad hoc employee who rendered 30 years of continuous service.
The bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna was considering a SLP assailing Gujarat High Court's order wherein the High Court had directed the State to pay pensionary benefits to the respondent who has retired after rendering more than 30 years service.
Remarking that taking the Services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years continuous service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable, the bench dismissed State's SLP.
Case Name: Muhammed A.A. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 188
In a judgment giving relief to thousands of employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd (KSEBL), the Supreme Court has upheld a Kerala Government Order dated 13.02.2019, which granted exemptions to several existing Board employees from the qualifications under the the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010.
However, the Supreme Court upheld the view of the Kerala High Court that the said Government Order can be applied only to the existing employees and not to employees appointed after 31.10.2013.
The Supreme Court opined that 'deviation' in Regulation 116 of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010, which permits the Central and State Government to deviate with respect to matters covered by the Regulation of 2010 would amount to either "exemption" or "relaxation".
Case Name: Kishor Madhukar Pinglikar v. Automotive Research Association of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 189
The Supreme Court observed that the presence of some element of public duty or function would not by itself suffice for bringing a body within the net of Article 12 (definition of 'State'). "An overall and holistic view of the functions and activities, including the primary function(s), should be taken into consideration.", the bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi said while holding that Automotive Research Association of India is not a 'State'.
Case Name: Adiraj Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Pune II
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 190
The Supreme Court held that for the purpose of granting tax exemption based on the nature of agreements, the said agreements ought to be read as a composite whole.
In the present matter, in order to decide whether the agreement entered into between the parties was a job work agreement and fit for granting benefit of service tax exemption in terms of Notification No. 25/2012-Service Tax dated 20 June 2012, the Apex Court read the agreement as a whole. It noted that just because the agreement contained a provision for payment on the basis of rates, the same would not make it a job work agreement.
"On reading the agreement as a whole, it is apparent that the contract is pure and simple a contract for the provision of contract labour. An attempt has been made to camouflage the contract as a contract for job work to avail of the exemption from the payment of service tax."
A Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Surya Kant dismissed an appeal filed assailing the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ("CESTAT"), which refused to extend the benefit of service tax exemption to the appellant and upheld the order of the Commissioner Central Excise Pune-I confirming demand of service tax, interest along with penalty.
Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling v. Aakavi Spinning Mills (P) Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 191
The Supreme Court observed that external aid for interpretation cannot be employed when an 'exemption' entry is clear and unambiguous.
In this case, the Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling, had held that the commodity "Hank Yarn", as stipulated in Entry 44 of Part B of the Fourth Schedule to the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 ('the Act'), meant only "Cotton Hank Yarn" and not "Viscose Staple Fiber ('VSF') Hank Yarn". This was upheld by the Single bench of the High Court with reference to the Budget speech delivered by the Minister of Finance, Government of Tamil Nadu. Later, the Division Bench held that no external aid for interpretation was called for when the language of the Entry in question was clear in itself.
Agreeing with the view taken by the Division Bench, the Apex Court bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy observed that the yarn in the hank form (which is a unit of measure), has come for exemption under the said Entry 44; and obviously, that exemption enures to the benefit of the handloom industry too.
Case Name: K. Shanthamma v. State of Telangana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 192
The Supreme Court observed that the proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder, the bench comprising noted.
Case Name: Azgar Barid v. Mazambi @ Pyaremabi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 193
The Supreme Court observed that the plaintiff in a partition suit is not disentitled to seek relief in second appeal merely because his claim was denied by the trial court and he had not challenged the same by way of appeal. The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai observed that in a suit for partition, the position of the plaintiff and the defendant can be interchangeable.
194. 'Love Affair' Irrelevant Ground For Bail When Victim Is A Minor Girl : Supreme Court In POCSO Case
Case Title: X (Minor) v. State of Jharkhand
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 194
Noting that once prima facie it appears that the prosecutrix was a minor, the grounds that there was a "love affair" between her and the accused and the accused's alleged refusal to marry would be extraneous for bail, the Supreme Court has set aside the bail granted to an accused under section 376, IPC and section 6, POCSO.
Case Name: Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 195
The Supreme Court held that 'pharmaceutical companies' gifting freebies to doctors is prohibited by law and they cannot claim it as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. These freebies are technically not 'free' – the cost of supplying such freebies is usually factored into the drug, driving prices up, thus creating a perpetual publicly injurious cycle, the bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and S.Ravindra Bhat remarked.
Case name/ details: TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd. vs SMS Asia Private Limited | SLP (Crl.) No.3113 of 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 196
The Supreme Court observed that, in a cheque bounce case, when the complainant/payee is a company, an authorized employee can represent the company.
"Indication in the complaint and the sworn statement (either orally or by affidavit) to the effect that the complainant (Company) is represented by an authorized person who has knowledge, would be sufficient. Such averment and prima facie material is sufficient for the Magistrate to take cognizance and issue process", a three judges bench headed by CJI NV Ramana observed.
197. Pure 'Business To Business' Disputes Cannot Be Construed As Consumer Disputes : Supreme Court
Case Name: Shrikant G. Mantri v. Punjab National Bank
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 197
The Supreme Court observed that pure 'business to business' disputes cannot be construed as 'consumer disputes'. When a person avails a service for a commercial purpose, to come within the meaning of 'consumer', he will have to establish that the services were availed exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self employment, the bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai observed.
Case Name: Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. v. State of U.P.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 198
Upholding a Full bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court, the Supreme Court observed that a financier in possession of a motor vehicle/transport vehicle in respect of which a hire-purchase or lease or hypothecation agreement has been entered, is liable to tax under U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997. The liability is from the date of taking possession of the said vehicle under the said agreements, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
Case Name: Dr. A. Parthasarathy v. E Springs Avenues Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 199
The Supreme Court observed that a Court, under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, has no jurisdiction to remand the matter to the same Arbitrator unless it is so consented by both the parties. The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed that only two options are available to the Court considering the appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. The High Court either may relegate the parties for fresh arbitration or to consider the appeal on merits on the basis of the material available on record within the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the court said.
Case Name: Rajesh Seth v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 200
The Supreme Court observed that indefinite adjournment in a matter relating to anticipatory bail, that too after admitting it, is detrimental to the valuable right of a person. "When a person is before the Court and that too in a matter involving personal liberty, least what is expected is for such a person to be given the result one way or the other, based on the merit of his case and not push him to a position of uncertainty or be condemned without being heard, when it matters", the bench headed by CJI NV Ramana observed.
Case Name: Gayatri Prasad Prajapati v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 201
The Supreme Court observed that a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India to quash FIR/criminal proceedings cannot be entertained. It is not expected that the relief which can be considered by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to be considered by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the Court observed while dismissing a writ petition filed by Gayatri Prasad Prajapati as withdrawn. The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed thus while considering the request made by the counsel to withdraw the Writ Petition. It was submitted that by the passage of time, the writ petition has become infructuous.
Case Name: Horticulture Experiment Station Gonikoppal Coorg v. Regional Provident Fund Organization
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 202
The Supreme Court observed that any default or delay in the payment of EPF contribution by the employer is a sine qua non for imposition of levy of damages under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka observed that mens rea or actus reus is not an essential element for imposing penalty/damages for breach of civil obligations/liabilities.
Case Name: Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti v. Commissioner
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 203
The Supreme Court observed that exemption notification should not be liberally construed and it is for the assessee to show that he comes within the purview of the notification. The bench comprising upheld the order passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi which held that the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (Agricultural Produce Market Committees) located in different parts of State of Rajasthan liable to pay service tax under the category of "renting of immovable property service" for the period upto 30.06.2012.
Case Name: Registrar General v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 204
The Supreme Court has observed that High Court cannot exercise power u/s 482 of CrPC, 1973 in a sweeping manner and beyond the contours of what is stipulated under the said Section.
The bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna was considering a criminal appeal assailing Madras High Court's orders passed in 2019 by which the Single Judge had directed to transfer 864 cases in which the final reports have been filed before the concerned Special Courts for Land Grabbing Cases pending in various districts.
Case Name: Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 205
The Supreme Court observed that a compassionate appointment policy cannot discriminate against a person only on the ground of descent by classifying children of the deceased employee as legitimate and illegitimate. Exclusion of one class of legitimate children would fail to meet the test of nexus with the object, and it would defeat the purpose of ensuring the dignity of the family of the deceased employee, the bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha observed.
Case Name: State of Orissa v. Panda Infraproject
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 206
The Supreme Court observed that the duration of blacklisting cannot be solely per offence. The court disapproved the guidelines issued by the Odisha Government that blacklisting period per offence shall be limited to three years subject to an overall maximum cumulative period of ten years for multiple offences.
"In a given case, it may happen that the commission and omission is very grave and because of the serious lapse and/or negligence, a major incident would have taken place. In such a case, it may be the contractor's first offence, in such a case, the period/duration of the blacklisting/banning can be more than three years.", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
207. IBC - Claim Which Is Not Part Of Resolution Plan Doesn't Survive: Supreme Court
Case Name: Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 207
In the case where a claim by the Revenue authority was not lodged before Resolution Professional after issuance of Public notices under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code(IBC) before approval of the Resolution plan, the Supreme Court of India has held that the claim which is not part of the Resolution Plan, does not survive. A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Ravindra Bhat has observed that on the date on which the Resolution Plan was approved by the NCLT, all claims stood frozen, and no claim, which is not a part of the Resolution Plan, would survive.
Case Name: Punjab National Bank v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 208
The Supreme Court observed that the SARFAESI Act will have an overriding effect on the provisions of the Central Excise Act. The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Vineet Saran observed that the dues of the secured creditor will have priority over the dues of the Central Excise Department.
Case Name: M. Chinnamuthu v. Kamaleshan @ Shanmugam
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 209
The Supreme Court has expressed anguish at the delay in execution of a decree passed in favour of the judgment-creditor in the year 1989.
"It is very unfortunate that an order which was passed in favour of the respondent judgment-creditor for eviction of the petitioner passed on 28.08.1989 is yet not permitted to be executed by the judgment-debtor by initiating the proceedings one after another. It is very unfortunate that even after a period of 33 years, the judgment- creditor in whose favour the order is passed in the year 1989 is not able to enjoy the fruit of the litigation and the decree passed in his favour."
A Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna observed that even after getting the decree in their favour the judgment-creditor has to run from pillar to post to get the same executed.
Case Name: Sabir v Bhoora @ Nadeem
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 210
The Supreme Court has observed that in the case of murder (u/s 302 IPC) it is expected for the High Court to at least give some reason for reversing Trial Court's order which had rejected bail application by reasoned order.
The observation has been made by a bench of Justices Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose while considering SLP assailing Allahabad High Court's order dated August 2, 2021 of granting bail to accused in FIR registered u/s 302 IPC.
211. NCDRC Should Not Return Complaint Unadjudicated For Misjoinder Of Parties : Supreme Court
Case Name: Brahmaputra Biochem Pvt. Ltd. v. New India Assurance Company
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 211
The Supreme Court recently set aside an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which returned a complaint unadjudicated due to misjoinder of parties. Terming the approach of the NCDRC "erroneous", the Supreme Court observed that the if there was misjoinder of parties, the unnecessary parties should be deleted, instead of returning the complaint. A bench comprising Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V Ramasubramanian observed that the complaint cannot be returned unadjudicated with liberty to file fresh complaint as the issue of limitation will also arise.
Case Name: NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Subir Chakravarty
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 212
The Supreme Court held that the District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate can appoint an advocate commissioner to assist him/her in execution of the order passed under Section 14(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. An advocate is and must be regarded as an officer of the court and subordinate to the CMM/DM for the purposes of Section 14(1A) of the 2002 Act., the bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar said.
Case Name: Shri Babuji Rawji Shah v. S. Hussain Zaidi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 213
The Supreme Court while dismissing a plea to stay the release of film "Gangubai Kathiawadi" observed that the film certificate issued by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) prima facie showed that the film was not defamatory. The observation was made by the bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari while considering SLP assailing Bombay High Court's order of rejecting to grant interim injunction restraining the respondents from releasing the film "Gangubai Kathiawadi", based on the book "Mafia Queens of Mumbai".
Case: Benson George vs Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. | CA 1540 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 214
The Supreme Court observed that the position of the claimant post accident is a relevant factor for determining compensation on the head of loss of amenities and happiness.
The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna enhanced compensation awarded to a person who is in coma for eight years to Rs. Ten lakhs each under heads of the pain, shock & suffering and loss of amenities and happiness of life.
215. Supreme Court Deprecates Impleading Judges In Petition Challenging Grant Of Bail; Imposes Cost
Case Title: Balakram @ Bhura v The State of UP & Ors| Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 48/2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 215
The Supreme Court recently dismissed a writ petition challenging bail granted to the accused(s) with cost of Rs 5000 for impleading the judge that granted bail.
The bench of Justices Vineet Saran and CT Ravikumar while deprecating the petitioner's conduct to implead the Magistrate in their order said,
" Firstly, we see no reason why the petitioner should have filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Magistrate directly in this Court. Further, we also fail to understand why the Judge granting bail has been impleaded by name as respondent no.6 and also the Additional District Judge, who has refused to interfere with the order passed by the Magistrate has been impleaded by name as respondent no.7. The said conduct of the petitioner is deprecated."
Case Name: Waheed-Ur-Rehman Parra v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 216
The Supreme Court held that even for protected witnesses declared so under Section 173(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.) read with Section 44 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ("UAPA"), the accused can exercise their right under Sections 207 and 161 of the Cr.P.C to obtain copies of their redacted statements which would ensure that the identity of the witness not disclosed.
A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh allowed an appeal assailing the order of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, which had set aside the trial court's directions to provide statements of the protected witnesses to the accused after the Special Public Prosecutor redacts the sensitive portions therein.
Case Name: Suresh Yadav @ Guddu v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 217
The Supreme Court observed that evidence of an eye witness cannot be discarded only for the reason that he allegedly did not raise any alarm or did not try to intervene when the deceased was being attacked.
The court observed thus while dismissing an appeal filed by an accused who was concurrently convicted in a murder case of offences under Section 302 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. As per prosecution, the accused was having a love affair with the deceased but, got enraged when he saw the deceased talking to another boy; and caused multiple injuries to the deceased by a pointed knife, leading to her death. The conviction was based on the evidence given by an eyewitness, who asserted having seen the accused repeatedly causing injuries on the person of the deceased.
Case : Abinash Dixit vs State of Madhya Pradesh | CrA 267 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 218
Mere passivity and insouciance will not tantamount to offence of abetment, the Supreme Court observed while quashing prosecution of an Engineer under Foreigners Act.
Case Name: Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 219
The Supreme Court quashed a notifications issued by Bihar Government that approved issuance of Scheduled Tribe Caste certificate to Lohar community.
"Lohar is not same as Lohara. Including Lohars alongside 'Lohara' is clearly illegal and arbitrary", the bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy observed.
Case Title: Krishnamurthy @ Gunodu vs State of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 220
The Supreme Court observed that Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code does not attract when the final outcome or offence committed is distinctly remote and unconnected with the common intention.
A co-perpetrator, who shares a common intention, will be liable only to the extent that he intends or could or should have visualized the possibility or probability of the final act, the bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi observed.
Case Name: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 221
The Supreme Court held that consumer complaint against telecom companies is maintainable before Consumer forum/Commission.
The three judges bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath observed that the existence of an arbitral remedy under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, will not oust the jurisdiction of the consumer forum.
Case Name: Jameel Ahmad v. Mohammed Umair Mohammad Haroon
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 222
The Supreme Court has reiterated that grant of bail, though a discretionary order, requires such discretion to be exercised in a judicious manner and on the application of certain settled parameters. The bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi was considering SLP assailing Bombay High Court's order dated September 6, 2021 wherein the High Court had granted bail to Mohammad Umair Mohammad Haroon with regards to crime u/s 302 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 4/25 of the Arms Act.
Case Title: Vikram Singh v. Shyoji Ram
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 223
If a cheque is returned by a bank with an endorsement "account frozen", then it presupposes the existence of the account, observed the Supreme Court in a recent case.
The Court expressed surprise at the stand of the bank that no such account was maintained and operated by it, despite returning the cheque with the remark "account frozen".
Case Name: N. Rajendran v. S. Valli
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224
The Supreme Court observed that the consent of the parties is not necessary to order the dissolution of marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown under Article 142 of the Constitution.
In this case, the High Court reversed the decree of dissolution of the marriage between a couple. The Family Court had earlier allowed petition filed by the husband seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty.
Case Name: Municipal Corporation Gondia v. Divi Works & Suppliers HUF
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 225
The Supreme Court observed that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued virtually granting specific performance of the contract/work order petition.
Case Name: Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Chetan Kamble
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 226
The Supreme Court observed that PIL litigation has alleviated the conditions of the citizens in general.
But thousands of frivolous petitions are filed, burdening the docket of both this Court and the High Courts, the bench headed by CJI NV Ramana observed. The court observed that noble intentions behind expanding the Court's jurisdiction were to accommodate socially relevant issues.
227. Limitation Period Cannot Be Extended On Equitable Grounds: Supreme Court
Case Title: Lingeswaran vs Thirunagalingam | SLP 2054-2055/2022 |
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 227
The Supreme Court observed that an application for condonation of delay has to be dismissed if it is found that the delay is not properly explained and that the period of limitation cannot be extended on equitable ground. Otherwise, it would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna said.
Case Title: Tulesh Kumar Sahu v State of Chattisgarh| Criminal Appeal No(s). 753/2021Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 228
The Supreme Court recently set aside the conviction of a person for the offence of murder, after noting that the only evidence which linked him to the offence was the alleged recovery of stolen article from him. A bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha referred to the precedents which held that merely on the basis of recovery of article, it may not be safe to sustain a conviction for murder.
Case Name: Nandu Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh)| Criminal Appeal No.285 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 229
The Supreme Court has held that the absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused. "In a case based on substantial (circumstantial) evidence, motive assumes great significance. It is not as if motive alone becomes the crucial link in the case to be established by the prosecution and in its absence the case of Prosecution must be discarded. But, at the same time, complete absence of motive assumes a different complexion and such absence definitely weighs in favour of the accused," bench of Justices U.U. Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and P.S. Narasimha observed.
Case Title: Luckose Zachariah @ Zak Nedumchira Luke and Others v. Joseph Joseph and Others| Criminal Appeal No 256 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 230
The Supreme Court has observed that a Judicial Magistrate should consider both the initial final report submitted under Section 173(2) CrPC and the supplementary report submitted under Section 173(8) before deciding whether there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offense. The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant made the observation while considering a criminal appeal assailing Kerala High Court's order dated March 3, 2021.
Case Title: Priyashi Aashi Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs Mitrajyoti Deka | SLP 2074-2075/2022 |
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 231
The Supreme Court, in an order passed last month, criticized last moment filing of additional documents in Special Leave Petitions. By not filing the application for additional documents at the time of filing the Special Leave Petition but filing the same at the last moment and on the previous day of the posting of the Special Leave Petition and many a time late in the evening causes great inconvenience to the Court, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
232. Mere Filing Of Representation Before Authorities Does Not Extend Limitation Period : Supreme Court
Case Title: Surjeet Singh Sahni vs State of U.P. | SLP (C) 3008 of 2022 |
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 232
The Supreme Court observed that mere filing of representation before authorities does not extend the period of limitation. If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches, the High Court should dismiss it at the threshold and ought not to dispose of the writ petition by relegating the writ petitioner to file a representation and/or directing the authority to decide the representation, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
Case Title: Binay Kumar Dalei vs State of Odisha | CA 1627-1628 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 233
The Supreme Court bench of Justices LN Rao and BR Gavai directed the State of Odisha to implement the Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan before permitting any mining activity in the eco-sensitive zone. In this case, the National Green Tribunal had directed that mining activity shall not be permitted within and in the vicinity of Simplipal - Hadagarh - Kuldiha – Simplipal elephant corridor. The Tribunal ordered completion of the process under Section 36 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 for declaration of conservation reserve in respect of the elephant corridor within a period of three months.
234. Prosecution Is Not Required To Prove Its Case Beyond All Iota Of Doubt: Supreme Court
Case name: Karan Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh | SLP (Crl.) No.717 of 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 234
The prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and not beyond all iota of doubt, remarked the Supreme Court bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and V Ramasubramanian observed while dismissing a criminal appeal filed by a murder accused.
235. Highest Bidder Has No Vested Right To Have The Public Auction Concluded In His Favour: Supreme Court
Case Title: State of Punjab vs. Mehar Din | CA 5861 OF 2009
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 235
The Supreme Court observed that the highest bidder has no vested right to have the auction concluded in his favour. The acceptance of the highest bid or highest bidder is always subject to conditions of holding a public auction and the right of the highest bidder is always provisional to be examined in the context in different conditions in which the auction has been held, the bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka observed.
Case Title: Rama Negi vs Union of India | CA 1713-1714 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 236
The Supreme Court observed that an unblemished or clean record of an employee is a significant factor while considering his/her suitability for promotion to a 'selection post'. "A marred service record, though not an insurmountable bar, must carry some consequences, and it could be a comparative disadvantage in promotion for a selection post. The employer's preference for a person with a clean service record can be well appreciated", the bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy said.
237. Appointments To Reserved Vacancies Meant Only For Members Of Reserved Community Alone: Supreme Court
Case Title: : Jayashree vs Director Collegiate Education | CA 1559/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 237
The Supreme Court observed that the appointments to the reserved vacancies are meant only for those who are deserving by being members of reserved community alone. If any person other than a member of the reserved community is appointed, it would clearly constitute an infringement of the rights of the genuinely deserving members of the said community, the bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy observed.
Case Title: Loop Telecom and Trading Limited vs Union of India | CA 1447-1467 of 2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 238
The Supreme Court observed that the principle of Restitution under Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act will not apply when the party claiming restitution was equally or more responsible for the illegality of the Contract. In adjudicating a claim of restitution, the court must determine the illegality which caused the contract to become void and the role the party claiming restitution has played in it, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath observed.
Case Title: Harish Kumar (D) vs Pankaj Kumar Garg | CA 253 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 239
The Supreme Court observed that a landlord is not required to be "unemployed" to seek eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. All that the provision contemplates is that the requirement so pleaded by the landlord must be bona fide, the bench comprising Justices UU Lalit and S. Ravindra Bhat observed.
240. States Cannot Levy Excise Duty On Alcohol Which Is Not Fit For Human Consumption: Supreme Court
Case Title: State of Orissa vs Utkal Distilleries Ltd | CA 5666-5668 OF 2009
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 240
The Supreme Court observed that States have power to levy excise duty only in respect of the alcoholic liquor for human consumption. Alcoholic liquors other than for human consumption have been left to the Central Legislature for levy of duty of excise, the bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai noted.
Case Title: Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (D) vs Maniben Jagmalbhai (D) | CA 1382 OF 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 241
The Supreme Court observed that a suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable against the true owner of the property when the dispute with respect to title is settled against the plaintiff. Once the suit is held to be barred by limitation qua the declaratory relief, the prayer for permanent injunction, which is a consequential relief can also be said to be barred by limitation, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
Case Name: Gambhirdhan K Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat And Ors.| Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1525 of 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 242
The Supreme Court bench of Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna has held that appointment of a Vice Chancellor of a University, even under a State legislation, cannot be contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations. The Apex Court noted that in cases where the State legislature is repugnant to the Central legislation, Central legislation is to prevail as per Article 254 as 'education' is an item in the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule. In view of the same it was of the view that such an appointment would be considered to be in violation of the statutory provisions and hence a fit case for issuing writ of quo warranto.
Case: Abdul Vahab vs State of Madhya Pradesh | CrA 340 /2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 243
The Supreme Court observed that the acquittal of an accused in a criminal case under Madhya Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004, is a factor to be considered while deciding confiscation proceedings under the Act. "In a case where the offender/accused are acquitted in the Criminal Prosecution, the judgment given in the Criminal Trial should be factored in by the District Magistrate while deciding the confiscation proceeding", the bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy observed.
Case: Union of India vs Managobinda Samantaray | CA 1622-1623 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 244
The Supreme Court observed that courts cannot interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority unless it is grossly disproportionate. Quantum of punishment is within the discretionary domain and the sole power of the decision-making authority once the charge of misconduct stands proved, the bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi observed.
245. Physical Analysis Is Not Prescribed Under NDPS Act For Testing Opium : Supreme Court
Case: Sukhdev Singh vs State of Punjab | CrA 1004 of 2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 245
The Supreme Court observed that physical analysis is not prescribed under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for testing the opium. The physical nature of the material is not relevant for determining whether the contents of the sample analyzed were actually opium or not, the bench headed by CJI NV Ramana observed thus while dismissing an appeal filed against a judgment passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana confirming conviction of the accused under NDPS Act.
Case: Darshan Kaur Bhatia vs Ramesh Gandhi | CA 1701-1702 /2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 246
The Supreme Court bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh has reiterated that a suit for declaration based on adverse possession having matured into ownership is maintainable. In this case, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title pleading that the adverse possession on the suit property granted him certain rights. The Trial court allowed the application filed by defendant under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure and rejected the plaint.
Case Title: Narendra Singh @ Mukesh @ Bhura v. State of Rajasthan SLP (Crl) No. 7830 of 2021]
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 247
The Supreme Court has reiterated that Trial Court does not have the jurisdiction to sentence an accused to life imprisonment which is to extend to the remainder of their life.
Taking note of the Constitution Bench judgment in Union of India Vs. V. Sriharan @ Muruganand Others 2016 (7) SCC 1, a Bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka modified the sentence of life imprisonment extending to the remainder of the natural life, imposed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court to life imprisonment simpliciter.
Case: Amritlal vs Shantilal Soni | CrA 301 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 248
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath has observed that the relevant date for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence.
Case: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Prem Kumar Shukla | CA 1690 OF 2022 | 28 Feb 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 249
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna has observed that there must be an independent application of mind and at least some independent reasoning to be given by the appellate Court while deciding and disposing of the writ appeal.
Case : Rakesh Kumar vs State of Bihar | CA 1517 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 250
The Supreme Court reinstated a judicial officer whose appointment was cancelled since he could not join the service before the stipulated date on account of the nationwide lockdown imposed in view of Covid-19 pandemic. "There was considerable confusion also about what a person could do and what a person could not do during the time of the lockdown. It was an unprecedented situation which affected the nation", the bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy observed. The court added that it cannot ignore the reality that restrictions imposed during lockdown were severe and stringent.
Case: M. Nageswara Reddy vs State of Andhra Pradesh | CrA 72-73 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 251
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna reiterated that evidence of witnesses cannot be discarded merely because they were the relatives of the deceased victim. Eleven accused were tried together in a murder case. The trial Court convicted three accused for the offences under Sections 148 & 302 IPC and acquitted others. The conviction of these three accused was reversed by the High Court. According to the High Court, the eye witnesses, who are relatives of the deceased, were planted witnesses.
252. Power To Condone Delay Under Section 5 Of Limitation Act Does Not Apply To Suits : Supreme Court
Case : F. Liansanga vs Union of India | SLP(Civil) 32875-32876 OF 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 252
The Supreme Court has observed that the power to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to suits. The Court also noted that Limitation Act is applicable in the State of Mizoram with effect from 21.01.1972. The limitation may harshly affect a particular party, but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes, the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari said while upholding a Gauhati High Court judgment.
Case Name: Bank of Baroda v. M/s. Karwa Trading Company And Anr.| Civil Appeal No 363 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 253
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna has held that a borrower cannot redeem the mortgaged property put for public auction by the bank by only paying the reserve price for the auction or even the highest bid amount. Under Section 13(8) of the the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("SARFAESI Act"), the transfer of the mortgaged property in public auction can be stalled only when the entire dues along with all cost, charges and expenses are paid to the Bank before the date fixed for such transfer, the Court held.
Case Title : Union of India vs Manpreet Singh Poonam | CA 517-518 of 2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 254
The Supreme Court observed that mere existence of vacancy per se will not create a right in favour of an employee for retrospective promotion. The promotion to a post should only be granted from the date of promotion and not from the date on which vacancy has arisen, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh observed.
Case Title: Rajbir vs Suraj Bhan | CA 1700/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 255
The Supreme Court observed that the provisions of Order XXI Rule 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be diluted and it has to invite objections from the judgment debtor to the draft deed/document submitted by the decree holder. "The departure from the provisions can have highly deleterious consequences not merely qua the parties in question but also persons who come to deal with those parties in future. It can lead to further litigation.", the bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy observed.
Case Title: Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India And Anr.| Civil Appeal No 1566 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 256
The Supreme Court bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy has held that the benefit of the first proviso to Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 before substitution, whereby the Appellate Tribunal was vested with the power to dispense with the deposit of the penalty amount to be made during the pendency of appeal, could not be extended to the appellants who had filed appeal after the provision was substituted by the new Section 129E that came into effect on 06.08.2014. The Apex Court stated that the substitution of a provision results in repeal of the older provision and replacement by the new provision.
Case Title: Yeruva Sayireddy vs State of Andhra Pradesh | CrA 233 OF 2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 257
The Supreme Court observed that an amicus curiae who was appearing for deceased appellant cannot be treated as 'near relative' under Section 394 CrPC for the purpose of continuance of appeal. The bench comprising Justices Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose noted that a criminal appeal filed by a convict will abate on his death if no application for leave to continue the appeal is made within 30 days by a near relative viz. a parent, spouse, lineal descendant, brother or sister.
Case Title: State of MP vs Ramji Lal Sharma | CrA 293 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 258
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna has observed that once it is established that all the accused came at the place of incident with a common intention to kill the deceased, it is immaterial whether any of the accused who shared the common intention had used any weapon or not and/or any of them caused any injury on the deceased.
Case Name: Amit Katyal v. Meera Ahuja And Ors.| Civil Appeal No 3778 of 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 259
The Supreme Court has allowed withdrawal of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against a builder in an application filed by three homebuyers in view of a settlement plan agreed upon by the majority of them. In the larger interest of the homebuyers, the Apex Court exercised power under Article 142 to permit withdrawal of the CIRP proceedings and set aside all matters pending between the parties. While allowing the application, a Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna reserved liberty in favour of the homebuyers and Krrish Provence Flat Buyers Association ("Association") to approach it, in case the settlement does not go through as per the proposal. The Court also directed the promoters of the builder to pay Rs.6,00,000/- to the IRP along with litigation costs.
Case Title: Devadassan v. The Second Class Executive Magistrate, Ramanathapuram & Ors.| Criminal Appeal No. 388 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 260
While upholding an order of detention passed by an Executive Magistrate, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshewari has explained the scheme of Chapter VII of the Code of Criminal Procedure which contains provisions relating to bond for keeping peace and good behavior and also the consequences flowing from the breach of such bond.
Case Title: The Vice Chairman Delhi Development Authority V. Narender Kumar & Ors.| Civil Appeal No(s). 1880 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 261
The Supreme Court has set aside a judgment of the Delhi High Court which directed for applying the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme in the Delhi Development Authority with effect from January 1, 2006.
The bench of Justices UU Lalit, SR Bhat and Bela M Trivedi was considering SLP assailing Delhi High Court's order of directing to extend the MACP benefits to the Delhi Development Authority employees from 1st January, 2006.
Case Name: Mandeep Kumar And Ors. v. U.T. Chandigarh And Ors.| Civil Appeal No 1908 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 262
The Supreme Court rejected the plea seeking direction to the Government of Punjab to fill up vacant posts of ETT (Education Trained Teacher) for SC/ST categories from eligible candidates of the OBC category, by interchanging the vacant seats in SC/ST quota as per a policy letter of the State Government dated 17.03.1954.
The Apex Court noted that the dereservation of reserved vacancy cannot be done by the appointing authority, but only by the Department of Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes as per Section 7(2) of the the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Service) Act, 2006.
A Bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari refused to interfere with the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which rejected the plea of interchangeability/de-reservation.
State of Rajasthan vs Ashok Khetoliya | CA 1814 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 263
The Supreme Court observed that the Constitution (Seventy-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1992, does not take away legislative competence of the State Legislatures to legislate on the subject of local Government.
It is the State Legislature alone which is competent to legislate in respect of the municipalities with only one limitation that the provisions of the State Act cannot be inconsistent with the mandate of the Scheme of Part IXA of the Constitution, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian said.
264. Contempt Jurisdiction Would Not Cease Merely Because Order Is Executable : Supreme Court
Case Title: Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund vs Dharmesh S. Jain | Contempt Petition (C) 940 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 264
The Supreme Court observed that the jurisdiction of a Court under the Contempt of Courts Act would not cease, merely because the order or decree of which contempt is alleged, is executable. "Questions as to executability of such order is a question which concerns the parties inter-se. The power of the Court to invoke contempt jurisdiction, is not, in any way, altered by the rights of the parties inter-se.", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna said.
Case Title: Sagar vs State of UP | CrA 397 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 265
The Supreme Court reiterated that the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a discretionary and extraordinary power which should be exercised sparingly. "The crucial test to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction", the bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S.Oka said.
Case Title :SK Naushad Rahman and others vs Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266
Observing that the State's transfer policy must give due consideration to the importance of protecting family life, the Supreme Court has urged the Union of India to revisit the policy relating to transfers in the tax administration department. The bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Vikram Nath was considering appeals against a Kerala High Court judgment which rejected the challenge against a circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs(CBIC) in 2018 withdrawing Inter-Commissionerate Transfers(ICT)
267. Section 50 NDPS Act Not Followed During Search - Supreme Court Restores Acquittal
Case Title: Sanjeev vs State of Himachal Pradesh | CrA 870 OF 2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 267
The Supreme Court bench of Justices UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha acquitted the accused in an NDPS case on the ground of non-compliance of requirement of affording an option to be searched before a Magistrate of a competent Gazetted Officer. In this case, the accused were acquitted by the Trial Court observing that the Police did not give any option to them to be searched before a Magistrate of a competent Gazetted Officer. The High Court, allowing the appeal filed by the State, convicted them.
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Singh vs State of Jharkhand | CA 1760 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 268
In a judgment delivered, the Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna explained Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure which enables an appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. The court observed that an application seeking to adduce additional evidence can be allowed where (1) the additional evidence sought to be adduced removes the cloud of doubt over the case and (2) the evidence has a direct and (3) important bearing on the main issue in the suit and interest of justice clearly renders it imperative that it may be allowed to be permitted on record.
Case Title: OLX India BV vs State of Haryana | CrA 378 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 269
The Supreme Court quashed the directions issued by Punjab and Haryana High Court to OLX India to adopt a screening mechanism with respect to the sellers who could post an advertisement on its Platform. "There was no occasion for the High Court to pass these directions; and more particularly, without hearing the appellant"., the bench headed by Justice UU Lalit said while allowing the appeal filed by OLX India B.V.
Case Title: Bajaj Alliance General Insurance v Rambha Devi & Ors, CA 841/2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 270
A 3-judge Bench of the Supreme Court has referred to a larger bench the issue whether a person, on the strength of a driving licence for Light Motor Vehicles(LMV), can drive a Transport Vehicle having unladen weight below 7500 kilograms. A 3-judge Bench comprising Justice UU Lalit, Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha doubted the correctness of the decision given by a coordinate bench in the case Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2017) 14 SCC 663.
Case Title: Shobha vs Chairman, Vithalrao Shinde Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. | CA 1860 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 271
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed that the liability to pay the interest on the amount of arrears/compensation under Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, shall be from the date of accident and not from the date of the order.
Case Title: Kamla Devi vs State of Rajasthan | CrA 342 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 272
The Supreme Court reiterated that a Court deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case.
The material aspects includes the following:
(1) allegations made against the accused;
(2) severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt which would result in a conviction;
(3) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused;
(4) tampering of the evidence;
(5) the frivolity in the case of the prosecution;
(6) criminal antecedents of the accused; and
(7) a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused.
The bench comprising Justices MR shah and BV Nagarathna observed thus while setting aside the bail granted by the High Court to some murder accused.
Case Title: Pramina Devi (Dead) Thr. Lrs. V. State Of Jharkhand| Civil Appeal No. 1762 Of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 273
In a matter related to land acquisition, the Supreme Court recently observed that judgment must have a clarity on the exact relief that is granted by the Court so that it may not create further complication and/or difficulty in the execution. The bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna made this observation while considering appeals preferred by the claimants landowners assailing Jharkhand High Court's order dated March 28, 2019.
Case Title : M Kendra Devi vs Government of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 274
The Supreme Court bench of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S Oka has strongly deprecated the practice of the State of Tamil Nadu in making compassionate appointments to Group B posts in violation of the 1994 judgment which held that compassionate appointments must be restricted to Class III or Class IV or Group C or Group D Posts.
Case name: Tedhi Singh vs Narayan Dass Mahant| CrA 362 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 275
The Supreme Court observed that it cannot be expected of a complainant to initially lead evidence to show that he had financial capacity unless such a case was set up in the reply notice by the accused.
However, the accused has the right to demonstrate that the complainant in a particular case did not have the financial capacity by producing independent materials, namely, by examining his witnesses and producing documents, by pointing to the materials produced by the complainant himself, or through the cross examination of the witnesses of the complainant, the bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy observed.
Case name: Swaminathan vs Alankamony (D)| CA 798-799/2013
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 276
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian has held that Letters of Administration can be revoked on the ground that all the legal heirs were not impleaded in the petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act for the grant of Letters of Administration with Will annexed.
Case Title: The Chief Personnel Officer & Ors. v. A Nishanth George| Civil Appeal No. 294 of 2022 and The General Manager Vs. P. Balamurugan| Civil Appeal No. 295 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 277
The Supreme Court reiterated that the Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff notified by the Railways ("LARSGESS Scheme") provides an avenue for backdoor entry into service and is contrary to the mandate of Article 16 which guarantees equal opportunity in matters of public employment.
The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna was considering civil appeals assailing Madras High Court's judgements dated March 21, 2018 and September 3, 2019.
Case Name: Union Bank of India v.Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Kanpur| Civil Appeal Nos. 1861- 1862 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 278
The Supreme Court has reiterated that Banks are exempted from the mandate of Section 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to deduct tax at the source (TDS), on payment of interest to corporations established by a statute. A Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Surya Kant allowed an appeal assailing the order of the Allahabad High Court which held that the appellant bank cannot be absolved from paying penalty for non-deduction of TDS on interest paid to Agra Development Authority, even if the TDS was deducted subsequently and deposited with the Central Government before the closing of the financial year.
279. Article 227 - High Court Cannot Go Deep Into Factual Issues Like An Appellate Body : Supreme Court
Case Name: M/s. Puri Investments v. M/s. Young Friends And Co. And Ors.| Civil Appeal No 1609 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 279
The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered on 23rd February, held that the High Court while exercise powers of a supervisory Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot act as an appellate body to re-appreciate evidence.
The High Court, under Article 227, can interfere with the decisions of a fact-finding forum only when its findings are perverse i.e.
- Erroneous on account of non-consideration of material evidence, or
- Being conclusions which are contrary to the evidence, or
- Based on inferences that are impermissible in law.
A Bench comprising Justices Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose allowed an appeal assailing the order of the Delhi High Court, which, it opined, had gone beyond its limited scope of interference as a supervisory Court.
Case Title: Biswanath Banik vs Sulanga Bose| CA 1848 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 280
While considering an application for rejection of plain under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to go through the entire plaint averments and cannot reject the plaint by reading only few lines/passages and ignoring the other relevant parts of the plaint, the Supreme Court has held.
A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna set aside the judgment of the Calcutta High Court which rejected a plain on the ground that suit for declaratory relief under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act was not maintainable.
281. Failure To Pay Rent Is Not A Penal Offence: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against A Tenant
Case Name: Neetu Singh vs State of UP| SLP(Crl) 783/2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 281
Failure to pay rent may have civil consequences, but is not a penal offence under the Indian Penal Code, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi observed while quashing an FIR registered against a tenant by a landlord. The court was considering an appeal against the Allahabad High Court order that refused to quash an FIR registered for the offence of cheating under Section 415 and that of misappropriation under Section 403 IPC.
Case Title: Shyam Sel And Power Limited vs Shyam Steel Industries Limited| CA 1984 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 282
The Supreme Court observed that a Letters Patent Appeal cannot be entertained against orders which does not have the traits and trappings of finality. An order of single judge, though may cause some inconvenience to one of the parties or, to some extent, some prejudice to one of the parties, cannot be treated as a 'judgment' under clause 15 of Letters Patent of the Calcutta High Court, the bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai observed.
Case Name: Ganesh Patel vs Umakant Rajoria | S.L.P. (CRL.) NO. 9313 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 283
The Supreme Court observed that the bar under Section 362 of Criminal Procedure Code does not apply to an application seeking a procedural review. The bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi observed thus while upholding an order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court which recalled an order passed in a criminal case.
Case Title: Abhay Jain vs High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan | CA 2029 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 284
The Supreme Court, while reinstating a judicial officer, observed that mere negligence cannot be treated as misconduct to terminate services of a judicial officer. The bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran observed that disciplinary proceedings against a judicial officer is not warranted merely because a wrong order has been passed by him/her or the action taken by him could have been different.
Case Title: Local Self Government Department vs K Chandran | CA 7437-7438 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 285
The Supreme Court has held that pendency of the appeal by a convicted employee cannot disentitle the State from withholding his Death-cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG). The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh set aside the judgment of a Full bench of Kerala High Court which held that the recovery under Rule 3 of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR) could only be against pension and not DCRG. Rule 3A insofar as it permitted DCRG to be withheld was struck down by the High Court.
Case Title: High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma | SLP(C) 4432-4435/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 286
Upheld the minimum age requirement of 35 years for applying for the Delhi Higher Judicial Services Examination, the Supreme Court on Monday held that the prescription of a minimum age limit for the selection of District Judges is not contrary to the Constitution. The Court held that Article 233(2) of Constitution only prescribes a minimum eligibility that an advocate should have at least 7 years practice for selection as a District Judge and that this does not preclude the stipulation of a minimum age requirement.
Case Title: Gadadhar Chandra vs State of West Bengal | CrA 1661 OF 2009
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 287
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and AS Oka has observed that existence of a prior concert and prearranged plan has to be established for convicting accused by invoking Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Vipul Rasikbhai Koli Jankher |Crl.A.407/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 288
The Supreme Court observed that the severity of sentence is not the only determinant for doing justice to the victims. In determining the quantum of sentence, the Court must bear in mind the circumstances pertaining to the offence and all other relevant circumstances including the age of the offender, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant said.
Case Title: Indian Ex Servicemen Movement (An All India Federation Of Military Veterans Organisation Represented Vs. Union Of India Department Of Exservicemen Welfare Ministry Of Defence Secretary| Writ Petition (Civil) 419/2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 289
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the manner in which the Central Government introduced the "One Rank One Pension"/ ("OROP") scheme in defence forces as per its notification dated November 7, 2015. The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath refused to accept the challenge made by the association "Indian Ex-Service Movement" against the 2015 notification issued by the Centre.
Case Title: State of Madhya Pradesh vs Sadique | | Review Petition (Crl) Diary No. 1930 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 290
The Supreme Court dismissed a review petition filed by State of Madhya Pradesh against its judgment holding that magistrates would not be competent to extend the time to complete investigations in UAPA cases. The grounds taken in the Review Petition do not make out any error apparent on record to justify interference, the bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Belam M Trivedi said.
Case Name: Nahar Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh | | CrA 443 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 291
The Supreme Court observed that the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on the basis of a police report in terms of Section 190 (1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can issue summons to any person not arraigned as an accused in the police report or in the FIR. "If there are materials before the Magistrate showing complicity of persons other than those arraigned as accused or named in column 2 of the police report in commission of an offence, the Magistrate at that stage could summon such persons as well upon taking cognizance of the offence", the bench comprising Justices Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose held.
Case Name: State of Punjab vs Dev Brat Sharma | CA 2064 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 292
The Supreme Court observed that, under Section 7(i) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, ad valorem Court-fees would be payable on the amount claimed if the suit is a money suit for compensation and damages. It is only with respect to the category of suits specified in clause (iv) of Section 7 of the Act that the plaintiff has the liberty of stating in the plaint the amount at which relief is valued and Court-fees would be payable on the said amount, the bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath observed.
Case Title: Asean Cableship Pte. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs | SLP(C) 2208 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 293
The Supreme Court observed that an appeal under Section 130(2) of the Customs Act will be maintainable before the High Court if the impugned order relates to claim of exemption under Section 87 of the Act. Dispute concerning an exemption cannot be equated with a dispute in relation to the rate of duty, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
Case Title: N. Karthikeyan And Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu And Ors. WP(C) No. 53 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 294
The Supreme Court bench of Justices LN Rao and BR Gavai has expressed a prima facie view that States are competent to provide reservation for in-service doctors in super-speciality medical courses. Observing so, the Court refused to stay the G.O. dated 07.11.2020 issued in the State of Tamil Nadu purporting to reserve 50% seats at the Super Specialty level in Government Medical Colleges to in-service doctors. The Apex Court clarified that it has passed the present interim order on prima facie considerations as it is yet to decide the issue in the main matter on merits.
Balaji Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vs Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. | SLP(C) 1616/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 295
The Supreme Court observed that a bidder/tenderer cannot be permitted to challenge the bid condition/clause which might not suit him and/or convenient to him. Owner should always have the freedom to provide the eligibility criteria and/or the terms and conditions of the bid unless it is found to be arbitrary, mala fide and/or tailor made, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
296. No Parity Can Be Claimed Based On Regularization Of Services Made In Earlier Years : Supreme Court
Case Name: Managing Director, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer vs Chiggan Lal | CA 1875 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 296
The Supreme Court observed that the date from which regularization of services has to be granted is a prerogative of the employer and that no parity can be claimed based on regularization made in respect of earlier years. The bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari observed that the date of regularization and grant of pay scale is a prerogative of the employer/screening committee and no parity can be claimed in the matter of regularization in different years.
297. Handwriting Expert's Opinion Not The Only Mode To Prove Signature And Handwriting : Supreme Court
Case Title: Manorama Naik vs State of Odisha | CrA 423/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 297
The Supreme Court observed that the opinion of the handwriting expert is not the only way or mode of proving the signature and handwriting of a person. The signatures and handwriting of the person can also be proved under Sections 45, 47 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, the court said.Allowing the appeal, the bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi observed thus:
"It is pointed out that the opinion of the handwriting expert was filed for the first time before the High Court and was not available with the Trial Court at the time when cognizance was taken. That apart, the signatures and handwriting of the person can also be proved under Sections 45, 47 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, opinion of the handwriting expert is not the only way or mode of providing the signature and handwriting of a person"
Case Title: M Gopalakrishnan & Ors. v Pasumpon Muthuramalingam & Anr| SLP (Criminal) Diary No(s). 30839
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 298
The Supreme Court has observed that when petitions seeking directions to trial court to expedite the trial are filed before the higher courts, the same need to be examined from all angles. The bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath made this observation while considering a SLP against Madras High Court's order of directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings and close the trial within 6 months.
Case Name: Mohinder Singh (D) The. Lrs. And Ors. v. Mal Singh (D) Through. Lrs)| C.A. No. 1731 of 2009
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 299
The Supreme Court bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh as held that while determining the validity of a gift deed, Courts should not pass "value judgment" on the relationship between the donor and the donee, and the only thing which matters is if the deed was validly executed.
Case Title: Umesh Chandra Yadav V. The Inspector General And Chief Security Commissioner, R.P.F., Northern Railway, New Delhi & Others| Civil Appeal No(S). 1964 Of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 300
The Supreme Court has held that suppression of information relating to a criminal case by a candidate can be ignored in certain situations. The Court observed that competent authority while dealing with the case related to suppression of material information by a candidate in the selection process has to consider nature of post, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability and that the power has to be exercised with due diligence.
Case Title : Gangadhar Narayan Nayak @ Gangadhar Hiregutti versus The State of Karnataka
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 301
A 2-judge bench of the Supreme Court has delivered a split verdict on the issue whether Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure will apply to the investigation of an offence under Section 23 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). As per Section 155(2) CrPC, a police officer cannot investigate a non-cognizable offence without the order of a Magistrate. Section 23 of POCSO relates to the offence of disclosure of the identity of the victim of the sexual offence.
Case Title: N.G. Projects Limited vs Vinod Kumar Jain | CA 1846 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 302
The Supreme Court observed that a Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender even if it suffers from total arbitrariness and malafides. It should instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contract, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed. The court added that the injunction or interference in the tender leads to additional costs on the State and is also against public interest.
Case Title: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v Sanjesh and Anr| SLP(C) 3978 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 303
The Supreme Court has observed that a condition in the insurance policy which bars the filing of the claim after the specified time period is contrary to Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 ("Act") and thus void. The observation was made by the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian while dismissing a special leave petition filed by the Oriental Insurance Company assailing Allahabad High Court's order dated September 22, 2021.
Case Title: State of Karnataka vs Umesh | CA 1763-1764 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 304
The Supreme Court observed that the acquittal of the delinquent employee in a criminal case does not debar the employer from proceeding with disciplinary enquiry. The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant observed that a Court in the exercise of judicial review of disciplinary proceedings must restrict its review to determine whether:
(i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with;
(ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence;
(iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed;
(iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity;
(vi) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct.
305. Mere Breach Of Contract Cannot Give Rise To Criminal Prosecution For Cheating: Supreme Court
Case Title: Vijay Kumar Ghai vs State of West Bengal/CrA 463 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305
The Supreme Court reiterated that a mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating. The court observed that a mere breach of contract is not in itself a criminal offence and gives rise to the civil liability of damages.
"Even in a case where allegations are made in regard to failure on the part of the accused to keep his promise, in the absence of a culpable intention at the time of making promise being absent, no offence under Section 420 IPC can be said to have been made out.", the bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari said.
Case Title: Ratan Lal Patel vs Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya | | CA 2057 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 306
The Supreme Court observed that an order allowing a review petition should be a speaking and reasoned order as to what was the error apparent on the face of the record. "Merely stating that there is an error apparent on the face of the record is not sufficient. It must be demonstrated," the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
307. Avoid Shortcut Approach In Judgments; Courts Must Adjudicate All Issues : Supreme Court
Case Title: Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Bangalore vs State of Karnataka | CA 1345-1346 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 307
The Supreme Court observed that the courts have to adjudicate on all the issues raised in a case and render findings and the judgment on all the issues involved. Adopting a shortcut approach and pronouncing the judgment on only one issue, would increase the burden on the appellate court and in many cases if the decision on the issue decided is found to be erroneous and on other issues there is no adjudication and no findings recorded by the court, the appellate court will have no option but to remand the matter for its fresh decision, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
Case Title: The State of Maharashtra and another vs Madhukar Antu Patil and another, CA 1985/2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 308
The Supreme Court has held that the services rendered by an employee on work charge basis can not be considered for the grant of benefit of first time bound promotion if the employee is absorbed in service on a different payscale. A Bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna also observed that the benefit of Time Bound Promotion scheme shall be applicable when an employee has worked for twelve years in the same post and in the same pay scale.
Case Title : State of Karnataka and another vs State of Meghalaya and another and other connected cases
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 309
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has held that State legislatures have the competence to levy tax on the lotteries organized by other states.
Holding so, a bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna allowed the appeals filed by the States of Karnataka and Kerala challenging the judgments of Karnataka and Kerala High Courts which held that they lacked the legislative competence to levy tax on the lotteries organized by other states like Nagaland, Meghalaya and Sikkim.
Case Title: Union of India & Ors v Lt Gen SK Sahni| Criminal Appeal 2169 of 2014
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 310
The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside the conviction and dismissal from service of former Lt Gen SK Sahni for allegations relating to procurement of ration by Army purchase organisation. The bench of Justices L Nagswara Rao and BR Gavai set aside the conviction and dismissal of service while considering a criminal appeal preferred by Union of India assailing order dated 10th October 2013 passed by Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh Regional Bench at Chandimandir ("AFT") dated 10th October 2013.
Case Title: Manju Sharma v The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors| Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3332/2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 311
The Supreme Court has observed that holding a license to run the fair price shop cannot be said to be holding a civil post. The bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna rendered this observation while considering a Special Leave Petition assailing Allahabad High Court's order dated October 22, 2021.
312. COVID-19 Ex-Gratia Compensation: Supreme Court Sets Outer Limit For Filing Claims
Case Title: Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India| Interlocutory Application No. 40111 Of 2022 (Application For Directions) In Miscellaneous Application No. 1805 Of 2021 In Writ Petition (C) No. 539 Of 2021
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 312
The Supreme Court, on Thursday, set out an outer limit of sixty days to file claims for ex-gratia compensation of deaths due to COVID-19 which had occurred prior to 20.03.2022. For future deaths, a period of 90 days from the death was determined to be proper to file a claim for compensation.
"...we deem it appropriate to fix the outer limit of sixty days from today to file the claims for compensation in case the death occurred due to COVID-19 prior to 20.03.2022. For future deaths, ninety days' time is provided from the date of death due to COVID-19 to file the claim for compensation. The earlier order to process the claims and to make the actual payment of compensation within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of claim is ordered to be continued."
Also from the order - Making Fake COVID Death Compensation Claim Punishable Under Section 52 DMA; Supreme Court Allows Random Scrutiny Of 5% Claims In 4 States
Case Title: State of Gujarat vs R.J. Pathan |CA 1951 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 313
The Supreme Court observed that a High Court cannot direct regularisation of temporary employees by creating supernumerary posts.
"Such a direction to create supernumerary posts is unsustainable. Such a direction is wholly without jurisdiction", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed while setting aside the Gujarat High Court direction to the State to consider the cases of some temporary employees for regularisation sympathetically and if necessary, by creating supernumerary posts.
Case Title; S. Senthil Kumar vs State of Tamil Nadu | | SLP (Crl) 2693/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 314
The Supreme Court has observed that a mandatory direction to arrest the accused cannot be issued by a Court ordinarily while rejecting his petition for anticipatory bail. When the prayer for pre-arrest bail is declined, it is for the investigating agency to take further steps in the matter, the bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose observed
Case Title: Laxmikant vs State of Maharashtra | CA 1965 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 315
The Supreme Court observed that the Court cannot grant additional period for acquisition of land if the law does not contemplate any further period for acquisition. "The land owner cannot be deprived of the use of the land for years together. Once an embargo has been put on a land owner not to use the land in a particular manner, the said restriction cannot be kept open-ended for indefinite period," the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed.
Case Title: Special Land Acquisition Officer vs N. Savitha | CA 2052-2053/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 316
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah & BV Navarathna observed that a consent award cannot be the basis to determine the compensation in other acquisition more particularly, when there are other evidences on record.
317. A Litigant Cannot Take Contradictory Stands Before Two Different Courts/Authorities: Supreme Court
Case Status: Premlata @ Sunita vs Naseeb Bee
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 317
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah & BV Navarathna has observed that a litigant cannot be permitted to take two contradictory stands before two different authorities/courts.
Case Title: Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd vs Dastak NGO
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 318
The Supreme Court has observed that the Environmental Protection Act does not not prohibit grant of ex post facto Environmental Clearance absolutely. The bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari observed that it should not be granted routinely, but in exceptional circumstances taking into account all relevant environmental factors.
Case Title: Securities and Exchange Board of India vs Mega Corporation Limited | CA 2104 of 2009 | Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 319
The Supreme Court, while dismissing an appeal against an order passed by Securities Appellate Tribunal, explained the scope and ambit of statutory appeal under Section 15Z of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992.
CaseTitle: State of Uttarakhand And Ors. v. Sanjay Singh Chauhan And Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 320
The Supreme Court, on Thursday, upheld the order of the Uttarakhand High Court that under the NRHM/NHM Scheme, Ayurvedic Doctors will be entitled to parity in salary with Allopathic Medical Officers and Dental Medical Officers. A Bench comprising Justices Vineet Saran and J.K. Maheshwari refused to entertain the plea challenging the order of the High Court. But, clarified - "However, we may only clarify that the respondents who are Ayurvedic doctors will be entitled to be treated at par with Allopathic Medical Officers and Dental Medical Officers under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM/NHM) Scheme."
321. Section 188 CrPC - Sanction Not Required If A Part Of Offence Is Committed In India: Supreme Court
Case Title: Sartaj Khan vs State of Uttarakhand | CrA 852 of 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 321
The Supreme Court observed that Section 188 of the Criminal Procedure Code will not be attracted if a part of the offence was committed in India. The Section gets attracted when the entirety of the offence is committed outside India; and the grant of sanction would enable such offence to be enquired into or tried in India, the bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha observed.
Case Title: Vishal Ashwin Patel vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 25(3) | CA 2200 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 322
The Supreme Court observed that it is the duty of a court to deal with issues/grounds raised in a writ petitions and thereafter to pass a reasoned order.
"When the Constitution confers on the High Courts the power to give relief it becomes the duty of the Courts to give such relief in appropriate cases and the Courts would be failing to perform their duty if relief is refused without adequate reasons.", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
Case Title : Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Circle 1(2) versus M/s MR Shah Logistics Private Ltd
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 323
The Supreme Court bench of Justices UU Lalit and SR Bhat has found fault with a Gujarat High Court judgment for extending the immunity under the "Income Declaration Scheme" (IDS) to an assessee who was not the declarant under the scheme. The High Court had quashed the reassessment notice issued under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against a company M/s MR Shah Logistics Private Ltd. One of the grounds for the re-opening of the assessment was contended to have been a declaration by another company, Garg Logistics Private Ltd, regarding an investment of Rs 6.3 crores in the shares of the assessee.
324. No One Can Be Permitted To Take The Benefit Of A Wrong Order Passed By A Court: Supreme Court
Case Title: Mekha Ram vs State of Rajasthan | CA 2229-2234 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 324
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna had observed that no one can be permitted to take the benefit of the wrong order passed by the court which has been subsequently set aside by the higher forum/court.
Case Title : Bata India Ltd vs Workmen of Bata India Ltd and another
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 325
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna has affirmed a Karnataka High Court judgment of 2008 which held that an employer must give proper opportunity of hearing to the workmen before deducting their wages for "go slow" approach by which they had failed to produce the agreed output.
Case Name: S.V. Fashions Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As SVG Fashions Ltd). v. Ritu Murli Manohar Goyal And Anr.| Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 326
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian held that the failure of NCLAT as the first appellate authority to look into a vital aspect of the matter regarding which NCLT had already recorded a specific finding of fact, would vitiate its order.
Case Title: Jai Bhavani Shikshan Prasarak Mandal v Ramesh & Ors| CIVIL APPEAL NO.7937 of 2011
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 327
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian has applied the "Doctrine of Necessity" to sustain the findings of a Disciplinary Enquiry Committee against a School Principal, after noting that the President of the Committee had to be replaced due to ill health.
Case Title: Swarnalatha vs Kalavathy | CA 1565 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 328
The Supreme Court observed that the exclusion of one of the natural heirs from the bequest in a Will, cannot by itself be a ground to hold that there are suspicious circumstances.
"In the matter of appreciating the genuineness of execution of a Will, there is no place for the Court to see whether the distribution made by the testator was fair and equitable to all of his children. The Court does not apply Article 14 to dispositions under a Will.", the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian remarked.
Case Title: Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs Aditya Kumar Chatterjee | SLP(C) 17397-17398/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329
The Supreme Court observed that an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for the appointment of an Arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal cannot be moved in a High Court irrespective of its territorial jurisdiction.
"It could never have been the intention of Section 11(6) of the A&C Act that arbitration proceedings should be initiated in any High Court in India, irrespective of whether the Respondent resided or carried on business within the jurisdiction of that High Court, and irrespective of whether any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of that Court, to put an opponent at a disadvantage and steal a march over the opponent.", the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and AS Bopanna observed.
330. Motor Accident Leaves 5 Year Old Child Paralysed : Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To Rs 50 Lakh
Case Title: Master Ayush v The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd, CA 2205/2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 330
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian has enhanced the compensation payable to over Rupees 50 Lakhs in a motor accident case where a person has been rendered paralysed for life after he met with an accident as a 5 year old boy in 2010.
"The mental and physical loss cannot be computed in terms of money but there is no other way to compensate the victim except by payment of just compensation", the Bench observed while determining the payable compensation comes at 49,93,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a.
Case Name: Shripati Lakhu Mane v. The Member Secretary, Maharashtra Water Supply And Sewerage Board And Ors.| Civil Appeal No. 556 of 2012
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 331
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian held that the refusal of a contractor to continue to execute the work, unless the reciprocal promises are performed by the other party, cannot be termed as abandonment of contract. Moreover, when material alteration takes place in the terms of the contract due to the act of one party, the other party can choose not to perform the original contract and it would not amount to abandonment.
332. Mere Filing Of Representation Before Authorities Does Not Extend Limitation Period : Supreme Court
Case Title: Surjeet Singh Sahni vs State of U.P. | SLP (C) 3008 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 232
The Supreme Court observed that mere filing of representation before authorities does not extend the period of limitation.
If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches, the High Court should dismiss it at the threshold and ought not to dispose of the writ petition by relegating the writ petitioner to file a representation and/or directing the authority to decide the representation, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
Case Title: Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal And Ors. Civil Appeal No. 2600 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333
The Supreme Court bench of Justices LN Rao and BR Gavai on Thursday held the 2021 Tamil Nadu Act that provided 10.5% reservation in educational institutions and government jobs for the Vanniyar community out of the 20% reservation available to the Most Backward Classes to be unconstitutional.
Sub-Classification Amongst Backward Classes Permissible : Supreme Court In Vanniyar Quota Case
105th Constitutional Amendment Act Is Prospective In Nature : Supreme Court In Vanniyar Quota Case
334. Local Unit Of A Registered Society Can't Institute Suit Unless Byelaws Authorise It : Supreme Court
Case Details: P Nazeer Etc v Salafi Trust & Anr CA 3132/2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 334
The Supreme Court bench of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V Ramasubramanian has observed that a society registered under the Societies Registration Act is entitled to sue and be sued, only in terms of its byelaws.
Case Title: Surendra Pratap Singh vs Vishwaraj Singh | SLP (C) 18912/2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 335
The Supreme Court bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh recently deprecated the course adopted by the Allahabad High Court in delaying the uploading of the final judgment in a case for nearly 4 months after the dictation of the operative portion.
"What emerges is something which we cannot countenance. It is stated that the operative portion of the order was dictated in Court on 06.11.2019 but the final order was dictated only on 15.03.2020 i.e. after 4 months!" the Supreme Court remarked
Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh vs Subhash @ Pappu | CrA 436 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 336
The Supreme Court observed that non-framing of a charge under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code would not vitiate the conviction in the absence of any prejudice caused to the accused. If ingredients of the section are obvious or implicit in the charge framed then conviction in regard thereto can be sustained, irrespective of the fact that said section has not been mentioned, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna noted.
Case Name: Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation v. Sanjay Gajanan Gharat And Anr.| Civil Appeal No. 2643 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 337
The Supreme Court, on Thursday, held that the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation has the power to suspend or initiate departmental proceedings against the Additional Municipal Commissioner under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949.
A Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai allowed a plea assailing the judgment of the Bombay High Court, which found that the power to suspend Additional Municipal Commissioner of Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation was conferred neither on the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation nor the Corporation, but only the State Government.
Case Title: Umadevi Nambiar Vs Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese | CA 2592 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 338
The Supreme Court observed that the power to sell is not to be inferred from a document of Power of Attorney which has to be construed strictly. The agent would have the power to sell only if the document expressly authorize him/her (i) to execute a sale deed; (ii) to present it for registration; and (iii) to admit execution before the Registering Authority, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian noted.
Case Title : Government of NCT of Delhi and others versus Bheem Singh Meena and others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 339
The Supreme Court recently upheld the decision of the Delhi Government to dismiss a government teacher from service for suppressing the information about a criminal case against him while applying for the job.
"In the present case, the respondent is responsible for shaping career of young students. What kind of message will he be giving to the students by his conduct based on untruthfulness?", a bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramaniam observed.
Case Name: M/s. Frost International Limited v. M/s. Milan Developers And Builders (P) Limited And Anr.| Criminal Appeal No. 1689 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 340
The Supreme Court has held that reliefs in a suit which seeks to frustrate the defendants from initiating a prosecution against plaintiff or seeking any other legal remedy are barred by law and can be a ground for allowing an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection of plaint. A Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V Nagarathna allowed a plea assailing the order of the Orissa High Court, which had set aside the order of the revisional court rejecting the plaint, on the ground that it exceeded its jurisdiction in doing so, and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration.
341. Even If Appointment Was Irregular, State Has To Pay Salary For Work Done By Employee : Supreme Court
Case Title : Man Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 341
The Supreme Court has set aside a direction to recover from a person the salary paid to him after his appointment as a teacher was found to be irregular. The Top Court noted that the person had worked for nearly 24 years a teacher before his services were cancelled for the reason that his appointment was irregular. It was found that he was a relative of a member of the selection committee and hence his appointment was contrary to the rules. While cancelling his appointment, the State also directed the recovery of salary paid to him. Though the person approached the High Court challenging the cancellation order, it did not interfere. Aggrieved, he approached the Supreme Court.
A bench comprising Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V Ramasubramaniam observed that the High Court ought to have appreciated the fact that he had worked for nearly 24 years.
Case Title: Dokala Hari Babu V. Kotra Appa Rao & Anr.| Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 4382/2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 342
The Supreme Court recently observed that to get the benefit of Section 64(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the objector and/or subsequent purchaser has to plead and prove that he is the bona fide purchaser, who has entered into the transaction prior to the order of attachment. The observation was rendered by the bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna while considering a SLP assailing Andhra Pradesh High Court's order dated January 4, 2022 passed by the bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao.
Case Title : Union of India v. Major R. Metri NO. 08585N
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 343
Observing that the Armed Forces Tribunal has the jurisdiction to interfere with the finding of a Court-Martial, the Supreme Court reinstated an army officer, upholding the setting aside of his conviction in a corruption case. The Court also observed that conviction solely on the basis of extra-judicial confession without corroboration is unjustified
"It could thus be seen that the extrajudicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Unless such a confession is found to be voluntary, trustworthy and reliable, the conviction solely on the basis of the same, without corroboration, would not be justified," a bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai said.
Case Title: Rishipal @ Rishipal Singh Solanki Versus Raju and Another| Criminal Appeal No 541 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 344
The Supreme Court has observed that the reasons which weigh with the Court in cancelling the bail granting to co accused would also apply in case of bail preferred by another accused in relation to the same FIR and incident. The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant rendered this observation while considering a criminal appeal assailing Allahabad High Court's order dated November 9, 2021.
Case Title: M/S Shree Vishnu Constructions V The Engineer In Chief Military Engineering Service & ors| Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 5306/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 345
The Supreme Court on April 1, 2022 expressed concerns at the time taken by the Telangana High Court to dispose of an arbitration application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after a period of four years. The bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna also observed that arbitration applications for appointment of an Arbitrator are required to be decided and disposed of at the earliest, otherwise the object and purpose of the Arbitration Act shall be frustrated.
Case Name: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 2 v. M/s. Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd.| Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4063 of 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 346
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, held that whether corporate death of amalgamating entity upon amalgamation per se invalidates an assessment order issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be determined on a bare application of Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956 or its equivalent in the 2013 Act, which deals with the dissolution of the said company. The Apex Court stated that the same would depend on the terms of the amalgamation and the facts of each case. A Bench comprising Justices U.U. Lalit and S. Ravindra Bhat allowed a plea assailing the order of the Delhi High Court affirming the order of the Income Tax Tribunal, which quashed the assessment order at the threshold without going into the merits of the matter. While allowing the appeal, the Bench restored the matter before the ITAT for determination on merits(Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 2 v. M/s. Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd..
Case Title: Sukh Dutt Ratra vs State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 347
The Supreme Court bench of Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha has observed that forcible dispossession of private property of a person without following due process of law, is violative of both their human right and constitutional right.
Case Name: Haryana Urban Development Authority, Karnal v. M/s. Mehta Construction Company And Anr| Civil Appeal No. 2693 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(SC) 348
The Supreme Court has held that apart from the grounds mentioned in Section 34(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2013, an arbitral award can be set aside only when it is vitiated by patent illegality, and not on ground of erroneous application of law or by misappreciation of evidence. A Bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna allowed an appeal assailing the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had affirmed the order of the District Judge that the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and the Conciliation Act, 1996 was, inter alia, barred by limitation. Observing that the Courts below had not fully appreciated the objections raised, the Bench remitted it to the District Judge for fresh consideration.
349. Try To Complete Cross-Examination Of Witness On Same Day : Supreme Court
Case Name: Neetu Tripathi v State of UP & Anr| Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3997/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(SC) 349
The Supreme Court has observed that once the witness is in the witness box and is being cross examined, every endeavour must be made to ensure that the cross examination is completed on that day. The bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh rendered this observation while considering a SLP assailing Allahabad High Court's order dated March 19, 2021
Case Name: M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Mahendra Pal Bhatia And Ors.| Civil Appeal No. 5377 of 2015
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(SC) 350
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian has held that if any land fell within the expression 'mine' under the Section 2(h) of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 it would stand transferred to and vest in the Central Government under Section 3(1), irrespective of who owns the said land. "The focus of Section 2(h) read with Section 3(1) is on the property and not on who the owner of the property is." The Apex Court noted that the residence of officers and staff of coal-mines would also fall under the ambit of the definition of 'mine'.
Case Title: Chairman Cum managing Director Fertilizer Corporation Of India Ltd. Vs Rajesh Chandra Shrivastava
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 351
The Supreme Court observed that ad hoc payment made pursuant to the interim orders passed by Court does not form part of "wages" within the meaning of the expression under Section 2(s) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for the purpose of calculating gratuity. A party who is in enjoyment of an interim order, is bound to lose the benefit of such interim order when the ultimate outcome of the case goes against him, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed.
Case Title: Experion Developers Pvt Ltd vs Sushma Ashok Shiroor | CA 6044 of 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 352
The Supreme Court has held that Consumer Courts can grant relief to flat buyers who are aggrieved with the delay in delivery of the apartment as per the agreement.
Consumer Courts have the power to direct refund and compensation to a consumer for the deficiency in not delivering the apartment as per the terms of Agreement, the Court held.
"A consumer invoking the jurisdiction of the Commission can seek such reliefs as he/she considers appropriate. A consumer can pray for refund of the money with interest and compensation. The consumer could also ask for possession of the apartment with compensation.", the bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha observed.
Case Title: Abid Ul Islam vs Inder Sain Dua | CA 9444 OF 2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 353
The Supreme Court observed that a leave to defend under Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, cannot be granted on mere asking and a tenant has to put in some material of substance to the extent of raising a triable issue. The object behind Section 25B is facilitating not only the expeditious but effective remedy for a class of landlords, sans the normal procedural route, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh observed.
Also Read: "Shockingly Brazen": Supreme Court Pulls Up Litigant For Dropping Union Minister's Name During Argument
354. Centre's Direction Not Binding On A State University, Only Recommendatory : Supreme Court
Case Name: State of Uttarakhand v. Sudhir Budakoti And Ors.| Civil Appeal No. 2661 of 2015
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 354
The Supreme Court has held that a direction issued by the Union Government is not binding on a State University and that it is only recommendatory. Holding so, the Court held that a Registrar of a State University cannot make a claim for a higher pay scale based on a circular issued by the Central Government. A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh allowed an appeal assailing the order of Uttarakhand High Court, which permitted the writ petition filed by a Registrar of State University seeking parity in pay with its counterparts in Central University.
355. Supreme Court Upholds Foreign Contribution(Regulation) Amendment Act 2020
Case Title : Noel Harper and others versus Union of India
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 355
The Supreme Court has upheld the 2020 amendments made to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 2010, which introduced restrictions in the handling of foreign contributions by organizations in India. A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar pronounced the judgment in PILs challenging the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Act 2020.
Case Title : Dr.Joe Joseph and others versus State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 356
In the Mullaperiyar dam dispute between the States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court directed that the Supervisory Committee -which was constituted by the Supreme Court in 2014 to monitor the safety arrangements of the 126-year old dam- should continue its operations till the National Dam Safety Authority under the Dam Safety Act 2021 comes into effect. It expanded the Committee by adding one technical member each from Kerala and Tamil Nadu. The reconstituted Supervisory Committee will decide all outstanding matters related to Mullaperiyar Dam's safety and conduct a safety review afresh. For this purpose, it may frame terms of reference in accordance with the provisions of the 2021 Act.
Case Title: State of Rajasthan vs Banwari Lal | SLP(Crl) Diary no. 21596/2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 357
The Supreme Court observed that merely because a long period has lapsed by the time the appeal is decided cannot be a ground to award the punishment which is disproportionate and inadequate. The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed that it has come across a number of judgments of different High Courts in which the criminal appeals are disposed of in a cursory manner and by adopting truncated methods.
Case Title: Mallada K Sri Ram vs State of Telangana | CrA 561 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 358
The Supreme Court observed that preventive detention cannot be ordered merely because a person is implicated in a criminal proceeding.
"A mere apprehension of a breach of law and order is not sufficient to meet the standard of adversely affecting the "maintenance of public order" , the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant observed while quashing a detention order.
359. Order Can't Be Termed "Mala Fide" Just Because It Is Illegal, Erroneous Or Perverse: Supreme Court
Case Title: Chandra Prakash Mishra vs Flipkart India Private Limited | CA 2859-2861 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 359
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose has observed that every erroneous, illegal or even perverse order/action by a Statutory authority, by itself, cannot be termed as wanting in good faith or suffering from malafide. For imputing motives and drawing inference about want of good faith in any person, particularly a statutory authority, something more than mere error or fault ought to exist, the Top Court also observed.
Case Name: Union of India vs Dillip Kumar Mallick | CA 2754 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 360
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and MM Sundresh has reiterated that non-disclosure of material information itself could be a ground for cancellation of employment or termination of services.
Case Name: State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government of Haryana v. Jai Singh And Ors.| Civil Appeal No. 6990 of 2014
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 361
The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the 1992 Haryana Amendment ("Amending Act") to the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act. 1961, which vests land reserved for common purposes by applying pro-rate cut in the village Panchayat. A Bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian allowed the appeals filed by the State of Haryana and the Panchayats and upheld the validity of the impugned Amending Act on the ground that it forms a part of agrarian reform and is protected under Article 31A of the Constitution.
Case Name: Mafat Lal vs State of Rajasthan | CrA 592 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 362
The Supreme Court observed that an offence under Section 366 IPC would be attracted only when there is a forceful compulsion of marriage, by kidnapping or by inducing a woman. The bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath observed that no fruitful purpose would be served by relegating the matter for conducting the trial as the same would not be conducive for either of the appellants and it would be a futile exercise.
363. Term Of Office Of A Nominated Member Of Wakf Board Can Be Curtailed: Supreme Court
Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Shaikh Mahemud | CA 2784 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 363
The Supreme Court observed that the term of office of a nominated member of Wakf Board can be curtailed. The bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed that appointment of members by the method of nomination always stands on a slightly different footing than election.
364. If There Is Difference Between CAT Judicial Member & Administrative Member, Refer To 3rd Member; Reference To Full Bench Not Required : Supreme Court
Case Name: Daljit Singh vs Arvind Samyal | SLP(C) 5192-5194/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 364
The Supreme Court observed that a reference to the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal is not required if there is a case of difference of opinion between the Judicial Member and the Administrative Member of the Tribunal. In such a situation, the matter is required to be referred to the third Member/Chairman who has to give his own decision upon such a reference, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
365. Permission Granted For Medical Admissions For Subsequent Year Cannot Be Deemed To Be Permission For Earlier Year : Supreme Court
Case Name: Central Council for Indian Medicine v. Karnataka Ayurveda Medical College And Ors.| Civil Appeal No. 2892 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 365
The Supreme Court bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai held that permission granted for undertaking admission of students for a subsequent academic year cannot be deemed to be permission granted for earlier academic year when the Ayurveda Medical College was not fulfilling the criteria of minimum standard as per the Indian Medicine Central Council (Post Graduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2016. In the said terms it clarified the effect of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal and Another v. Union of India and Others (2013) 16 SCC 696.
Case Name: Dental Council of India vs Biyani Shikshan Samiti | CA 2912 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 366
The Supreme Court observed that the right to establish an educational institution can be regulated to ensure the maintenance of proper academic standards, atmosphere and infrastructure and the prevention of maladministration. The bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai observed thus while upholding Regulation 6(2)(h) of the Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New or Higher Course of Studies or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006.
Case Name: Shankarlal Nadani vs Sohanlal Jain | | CA 2816 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 367
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed that a decree passed in a suit for possession filed before the civil court prior to the applicability of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act is valid and executable.
Case Name: Sanjay Gupta & Ors. V. State Of Uttar Pradesh Through Its Chief Secretary & Ors.| Writ Petition (Civil) NO. 338 OF 2006
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 368
The Supreme Court asked the Allahabad High Court Chief Justice to nominate within two weeks a District Judge or Additional District Judge to work on a day to day basis for determining the compensation payable to the families of the victims of the fire that broke out during a consumer fair in Meerut in 2006. The bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian also noted that since the amount of compensation payable to each of the victim including the families of the deceased had not been computed, the same required computation in accordance with the principles of just compensation as in the case of accident under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
369. Plea Of Juvenility : Supreme Court Frees 'Murder Convict' Who Served 17 Years Jail Sentence
Case Title: Sanjay Patel vs State of Uttar Pradesh| M.A.No.1997 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 369
Accepting the plea of juvenility, the Supreme Court bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and AS Oka freed a man who served 17 years sentence after his conviction in a murder case.
Case Title: Kamatchi vs Lakshmi Narayanan| CrA 627 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 370
The Supreme Court bench of Justices UU Lalit and PS Narasimha has held that the limitation period prescribed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable for the filing of an application by an aggrieved woman under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Case Title: In Re: Inaction of the Government In Appointing President And Members/Staff of Districts And State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission And Inadequate Infrastructure Across India v. Union of India And Ors. SMWP(C) No. 2 of 2021
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 371
The Supreme Court directed all State Governments to set up mediation cells and e-filing systems for the District and State Consumer Dispute Redressal Forums.
Case Name: Jahir Hak vs State of Rajasthan | Crl A 605 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 372
The Supreme Court bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy granted bail to a UAPA under-trial accused who was in custody for nearly 8 years. Jahir Hak was arrested on 08.05.2014 in connection with FIR for offences punishable under Sections 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 19, 20, 23 and 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. A charge sheet was filed against him on 17.09.2014. Charges were framed on 29.01.2018. The Rajasthan High Court dismissed his bail application against which he approached the Apex Court.
The court noted that for the trial, the prosecution seeks to examine as many as 109 witnesses of which only 6 witnesses have been fully examined so far. The bench also noted that the prosecution case is that the accused was found to be in touch with one of the accused, who is the head of a sleeper cell module of Indian Mujahideen.
373. Hawker Can't Claim Right To Leave Goods & Wares Overnight At Hawking Place : Supreme Court
Case Title: Madan Lal v NDMC & Anr | SLP (C) 5684/2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 373
The Supreme Court has observed that any hawker can be permitted to hawk in the market only as per the hawking policy and not against the same.
The bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna also observed that a hawker has no right to insist that he may be permitted to keep his goods and wares at the place where he is hawking overnight.
Case Title: Eastern Coalfields Limited & Ors v Rabindra Kumar Bharti | CIVIL APPEAL NO.2794 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 374
The Supreme Court has observed that although order 41 Rule 33 of CPC clothes appellate courts with extraordinary power, it is to be exercised only in exceptional cases.
Case Name: P. Ramasubbamma v. V. Vijayalakshmi And Ors.| Civil Appeal No. 2095 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 375
The Supreme Court held that once the execution of agreement to sell and payment of advance substantial sale consideration is admitted by the vendor, there is nothing further required to be proved by the vendee in a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell. A Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna allowed an appeal assailing the order of the Karnataka High Court, which set aside the order of the Trial Court granting decree for specific performance of agreement to sell.
Case Title: Jagjeet Singh And Ors. v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu And Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 632 of 2022]
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 376
The Supreme Court has held that a 'victim' as defined under Section 2(wa) of the Code of the Criminal Procedure. 1973 has a right to be heard at every step post the occurrence of the offence, including the stage of adjudication of bail application of the accused.
Case Title: Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology & Natural History, Coimbatore vs Dr. Mathew K. Sebastian | SLP(C) 5218/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 377
The Supreme Court has observed that the onus to prove that an employee was not gainfully employed elsewhere when his service was terminated is on the employer. An employee is not required to prove the negative that he was not gainfully employed.
Once he asserts that he is not gainfully employed, thereafter the onus will shift to the employer positively and it would be for the employer to prove that the employee was gainfully employed, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
378. Interim Order Comes To An End With The Dismissal Of Proceedings: Supreme Court
Case Title: State of UP vs Prem Chopra | CA 2417 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 378
The Supreme Court observed that a stay order is not wiped out from existence, unless it is quashed in the main proceedings.
Once the proceedings, wherein a stay was granted, are dismissed, any interim order granted earlier merges with the final order, the bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath observed. The interim order comes to an end with the dismissal of proceedings.
379. Owner Can Bequeath Properties Even To Strangers By Will: Supreme Court
Case Title: Saroja Ammal vs M Deenadayalan | CA 2828 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 379
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian has reiterated that an absolute owner of a property is entitled to bequeath his properties by Will in favour of strangers.
Case Title: Smruti Tukaram Badade v. The State Of Maharashtra and Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 380
The Supreme Court bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Aniruddha Bose requested the High Courts to respond to the Model Guidelines for Vulnerable Witnesses Deposition Centres (VWDCs) circulated to the Chief Justices of High Courts by 20th May, 2022, so that the Committee, chaired by Justice Ms. Gita Mittal, former Chief Justice of the Jammu And Kashmir High Court, appointed to implement an All India VWDC Training Programme, can provide a uniform national model for implementation.
Case Title: KC Laxmana vs KC Chandrappa Gowda | CA 2582 OF 2010
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 381
The Supreme Court observed that a Hindu father or any other managing member of a Hindu undivided Family has power to make a gift of ancestral property only for a 'pious purpose'.
The bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari observed that the deed of gift in regard to the ancestral property executed 'out of love and affection' does not come within the scope of the term 'pious purpose'.
The court also held that the term 'alienation' in Article 109 of the Limitation Act, 1963, includes 'gift' also.
Case Title: Sunil Kumar Jain vs Sundaresh Bhatt| | CA 5910 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 382
The Supreme Court held that the dues towards the wages/salaries of only those workmen/employees who actually worked during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process(CIRP) are to be included in the CIRP costs.
The court clarified that the wages and salaries of all other workmen/employees of the Corporate Debtor during the CIRP who actually have not worked and/or performed their duties when the Corporate Debtor was a going concern, shall not be included automatically in the CIRP costs. Such dues will be governed by Section 53(1)(b) and Section 53(1) (c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose observed.
Case Title: Tirupati Steels vs Shubh Industrial Component | CA 2941 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 383
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed that the pre deposit of 75% of the awarded amount as per section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006, is mandatory to challenge the award under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
384. Supreme Court Deprecates Recent Trend Of Courts Deciding Bail Pleas Without Giving Specific Reasons
Case Title: Ms. Y vs State of Rajasthan | CrA 649 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 384
While setting aside the bail granted to a rape-accused, the Supreme Court expressed concerns at the "recent trend" of Courts passing bail orders without providing sufficient reasons.
"There is a recent trend of passing such orders granting or refusing to grant bail, where the Courts make a general observation that "the facts and the circumstances" have been considered. No specific reasons are indicated which precipitated the passing of the order by the Court. Such a situation continues despite various judgments of this Court wherein this Court has disapproved of such a practice", the Court observed.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justice Krishna Murari observed that the High Court Court has not considered any of the relevant factors for grant of bail.
Case Title: All India Judges Association And Ors v. Union of India And Ors. WP(C) No. 1022 of 1989
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 385
The Supreme Court bench of Justices LN Rao and BR Gavai modified its previous orders regarding the eligibility criteria for Civil Judges in Delhi Judicial Service to seek promotion to the cadre of District Judges through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE).
Case Title: Indrajeet Yadav vs Santosh Singh | CrA 577 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 386
The Supreme Court reiterated that the practice of pronouncing the final orders without a reasoned judgment has to be stopped and discouraged.
Despite the strong observations made by this Court as far as back in the year 1984 and thereafter repeatedly reiterated, still the practice of pronouncing only the operative portion of the judgment without a reasoned judgment and to pass a reasoned judgment subsequently has been continued", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed while setting aside a judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court.
Case Title: Venkatesh @ Chandra vs State of Karnataka | CrA 1476-1477 OF 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 387
The Supreme Court in a judgment criticized the practice of prosecuting agencies recording the entire statement of the accused rather than only that part of the statement which leads to the discovery of facts as per Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
"Such kind of statements may have a direct tendency to influence and prejudice the mind of the Court. This practice must immediately be stopped.", the bench comprising Justices U U Lalit and P S Narasimha observed.
388. Supreme Court Deprecates Practice Of Disposal Of Writ Petitions Without Deciding It On Merits
Case Title: State of Uttarakhand vs Mayan Pal Singh Verma | CA 2905 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 388
The Supreme Court deprecated the practice of disposal of writ petition without deciding it on merits. The court reiterated that a High Court has a duty to deal with grounds/issues raised in a writ petition. The bench comprising Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna rendered the observation while considering an appeal filed against Uttarakhand High Court judgment.
Case Name: Evergreen LandMark Pvt. Ltd. v. John Tinson And Company Pvt. Ltd. And Anr| Civil Appeal No. 2783 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 389
The Supreme Court bench of Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna held that the Arbitral Tribunal cannot pass an order by way of interim measure under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to deposit the amount involved in the dispute, in a case where the liability to pay such an amount is seriously disputed and the same is yet to be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal.
Case Title: Mohd Firoz vs State of Madhya Pradesh | CrA 612 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 390
The Supreme Court has commuted the death sentence awarded to a man accused of rape and murder of four year old girl. The bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela M. Trivedi observed that the maximum punishment prescribed may not always be the determinative factor for repairing the crippled psyche of the offender.
Case details: Dr. Chanda Rani Akhouri vs Dr. M.A. Methusethupathi | CA 6507 OF 2009
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 391
The Supreme Court observed that merely because doctors could not save the patient, he/she cannot be held liable for medical negligence.
"The doctors are expected to take reasonable care, but no professional can assure that the patient will come back home after overcoming the crisis" the bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka observed.
Case Title : Anil Kumar Upadhyay versus The Director General, SSB and others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 392
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna affirmed the penalty of removal from service imposed on a Head Constable from the Sashastra Seema Bal(SSB) - a Central Armed Police Force guarding border - for entering the women barracks at midnight. The punishment of "removal from service" was imposed on him for "violation of good order and discipline" by entering the Mahila Barack at midnight. He was charged with indiscipline and misconduct leading to the compromise of the security of the Mahila Barack. He had entered the Mahila Barack allegedly to meet a friend, when he was apprehended by six women constables.
393. Appointments Made In Contravention Of Statutory Provisions Are Void Ab Initio : Supreme Court
Case Title: State of Odisha vs Sulekh Chandra Pradhan | CA 3036-3064 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 393
The Supreme Court bench of Justices LN Rao and BR Gavai have observed that the appointments made in contravention of the statutory provisions are void ab initio.
Case Name: Mahesh Kumar Kejriwal vs Bhanuj Jindal | SLP (Crl) 3382/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 394
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose has observed that an accused cannot claim a blanket exemption from appearance in a case pertaining to the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Case Title: Manickam @ Thandapani vs Vasantha |CA 2726 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 395
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian held that Section 22(2) of the Specific Relief Act is only directory provision and the relief of possession is ancillary to the decree for specific performance and need not be specifically claimed.
Case Title: Ramveer Upadhyay vs State of UP | SLP(Crl) 2953 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 396
The Supreme Court observed that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. only because the complaint was lodged by a political rival.
The fact that the complaint may have been initiated by reason of political vendetta is not in itself grounds for quashing the criminal proceedings, the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and AS Bopanna observed.
Case Name: Balram Garg v. Securities and Exchange Board of India| Civil Appeal No. 7054 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 397
The Supreme Court has held that insider trading cannot be presumed merely on the basis of proximity between the parties.
The Court held 'communication' of Unpublished Price Sensitive Information under Regulation 3(1) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading), 2015 ought to be proved by producing cogent materials, like, letters, emails, witnesses etc. and not be deemed owing to the alleged proximity between the parties. The Court further held that the onus is on the SEBI to prove such communication.
A Bench comprising Justices Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose allowed appeals filed assailing the order of the Securities Appellate Tribunal, which had upheld the order of the Whole Time Member of SEBI, penalising the appellants for insider trading.
Case Name: Union of India And Ors. v. M/s. Willowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.| Civil Appeal No. 2995-2996 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 398
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, held that in cases of delayed refund of integrated tax paid on export of goods governed by the principal provision of Section 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the interest would be payable at the rate of 6% as prescribed by the statute, especially when the delay was not inordinate.
"...wherever a statute specifies or regulates the interest, the interest will be payable in terms of the provisions of the statute. Wherever a statute, on the other hand, is silent about the rate of interest and there is no express bar for payment of interest, any delay in paying the compensation or the amounts due, would attract award of interest at a reasonable rate on equitable grounds."
A Bench comprising Justices U.U. Lalit and S. Ravindra Bhat allowed appeals filed by the Union of India to reduce the interest granted by the Gujarat High Court for delay in refunds of integrated tax paid on export of goods from 9% to 6%.
Case Name: Hyundai Motor India Limited vs Shailendra Bhatnagar | CA 3001 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 399
The Supreme Court observed that the failure to provide an airbag system which would meet the safety standards as perceived by a carbuyer of reasonable prudence should be subject to punitive damages which can have deterrent effect.
"A consumer is not meant to be an expert in physics calculating the impact of a collision on the theories based on velocity and force", the bench comprising Justices Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose observed.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs 63 Moons Technologies Ltd |CA 2748-49
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 400
In its judgment upholding the attachment of properties of 63 Moons Technologies, the Supreme Court also rejected the challenge against the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act 1999.
Case Title: Ram Chander vs State of Chhattisgarh | WP (Crl) 49 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 401
The Supreme Court observed that a presiding officer of the sentencing court while giving opinion on a remission application should give adequate reasons. Inadequate reasons in the opinion of the presiding officer of the sentencing court would not satisfy the requirements of Section 432 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Aniruddha Bose observed.
Case Title: Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh @ Seth Singh vs State of Bihar | CrA 150 OF 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 402
The Supreme Court observed that the testimony of a witness in a criminal trial cannot be discarded merely because of minor contradictions or omissions.
The bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli also observed that medical evidence adduced by the prosecution has great corroborative value.
Case Title: Jafarudheen & Ors. v State of Kerala| Criminal Appeal No 430 of 2015
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 403
The Supreme Court bench of bench Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh has acquitted 4 persons affiliated to the National Development Front(NDF) in a case related to the murder of a member of the Communist Party of India(Marxist)(CPI(M)) in Kerala in 2002. The Court set aside the verdict of the High Court which had reversed the acquittal of these 4 accused by the trial court.
The Court added that it must be cautious in dealing with Section 27 recoveries as "one cannot lose sight of the fact that the prosecution may at times take advantage of the custody of the accused, by other means".
Case Title: Union of India and Ors vs M. Duraisamy, CA 2665/2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 404
While setting aside the order substituting the removal of an employee to that of compulsory retirement, the Supreme Court observed that punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority can't be substituted merely on grounds that the employee had voluntarily deposited the defrauded amount.
"Being a public servant in the post office, the delinquent officer was holding the post of trust. Merely because subsequently the employee had deposited the defrauded amount and therefore there was no loss caused to the department cannot be a ground to take a lenient view and/or to show undue sympathy in favour of such an employee", the Court said.
A bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna made the observation in Union of India's special leave petition challenging Madras High Court's order confirming the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal modifying the punishment imposed on a postal assistant from dismissal/removal from service to compulsory retirement.
Case Name: Allahabad Bank And Ors. v. Avtar Bhushan Bhartiya| SLP (Civil) No. 32554 of 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 405
The Supreme Court has held that an employee whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is obligated to either plead or at least make a statement at the first instance that they were not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages after being dismissed from service. It added that only then the burden would shift to the employer to prove otherwise.
A Bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian dismissed appeals assailing the order of the Allahabad High Court, which had set aside the penalty order passed by the disciplinary authority of Allahabad Bank and directed reinstatement of its delinquent officer with 50% back wages and all consequential benefits.
Case Title : Manish Gupta and another versus Jan Bhagidari Samiti and others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 406
The Supreme Court bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai has reiterated that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and can be replaced by only a regularly appointed candidate.
"It is a settled principle of law that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and he can be replaced only by another candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed", the Court observed.
407. Employers Can't Dispute Employees' Date Of Birth At Fag End Of Their Service : Supreme Court
Case Title : Shankar Lal versus Hindustan Copper Ltd and others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 407
The Supreme Court has held that the rule that employees cannot raise a dispute relating to date of birth at the fag end of their service is equally applicable to employers as well. A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Aniruddha Bose set aside the decision of Hindustan Copper Ltd, a Public Sector Undertaking, to reduce the VRS benefits to an employee by altering his date of birth.
Case Title : Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya versus District Development Officer Dahod and others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 408
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has held that Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers are entitled to the payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
"The 1972 Act will apply to Anganwadi centres and in turn to AWWs(Anganwadi Workers) and AWHs(Anganwadi Helpers)", a bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka held while allowing the appeals filed against a judgment delivered by a division bench of the Gujarat High Court.
Case Title: Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd v. U.B. Engineering Ltd and Anr. SLP(C) Nos. 24912-24913 of 2013
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 409
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna held that the arbitral tribunal can grant post-award interest on the sum of the award which also includes the interest component. The Court reiterated that the word sum used under Section 31(7) of the A&C Act includes the interest awarded on the substantive claims, therefore, the post award interest would be on both the amount awarded in respect of the substantive claims and the interest awarded on such claims.
Case Name: Kalyani (D) vs Sulthan Bathery Municipality | CA 3189 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 410
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath has observed that the burden to prove that there was a voluntary surrender of land is on the panchayat/municipality which raises such a claim.
Case Title: Shraddha Gupta vs State of Uttar Pradesh | CrA 569-570 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 411
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna has observed that there can be prosecution against a person under Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, even in case of a single offence/FIR/charge sheet for any of the anti-social activities mentioned in section 2(b) of the Act.
Case Title: Smt. Kaithuami [L] vs Smt. Ralliani| CA 7159-7160 of 2008
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 412
The Supreme Court observed that the inheritance under Mizo customary law depends upon the responsibility carried out by a legal heir to look after the elders in the family.
The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai agreed with the view taken in a 2012 judgment of Gauhati High Court that under Mizo customary law "even if a natural heir does not support his parents, he would not be entitled to inheritance and that "even if there is a natural heir, a person who supports the person until his death could inherit the properties of that person".
Case Title: Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan vs State (Govt Of NCT Of Delhi)| CrA 694-695 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 413
The Supreme Court observed that a High Court should be slow to grant the relief of quashing a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act at a pre-trial stage.
In a situation where the accused moves Court for quashing even before trial has commenced, the Court's approach should be careful enough to not to prematurely extinguish the case by disregarding the legal presumption which supports the complaint, the bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy said.
Case Title: Bar Council of India v. Twinkle Rahul Mangonkar And Ors. Civil Appeal No. 816-817 of 2022]
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 414
The Supreme Court accepted the suggestion made by Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate KV Vishwanathan that persons engaged in other employments can be permitted to provisionally enrol with the concerned Bar Council and to appear in the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), and that upon clearing the AIBE, they can be given a period of 6 months to decide whether to join legal profession or continue with the other job.
The Court said that the BCI may allow provisional enrolment for such persons with a window of 6 months for them to decide after clearing AIBE on giving up their employment to join legal practice.
The Court also directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to consider if fresh Bar examinations are to be conducted for advocates seeking to return to the legal profession after getting their licenses suspended to take up other employment.
Case Title : Asset Reconstruction Co (India) Ltd versus Chief Controlling Revenue Authority
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 415
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian has set aside a judgment delivered by a Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court which had held that stamp duty has to be independently paid for a Power of Attorney executed along with a deed assigning debt, even if stamp duty has been paid on the assignment deed.
Case Title: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs Discovery Enterprises Pvt. Ltd | CA 2042 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 416
The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered on explained the 'Group of companies' doctrine which postulates that an arbitration agreement entered into by a company within a group of companies, can bind its non-signatory affiliates or sister concerns if the circumstances demonstrate a mutual intention of the parties to bind both the signatory and affiliated, non-signatory parties.
The court observed that a non-signatory may be bound by the arbitration agreement where: (i) There exists a group of companies; and (ii) Parties have engaged in conduct or made statements indicating an intention to bind a non-signatory.
The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath held that the following factors have to be considered to apply the doctrine:
(i) The mutual intent of the parties
(ii) The relationship of a non-signatory to a party which is a signatory to the agreement
(iii) The commonality of the subject matter
(iv) The composite nature of the transaction
(v) The performance of the contract
Case Title : Ranbir Singh versus SK Roy, Chairman Life Insurance Corporation and Another
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 417
Observing that a public employer cannot be asked to carry out a mass absorption of over 11,000 workers without a recruitment process, the Supreme Court on Tuesday decided a four-decade old dispute related to the regularization of part-time workers in the Life Insurance Corporation(LIC).
"LIC as a statutory corporation is bound by the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. As a public employer, the recruitment process of the corporation must meet the constitutional standard of a fair and open process. Allowing for back-door entries into service is an anathema to public service", a bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath observed.
Case Title: Wipro Finance Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax | CA 6677 of 2008
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 418
Allowing the appeal filed by Wipro Finance Ltd., the Supreme Court observed that the loss suffered owing to exchange fluctuation can be regarded as revenue expenditure and thus an allowable deduction.
The bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Abhay S. Oka and CT Ravikumar allowed the appeal against the High Court judgment which had reversed the above view taken by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Case Name: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs Sandeep Choudhary | CA 8717 OF 2015
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 419
The Supreme Court has observed that the reserved category candidates securing higher marks than the last of the general category candidates are entitled to get seat/post in the General category.
The candidates belonging to reserved categories can as well stake claim to seats in unreserved categories if their merit and position in the merit list entitles them to do so., the bench comprising Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna observed.
Case Title: Union of India vs Mukesh Kumar Meena | CA 3468 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 420
The Supreme Court observed that the benefit of the grace marks policy introduced by Central Board of Direct Taxes for Departmental Examination for Income Tax Inspectors is not to allow the reserved category candidate to switch over to general category.
"Only in a case where any candidate belonging to any category is marginally failing to pass the examination, he is/was to be allowed the grace marks so as to allow him to obtain the minimum passing marks required and that too by allowing upto five grace marks.", the bench comprising Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna noted.
421. Mortgagor Has Right To Redeem Usufructuary Mortgage At Any Point Of Time: Supreme Court
Case Title: Harminder Singh (D) vs Surjit Kaur (D) | CA 89 OF 2012
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 421
The Supreme Court Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian has observed that once a usufructuary mortgage is created, the mortgagor has a right to redeem the mortgage at any point of time.
Case Name: Talema Electronic India Private Limited Vs Regional Director, ESI Corporation | CA 3175 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 422
The Supreme Court bench of Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna has observed that conveyance allowance paid to employees is not part of 'wages' for the purpose of computation of ESI Contribution.
423. Insolvency And Bankruptcy Code Is Not For Money Recovery Proceedings: Supreme Court Reiterates
Case title: Invest Asset Securitisation and Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. versus Girnar Fibres Ltd
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 423
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Aniruddha Bose in the case of Invest Asset Securitisation reiterated that the provisions of insolvency and bankruptcy code are essentially intended to bring the corporate debtor to its feet and are not of money recovery proceedings as such.
Case Title: Securities And Exchange Board Of India vs R.T. Agro Private Limited | CA 2957 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 424
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose has upheld an order of Securities Appellate Tribunal holding that the bar of voting as per Section 188 of the Companies Act, 2013 on related parties operates only at the time of entering into a contract or arrangement.
Case Name: Waqf Board. Rajasthan v. Jindal Saw Limited And Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 425
The Supreme Court has held that in absence of proof of 'dedication' or 'user' or 'grant' , which would qualify a dilapidated wall or a platform as 'waqf' in terms of Section 3(r) of the Waqf Act, 1995, the said structure cannot be recognised as a religious place for offering Namaaz.
A Bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian dismissed an appeal assailing the order of the Rajasthan High Court which allowed Jindal Saw Limited to remove a structure from the plot allotted to it for mining, which the Waqf Board, Rajasthan claimed was a religious place.
Case Title: National Medical Commission vs Pooja Thandu Naresh | CA 2950-2951 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 426
The Supreme Court has held that the National Medical Commission is not bound to grant provisional registration to a student who has not undergone clinical training in physical form a part of the medical course in a foreign medical institute.
The Court observed that a medical student who has not undergone clinical training cannot be granted provisional registration to complete internship.
"Without practical training, there cannot be any Doctor who is expected to take care of the citizens of the country", the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed.
Case Name: Atbir vs State of NCT Of Delhi | CrA 714 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 427
The Supreme court observed that eligibility for getting remission is not a pre-requisite for obtaining furlough. The whole of the scheme of granting furlough is based on the approach of reformation and as incentive for maintaining good conduct, the bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose observed.
Case Name: Narinder Garg vs Kotak Mahindra Bank | WP(C) 93 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 428
The Supreme Court reiterated that the moratorium provisions contained in Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 would apply only to the corporate debtor
The natural persons mentioned in Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would continue to be statutorily liable under the provisions of the Act, the bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha observed.
Case Title: Ashutosh Kumar v. The Film And Television Institute of India And Anr. C.A. No. 7719 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 429
The Supreme Court recently directed the Film and Television Institute of India(FTII) to induct individuals with color blindness in all courses offered by them by making accommodations in its curriculum. The direction is also applicable to other film institutes following a similar curriculum as FTII. A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh further directed FTII to exclude color grading modules in its diploma and film editing course or to make it an elective as suggested by the Committed appointed by it to look into the issue.
Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh vs Satish Chand Shivhare and Brothers| SLP(C) 5301 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 430
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and AS Bopanna observed that a court has no obligation to consider the merits of an appeal which is barred by limitation and no plausible cause for delay is shown. The bench also observed that the law of limitation binds everybody including the Government and a different yardstick for condonation of delay cannot be laid down because the government is involved.
Case Title: Harshit Foundation Sehmalpur Jalalpur Jaunpur vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Faizabad
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 431
The Supreme Court has observed that there shall not be any deemed registration even in a case where the registration application under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not decided within six months. The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna was considering a Special Leave Petition challenging a judgment of Allahabad High Court in which the issue raised was whether on non-deciding the application for registration under Section 12AA (2) of the Income Tax Act within a period of six months, there shall be deemed registration or not?
Case Name: Haris Marine Products v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (ECGC) Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 432
The Supreme Court has held that first an ambiguous term in an insurance contract ought to be construed harmoniously by reading it in its entirety and if still vague the rule of contra proferentem must be applied and the term must be interpreted against the drafter of the policy, i.e in favour of the insured. A Bench comprising Justices U.U. Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and P.S. Narasimha allowed an appeal filed assailing the order of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, which had held in favour of the insurer. The Apex Court set aside the order and directed the issuer to pay the claim amount of Rs. 2.45 crores along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
433. Bail Order Should Be Furnished To Accused In Prison On Same Day Of Pronouncement : Supreme Court
Case Title: In Re To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trial v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 433
The Supreme Court on Thursday clarified that Rule 17 of the 2021 Draft Criminal Rules on Practice- which the High Courts have been directed to adopt - should be read as a mandate for furnishing of the bail order to the prison concerned, and the concerned prison in turn should furnsih the same to the accused on the same day of pronouncment.
Case Title: Akhilesh Prasad V. Jharkhand Public Service Commission And Ors.| Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18890 of 2021
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 434
While deciding a dispute related to the reservation of an employee serving the State of Jharkhand after the bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the Supreme Court highlighted the need for the Parliament to provide clarity on the rights of individuals after state reorganization. The observations in this regard were made in a separate but concurring judgment written by Justice S Ravindra Bhat while sharing bench with Justices UU Lalit and PS Narasimha.
Case Title: Widescreen Holdings Private Limited vs Religare Finvest Limited | SLP(C) 6826-6829/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 435
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna has observed that a Court or a Tribunal cannot impound a document for insufficient stamp unless and until the same is produced on record before it.
Case Title: Vivek Krishna vs Union of India | WP(C) 1034/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 436
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and A S Bopanna recently dismissed a writ petition to impose restrictions to prevent Civil Servants from contesting elections immediately after retirement or resignation from service, by imposing a "Cooling off Period".
Case Title: Kangaro Industries (Regd) vs Jaininder Jain | CA 5007 OF 2008
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 437
The Supreme Court bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Abhay S. Oka and CT Ravikumar observed that a Court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot enlarge the scope of relief claimed in the main proceedings.
Case Name: Thomas Daniel vs State of Kerala | CA 7115 OF 2010
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 438
The Supreme Court observed that the excess payment of emoluments or allowances to an employee are not recoverable if it was on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order which is subsequently found to be erroneous.
This relief against the recovery is granted not because of any right of the employees but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employees from the hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered, the bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath said.
439. Nobody Can Be Forced To Get Vaccinated; Vaccine Mandates Not Proportionate : Supreme Court
Case Details : Jacob Puliyel vs Union Of India| WP(C) 607 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 439
The Supreme Court bench of Justices LN Rao and BR Gavai held that no individual can be forced to get vaccinated and the right to bodily integrity of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution include the right to refuse vaccinate.
The Court also held that the vaccine mandates imposed by various state governments and other authorities in the context of COVID-19 pandemic are "not proportionate". The Court held so as no substantial data has been produced on record to show that the risk of transmission of COVID-19 virus from the unvaccinated persons are higher than from vaccinated persons.
Also Read: No Haste In Granting Emergency Use Authorization To Covaxin & Covishield: Supreme Court
Case Name: Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited vs Central Bureau of Investigation| MA 706 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 440
The Supreme Court bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy refused to apply the dictum of automatic vacation of stay in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and Another v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018) 16 SCC 299 to an order passed by High Court in writ proceedings.
In this case, a division bench of a High Court stayed operation of the order passed by the Single Judge in a writ petition. By filing a miscellaneous application before the Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and Another v. Central Bureau of Investigation, the writ petitioner sought clarification that the order passed in the said judgment would apply to the facts of this case.
Case Name: Pawan Kumar vs Union of India | CA 3574 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 441
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna observed that mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service.
Case Name: Vipan Aggarwal vs Raman Gandotra | CA 3492 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 442
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed that an application seeking recall of a compromise decree on the ground that it suffers from fraud and collusion can be filed before the Court which granted the decree.
Case Title:Narsingh Ispat Ltd. vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr, CA 10671/2016
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 443
The Supreme Court has held that the terms in the exclusion clause in an insurance policy will govern the parties and that the insurer cannot rely upon definitions in external sources such as statutes to repudiate a policy.
"When the policy itself defines the acts of terrorism in the Exclusion Clause, the terms of the policy being a concluded contract will govern the rights and liabilities of the parties.Therefore, the parties cannot rely upon the definitions of 'terrorism' in various penal statutes since the Exclusion Clause contains an exhaustive definition of acts of terrorism" a bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka held in the case Narsing Ispat Ltd versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Case Title: Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal Civil Appeal No. 3005 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 444
The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, directed that reassessment notices under Section 148 of the unamended Income Tax Act which were issued beyond 01.04.2021 (the effective date of amendment of the said provision by the Finance Act, 2021) to be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and be construed as show cause notices in terms of section 148A(b).
While deciding an appeal against an order of the Allahabad High Court which had set aside the reassessment notices issued by the Revenue after 01.04.2021, under unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, a Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna passed a slew of directions in respect of such reassessment notices.
Case Details : Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd versus SP Velayutham and others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 445
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian has held that a Registering Authority under the Registration Act 1908, while registering a sale deed executed by a Power of Attorney holder, is bound to verify if the Power of Attorney empowers the agent to sell the property.
The Court noted that the provisions of the Registration Act, particularly Section 34(3)(c), imposes an obligation on the Registering Officer to satisfy himself about the right of a person appearing as a representative, assign or agent.
Case Title: Dr. Jacob Thudipara v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.| Civil Appeal No. 2974 Of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 446
The Supreme Court recently reiterated that teachers in government aided private educational institutions in Madhya Pradesh are entitled to get the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation of 65 years.
The bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna rendered the observation while considering SLP assailing Madhya Pradesh High Court's order dated May 9, 2017 by which the High Court had dismissed the appellant's appeal and observed that teachers serving in the aided private educational institutions in Madhya Pradesh are entitled to get the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation of 65 years.
Case Name: The Secretary of Govt. of Kerala Irrigation Department And Ors. v. James Varghese And Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 447
The Supreme Court has held that the Kerala Revocation of Arbitration Clauses and Reopening of Awards Act, 1998 to be unconstitutional as it had an effect of annulling the awards passed by the arbitrators and the judgments and decrees passed by the courts. A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai dismissed the appeals filed by the State of Kerala against a Kerala High Court judgment which had held the law to be unconstitutional.
Case Title: Ms P vs State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 448
In a case where posters saying "Bhaiya is back" was put up to celebrate the release of a rape-accused on bail, the Supreme Court set aside the bail, observing that "brazen conduct of the accused has evoked a bona fide fear in complainant's mind that she would not get a free and fair trial if he remains enlarged on bail and that there is a likelihood of his influencing the material witnesses".
Case Name: State of Bihar And Ors. v. Shyama Nandan Mishra| Civil Appeal No 7364 of 2014
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 449
The Supreme Court bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy have opined that when substantive legitimate expectation, which is not ultra vires the power of the State, has been induced, then State cannot be allowed to change course against such expectation. The Apex Court further noted that upsetting such expectation in absence of any compelling public interest amounts to abuse of power by the State.
Case Title : Muzaffar Hussain versus State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 450
The Supreme Court has upheld the disciplinary action taken against a judicial officer in Uttar Pradesh for passing orders to unduly favour certain parties.
A division bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Bela M Trivedi observed that "showing undue favour to a party under the guise of passing judicial orders is the worst kind of judicial dishonesty and misconduct".
"A judge must decide the case on the basis of the facts on record and the law applicable to the case. If he decides a case for extraneous reasons, then he is not performing his duties in accordance with law", the Court stated in the case Muzaffar Hussain versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others.
Case Title : Indira Jaising versus Supreme Court of India
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 451
While assessing applications for senior advocate designations, the High Courts should allocate one mark each for each year of practice from 10 to 20 years, instead of allocating 10 marks flat for the counsel who has put in 10-20 years practice, clarified the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
Case Title: Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, Civil Appeal No. 3657 of 2022 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 4901 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 452
The Supreme Court has held that the power of the arbitral tribunal to award interest is subject to an agreement between the parties to the contrary. The Court held that the tribunal cannot award interest if the parties have agreed otherwise.
The Division Bench of Justice L. Nageshwar Rao and Justice B.R. Gavai held that when the parties have an agreement between themselves that governs the issue of interest, the arbitrator would lose its discretion and will be guided by the agreement between the parties.
Case Title: The Director, Employees State Insurance Health Care & Ors. V. Maruti Suzuki India Limited & Ors. | Civil Appeal No. 3464 Of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 453
The Supreme Court has observed that once the statute has fixed the condition of pre-deposit before filing an appeal, such condition is required to be satisfied.
The bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian rendered this observation while considering SLP assailing Punjab and Haryana High Court's order dated October 27, 2016 wherein the High Court had held that the requirement of pre-deposit under Section 45-AA of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 is not mandatory.
Case Title: Swadesh Kumar Agarwal versus Dinesh Kumar Agarwal & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 454
The Supreme Court has ruled that there is a difference between the arbitrator appointed under Section 11(5) and under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) and failing any written agreement between the parties on the procedure for appointing an arbitrator (s) under Section 11(2), application for appointment of arbitrator (s) shall be maintainable under Section 11(5) and not under Section 11(6).
The Bench of Justices M. R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna held that once the dispute is referred to arbitration and the sole arbitrator is appointed by the parties by mutual consent, the arbitration agreement cannot be invoked for the second time.
455. "Group Of Companies" Doctrine Needs Relook, Says Supreme Court; Refers Issues To Larger Bench
Case Name: Cox and Kings Limited v. SAP India Private Limited And Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 455
The Supreme Court has referred various aspects regarding the application of the doctrine of 'Group of Companies', which is often used to bind non-signatories to an Arbitration Agreement, to a larger Bench. "There is a clear need for having a re look at the doctrinal ingredients concerning the group of companies doctrine", observed a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India, N.V. Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and A.S. Bopanna.
456. In PMLA Cases, Courts Cannot Proceed On The Basis Of Preponderance Of Probabilities: Supreme Court
Case Title: J.Sekar @Sekar Reddy Versus Directorate of Enforcement| Criminal Appeal No. 738 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 456
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Vineet Saran and JK Maheshwari has observed that in cases of PMLA, Court cannot proceed on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.
It was also observed that it is incumbent upon the Court to look into the allegation and the material collected in support thereto and to find out whether the prima facie offence is made out.
The Top Court had rendered this observation while considering a criminal appeal assailing Madras High Court's order dated February 4, 2021 wherein the High Court while dismissing the petition u/s 482 of CrPC held that the appellant's argument that the FIR with respect to schedule offense was closed for want of evidence and in absence of connected evidence with a crime of schedule offense, the prosecution for offenses under Sections 3 & 4 of "PMLA could not be sustained.
Case Title : Dilip Hariramani vs Bank of Baroda
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 457
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna has held that a person cannot be convicted for the offence of dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act merely because he was a partner of the firm which had taken the loan or that he stood as a guarantor for such a loan.
Case Title: Sathyanath vs Sarojamani | CA 3680 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 458
The Supreme Court observed that a plea of res judicata cannot be determined as preliminary issue when it is a mixed question of law and fact.
Preliminary issues can be those where no evidence is required and on the basis of reading of the plaint or the applicable law, if the jurisdiction of the Court or the bar to the suit is made out, the Court may decide such issues with the sole objective for the expeditious decision, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian said.
459. [Delhi Govt vs LG] Supreme Court Refers Questions On The Issue Of Services To Constitution Bench
Case Title: Govt Of NCT Delhi vs Union of India: CA 2357/2017
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 459
A 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli referred to a Constitution Bench limited questions pertaining to the legal dispute between the Delhi Government and the Central Government regarding the control over administrative services in the national capital.
Case Title: Samarpan Varishtha Jan Parisar vs Rajendra Prasad Agarwa
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 460
The Supreme Court observed that the inmates of a old age home are licensees and have a legal right to stay in the room of the old age home only so long as they comply with the terms and conditions of such license.
"The inmates in the old age home are licensees and are expected to maintain a minimum level of discipline and good behaviour and not to cause disturbance to the fellow inmates who are also senior citizens.", the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian.
Case Name: Ravinder Singh @ Kaku vs State of Punjab | CrA 1307 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 461
The Supreme Court bench of Justices UU Lalit and Vineet Saran has observed that the certificate under Section 65B(4) of Evidence Act is mandatory to produce electronic evidence and that the oral evidence in the place of such certificate cannot possibly suffice.
Case Title: Veena Singh (D) vs District Registrar/Additional Collector (F/R)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 462
The Supreme Court observed that the execution of a document/deed does not stand admitted merely because a person admits to having signed the document/deed.
The "term" execution in Section 35(1)(a) Registration Act means that a person has signed a document after having fully understood it and consented to its terms, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna and Bela M. Trivedi observed.
Case Title : Suresh Mahajan versus State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 463
Noting that "the reality in the state of Madhya Pradesh as of now, is that, more than 23, 263 local bodies are functioning without the elected representatives for last over two years and more", the Supreme Court on Tuesday observed, "This is bordering on break down of rule of law and more so, palpable infraction of the constitutional mandate qua the existence and functioning of such local self-government, which cannot be countenanced"
Case Name: Nedumpilli Finance Company Limited vs State of Kerala | CA 5233 0F 2012
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 464
The Supreme Court has held that the state enactments such as Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 and Gujarat Money Lenders Act, 2011 will have no application to Non Banking Financial Companies (NBFC) regulated by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed that the Chapter IIIB of the RBI Act is a complete code in itself and the power of intervention available for the RBI over NBFCs, is 'from the cradle to the grave'.
Case Title: Bharat Kalra vs Raj Kishan Chabra | CA 3788 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 465
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian has reiterated the time limit for filing of the written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure is not mandatory (if it is not a commercial suit). In this case, a suit for injunction was filed by the plaintiff. The High Court upheld the Trial court order refusing to condone the delay of 193 days in filing of the written statement on the ground that there was "no plausible explanation and coherent reason" explaining the delay in filing the written statement.
Case Name: Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh vs State of Goa
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 466
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed that only the clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any order fixing or revising minimum rates of wages can be corrected by invoking Section 10 of the Minimum Wages Act.
Case Name: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 467
The Supreme Court revoked the approval granted by the Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) for doubling the existing railway line from Castlerock (Karnataka) to Kulem (Goa). The bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, B R Gavai and Aniruddha Bose observed that the assessment of the impact which the project would have on the environment..would have to be strictly undertaken before the project is considered by the NBWL.
Case Title: Rekha Jain vs State of Karnataka | CrA 749 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 468
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna has observed that, to make out a case against a person for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, there must be a dishonest inducement to deceive a person to deliver any property to any other person.
Case Title: New Delhi Municipal Council vs Minosha India Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 469
The Supreme Court bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy has held that the entire period during which the moratorium was in force in respect of corporate debtor can be excluded while computing the period of limitation for a suit or proceeding by the corporate debtor.
470. KEEP THE SEDITION LAW IN ABEYANCE: SUPREME COURT RULES IN A HISTORIC ORDER
Case Title: S.G. VOMBATKERE vs UNION OF INDIA ( WPC 682/2021) EDITORS GUILD OF INDIA AND ANR. vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (WPC 552/2021)
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 470
In a historic development, the Supreme Court on ordered that the 152-year old sedition law under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code should be effectively kept in abeyance till the Union Government reconsiders the provision.
In an interim order, the Court urged the Centre and the State governments to refrain from registering any FIRs under the said provision while it was under re-consideration.
A bench comprising the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli held that all pending trials, appeals and proceedings with respect to charges framed under Section124 A be kept in abeyance. Adjudication with respect to other sections may proceed with no prejudice be caused to the accused, it held.
Case Title: M.P. Rajya Tilhan Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Maryadit vs Modi Transport Service
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 471
The Supreme Court observed that a court appointed commissioner's report is only an opinion or noting and are 'non-adjudicatory in nature'.
The parties can contest an expert opinion/commissioner's report, and the court, after hearing objections, can determine whether or not it should rely upon such an expert opinion/commissioner's report, the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi observed.
472. Appeal To NCLAT Shall Be Filed Within A Period Of 30 Days, Reiterates Supreme Court
Case Title: Safire Technologies Pvt. Ltd Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 472
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justice L N Rao and Justice P S Narasimha in the case of Safire Technologies Pvt Ltd versus Regional Provident Fund Commissioner reiterates that an appeal against the order of NCLT shall be filed before the NCLAT within a period of 30 days and the appellate tribunal can only condone delay for a period of 15 days.
Case Title: Aravinth R.A. vs Secretary To Government Of India Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 473
The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of Regulations 4(a)(i), 4(a)(ii), 4(b) & 4(c) of the National Medical Commission (Foreign Medical Graduate Licentiate) Regulations 2021, Schedule II 2(a) and 2(c)(i) of the National Medical Commission (Compulsory Rotating Medical Internship) Regulations, 2021. The court held that the National Medical Commission has power to frame these Regulations for foreign medical graduates.
"It is true that the country needs more doctors, but it needs really qualified doctors and not persons trained by institutions abroad, to test their skills only in their mother land.", the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed.
Case Title: Prabha Tyagi vs Kamlesh Devi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 474
The Supreme Court held that a victim of domestic violence can enforce her right to reside in a shared household, irrespective of whether she actually lived in the shared household.
"Even if an aggrieved person is not in a domestic relationship with the respondent in a shared household at the time of filing of an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act but has at any point of time lived so or had the right to live and has been subjected to domestic violence or is later subjected to domestic violence on account of the domestic relationship, is entitled to file an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act.", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna held.
475. Contract Act Does Not Recognize Sale Of Pledged Goods By Pawnee To Self : Supreme Court
Case Title : PTC India Financial Services Ltd versus Venkateswarlu Kari and another
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 475
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna has held that the Indian Contract Act 1872 does not recognize the sale of the pledged goods by a pawnee to himself in the event of default of payment by the pawnor.
The Court noted that as per Section 176 of the Contract Act, in the event of default by the pawnor, the pawnee may bring a suit or sell the pledged items on giving the pawnor reasonable notice of the sale.
Case Name: Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. And Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 476
The Supreme Court has bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian has held that a person who purchased a land after it vested with the State under land acquisition proceedings has no right to claim lapsing of the proceedings invoking Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Case: K Dhandapani vs State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 477
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a man accused in a POCSO case after noticing that he had married the prosecutrix and had two children.
"This Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix. We have been informed about the custom in Tamilnadu of the marriage of a girl with the maternal uncle.", the bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai observed while rejecting the objection raised by the State which contended that the marriage might be only for the purpose of escaping punishment.
Case Title: Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. vs Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission | CA 2578-2579 OF 2008
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 478
The Supreme Court bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai has observed that an association of corporate bodies can establish a captive power plant primarily for their own use.
479. Duomatic Principle In Company Law Applicable Even In Indian Context: Supreme Court
Case Title: Mahima Datla vs Renuka Datla | CA 2776 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 479
The Supreme Court observed that Duomatic Principle that 'strict adherence to a statutory requirement may be dispensed with if it is demonstrated otherwise on facts, if the same is consented by all members' is applicable even in the Indian context.
The bench comprising Justices Vineet Saran and JK Maheshwari clarified that the said principle is only applicable in those cases wherein bona fide transactions are involved and that 'Fraud' is a clear exception.
Case Title: Veerendra vs State of Madhya Pradesh | CrA 5 & 6 OF 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 480
The Supreme Court observed that a lapse or omission to carry out DNA profiling, by itself, cannot be held to be fatal in rape cum murder cases.
"The lapse or omission (purposeful or otherwise) to carry out DNA profiling, by itself, cannot be permitted to decide the fate of a trial for the offence of rape especially, when it is combined with the commission of the offence of murder as in case of acquittal only on account of such a flaw or defect in the investigation the cause of criminal justice would become the victim.", the bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and C T Ravikumar observed.
Case Title : Ibrat Faizan versus Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 481
The Supreme Court has held that an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 can be challenged in a writ petition filed before a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna held that NCDRC is a "tribunal" falling under Article 227 . The legality of the order passed by the Delhi High Court by which it held as maintainable the Article 227 petition filed against the NCDRC order was in question before the Supreme Court.
Case Title: Surendran vs State of Kerala |CrA 1080 of 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 482
Overruling some of its earlier judgments, the Supreme Court observed that evidence of a deceased wife under Section 32 of Evidence Act with respect to cruelty could be admissible in a trial for a charge under Section 498A of the IPC.
This is, however, subject to satisfaction of two preconditions (1) Her cause of death must come into question in the matter (2) The prosecution will have to show that the evidence that is sought to be admitted with respect to Section 498A of the IPC must also relate to the circumstances of the transaction of the death.
The bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli upheld the judgment of the Kerala High Court which had set aside the concurrent findings of conviction of the courts below and acquitted the appellant under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code while confirming his conviction under Section 498A of the IPC.
Case Title: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Chetan Jeff| Civil Appeal No. 3116 Of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 483
The Supreme Court recently approved the rejection of the candidature of a person for the post of police constable for suppressing the pendency of a criminal case against him.
A division bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna was considering an appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgments of a single bench and a division bench of the Rajasthan High Court which had directed for accepting the candidature(State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Chetan Jeff). The High Court had observed that the application can be accepted as the offences are trivial.
Case Title: Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah @ Lala Vakil vs State of Gujarat | WP(C) 135 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 484
The Supreme Court observed that the remission or premature release in terms of the policy which is applicable in the State where the crime was committed has to be considered.
The bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath observed that the appropriate Government under Section 432(7) CrPC can be either the Central or the State Government but there cannot be a concurrent jurisdiction of two State Governments.
Case : Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority versus Maradu Municipality and others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 485
The Supreme Court has held that the owners of the flats in the four buildings in Maradu, Kochi, which were demolished in 2020 for CRZ violations, are not entitled to interest on the refund payable to them by the builders.
A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai ruled so on the reasoning that the purchasers had been staying in the flats allotted to them for a period of 8-9 years on an average and that they still have undivided share in the land, the market value of which has increased substantially. The bench also observed that the flats that were taken possession of in the years between 2009-2013 would have depreciated in value.
486. "Will Create Chaos & Uncertainty": Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Postpone NEET PG 2022 Exam
Case Title: Dr R Dinesh Kumar Reddy v. Medical Counselling Committee| WP(C) 341 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 486
The Supreme Court dismissed pleas to postpone NEET-PG 2022 scheduled for May 21, saying postponement will create chaos and uncertainty and will impact patient care and will cause prejudice to over 2 lakh students who have prepared.
Case Name: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Levis Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd.| Civil Appeal No. 2955 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 487
The Supreme Court, recently, held that in cases of overlapping insurance policies, when the defined loss of the insured is fully indemnified by one insurer, the second insurer is not liable for the claim towards the same incident.
"A contract of insurance is and always continues to be one for indemnity of the defined loss, no more no less. In the case of specific risks, such as those arising from loss due to fire, etc., the insured cannot profit and take advantage by double insurance."
A Bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and P.S. Narasimha allowed appeal assailing the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which directed the insurance company to pay Rs. 1.78 crores towards the claim raised by the insured.
Case Title: Satish Kumar Jatav vs State of UP | CrA 770 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 488
The Supreme Court observed that when a clear case is made out for the offences alleged, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the ground that "no useful purpose will be served by prolonging the proceedings of the case". The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna reiterated that a High Court must pass a speaking and reasoned order while disposing petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Case Title: Nanjundappa vs State of Karnataka | CrA 900 OF 2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 489
The Supreme Court noted that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur stricto sensu would not apply to a criminal case.
"For bringing home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has to firstly prove negligence and then establish direct nexus between negligence of the accused and the death of the victim.", the bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli observed while acquitting two persons accused under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code for causing death by negligence.
Case Title: Suresh Chandra vs State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 490
The Supreme Court observed that Advocates On Record have to comply with the requirements under the Supreme Court Rules 2013 of certifying execution of Vakalatnama.
Justice Abhay S. Oka, in an order passed last week, observed:
-If the Vakalatnama is executed in presence of the Advocate on Record himself, it is his duty to certify that the execution was made in his presence. If he knows the litigant personally, he can certify the execution. If he does not personally know the litigant, he must verify the identity of the person signing the Vakalatnama from the documents such as Aadhaar or PAN card.
-If the client has not signed the Vakalatnama in his presence, the AOR must ensure that it bears his endorsement as required by clause (b)(ii) of Rule 7 of Supreme Court Rules 2013.
Case Title: New Okhla Industrial Development Authority versus Anand Sonbhadra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 491
Supreme Court in the case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority versus Anand Sonbhadra held that the NOIDA is an operational creditor under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. (IBC/Code)
The Bench comprising of Justice KM Joseph and Justice Hrishikesh Roy dismissed the appeal filed by NOIDA against the judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) wherein NCLAT held that the NOIDA is an operational Creditor under IBC and cannot be considered as a Financial Creditor of the Corporate Debtor under the provisions of the Code.
Case Title: Sudhir Ranjan Patra (D) vs Himansu Sekhar Srichandan | CA 3641 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 492
The Supreme Court observed when an ex parte decree is set aside and the suit is restored to file, the defendants cannot be relegated to the position prior to the date of hearing of the suit when he was placed ex parte.
The bench comprising Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna, in this case, observed that a Trial Court can consider whether on setting aside the exparte decree, defendants' prayer to permit them to file their written statement can be allowed?
Case Title: BBR (India) Private Limited vs S.P. Singla Constructions Private Limited | CA 4130-4131 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 493
The Supreme Court observed that the appointment of a new arbitrator who holds the arbitration proceedings at a different location would not change the jurisdictional 'seat' already fixed by the earlier or first arbitrator.
The place of arbitration in such an event should be treated as a venue where arbitration proceedings are held, the bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna observed.
Case Title: A.G. Perarivalan v. State, Through Superintendent of Police CBI/SIT/MMDA, Chennai, Tamil Nadu And Anr. Crl.A. No. 10039-10040 of 2016]
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 494
The Supreme Court while exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution to release A.G. Perarivalan, one of the convicts in Rajiv Gandhi's assassination, restated that Governor has the power under Article 161 to remit/commute/pardon sentences imposed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, since the executive power of the State extends to the said provision.
A Bench comprising Justices L. Nageshwara Rao, B.R. Gavai and A.S. Bopanna was unable to accept the submission made by the Additional Solicitor General, Mr. K.M. Nataraj that the President has the exclusive power under Article 72 to pardon or grant remission or commute sentences imposed under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
495. "Low Case Load": Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Establish NGT Benches In Every State
Case Title: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association vs Union of India | WP(C) 433 OF 2012
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 495
In its judgment upholding constitutionality of Section 3 of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010, the Supreme Court also observed that the seat of the NGT benches can be located as per exigencies and it is not necessary to locate them in every State.
If the NGT Benches are set up in all 28 States and 8 union territories as is suggested, the judges and other members in these forums might be left twiddling their thumbs, the bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy observed.
Case Title: Indian Overseas Bank vs RCM Infrastructure Ltd | CA 4750 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 496
The Supreme Court observed that the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act cannot be continued once the CIRP is initiated and the moratorium is ordered.
The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai noted that, in such a situation, any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the Corporate Debtor in respect of its property including any action under the SARFAESI Act is prohibited.
497. Section 18 Limitation Act Is Applicable To IBC Proceedings, Reiterates Supreme Court
Case Title: State Bank of India vs Krishidhan Seeds Private Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 497
The Supreme Court observed that the provisions of Section 18 of the Limitation Act are applicable to proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
An acknowledgement in a balance sheet without a qualification can furnish a legitimate basis for determining as to whether the period of limitation would stand extended, so long as the acknowledgement was within a period of three years from the original date of default, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant observed.
Case Title: Jaswinder Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representative v. Navjot Singh Sidhu And Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 498
While enhancing the sentence of Navjot Singh Sidhu to one year imprisonment in the 1988 road rage case, the Supreme Court of India on Thursday made important observations regarding the necessity of maintaining a reasonable proportion between the seriousness of the crime and the punishment.
The observations have been made while allowing the review petition filed by victim's family against Supreme Court's 2018 verdict reducing Sidhu's sentence to Rs 1000 fine from 3 years imprisonment.
A bench of Justices A. M. Khanwilkar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul observed that while undue harshness is not required in awarding punishment, inadequate punishment may lead to sufferance of the community at large.
Case Title: Canara Bank vs GS Jayarama
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 499
The Supreme Court observed that the Permanent Lok Adalats have adjudicatory functions under the Legal Services Act,1987 and thus empowered to decide a dispute before it on merits.
The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and PS Narasimha held that conciliation proceedings under Section 22-C of the LSA Act are mandatory in nature. Even if the opposite party does not appear, the Permanent Lok Adalat is still bound to follow the step-by-step procedure.
The court observed that the main goal is conciliation and settlement of disputes in relation to public utilities, with a decision on merits always being the last resort.
Case Title : Union of India and Anr versus M/s Mohit Minerals Through Director
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 500
In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court has held that the recommendations of the GST council are not binding on the Union and the State Governments.
A bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud held that the Parliament intended that the recommendations of the GST Council will have persuasive value.
Importantly, the Court held that both the Parliament and the State Legislatures can equally legislate on matters of Goods and Service Tax.
Case Title: Rashtreeya Sikshana Samithi Trust vs Committee For Fixation of Fee Structure Of Private Professional Colleges
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 501
The Supreme Court, in an order passed has prohibited managements of private medical colleges from accepting payment of fees in cash.
This is to avoid charging of capitation fee. The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai also agreed to the suggestion for setting up web-portal under the aegis of Supreme Court wherein any information about the private medical colleges charging capitation fees can be furnished by the students.
Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh vs Raj Kumar| CA 9746 -9747 of 2011
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 502
The Supreme Court held that the conditions of service of a public servant, including matters of promotion and seniority, are governed by the extant rules.
The three judge bench headed by Justice Uday Umesh Lalit overruled its judgment in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao which held that the appointments to the public posts that fell vacant prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the old Rules and not by the amended rules.
The bench, also comprising Justices S.Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha, observed that the rights and obligations of persons serving the Union and the States are to be sourced from the rules governing the services and that there is no right for an employee outside the said rules.
Case Title: Sabitri Samantaray vs State of Odisha | CrA 988 OF 2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 503
The Supreme Court observed that the Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act applies to cases where chain of events has been successfully established by the prosecution, from which a reasonable inference is made out against the accused.
"In a case based on circumstantial evidence, whenever an incriminating question is posed to the accused and he or she either evades response, or offers a response which is not true, then such a response in itself becomes an additional link in the chain of event," the bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli observed.
Case Title: Faizabad-Ayodhya Development Authority vs Dr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey | CA 2915 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 504
The Supreme Court held that landowners who obtained interim orders due to which awards could not be passed under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 could not invoke Section 24(1) of RFCTLARR Act to claim higher compensation.
"In a case where on the date of commencement of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, no award has been declared under Section 11 of the Act, 1894, due to the pendency of any proceedings and/or the interim stay granted by the Court, such landowners shall not be entitled to the compensation under Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013," the Court held.
The bench comprising Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna observed that such landowners shall be entitled to the compensation only under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Case Title: Knit Pro International vs State of NCT of Delhi | CrA 807 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 505
The Supreme Court held that the offence of copyright infringement under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable and non-bailable offence.
If the offence is punishable with imprisonment for three years and onwards but not more than seven years the offence is a cognizable offence, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
Case Title: Gurmel Singh vs Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 506
The Supreme Court observed that while settling the claims, the insurance company should not be too technical and ask for the documents, which the insured is not in a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control.
The bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna noted that, in many cases, it is found that the insurance companies are refusing the claim on flimsy grounds and/or technical grounds.
Case Title: SP Velumani vs Arappor Iyakkam & Ors
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 507
The Supreme Court criticized the Madras High Court for not allowing SP Velumani, former Tami Nadu Minister during the AIADMK term, to have a copy of the preliminary report filed against him in a corruption case.
"When the State has not pleaded any specific privilege which bars disclosure of material utilized in the earlier preliminary investigation, there is no good reason for the High Court to have permitted the report to have remained shrouded in a sealed cover", said a bench led by the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana while ordering the High Court to give copy of the preliminary report to Velumani.
Case Title : In Re: Expeditious Trial Of Cases Under Section 138 Of N.I. Act 1881
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 508
With a view of reduce the pendency of cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Supreme Court on Thursday directed the establishment of pilot courts presided over by retired judges in 5 districts of 5 states with the highest pendency (namely, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh).
A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and S Ravindra Bhat passed the direction in the suo motu case taken by the Supreme Court last year to deal with the pendency of cheque dishonour cases(In Re Expeditious Trial Of Cases Under Section 138 of N.I Act).
509. Supreme Court Lifts Curbs On Iron Ore Sale From Mines In Karnataka; Allows Export
Case Title : Samaj Parivarthana Samudaya versus State of Karnataka and others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 509
The Supreme Court lifted the curbs on sale of iron ore sale in Karnataka and allowed the export of the ore subject to the terms and conditions of the Government of India.
The Court allowed the mine operators to sell the already excavated iron ore by entering into direct contracts without resorting to e-auction.
Case Title : Manoj & Others versus State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510
Observing that death sentences are most often imposed by the trial courts in a retributive sense, the Supreme Court has issued a set of practical guidelines to ensure that the mitigating circumstances of the accused are properly considered at the trial stage itself.
The Court noted that in most cases, the information relating to the mitigating circumstances are collected at the appellate stage, and such information mostly relate to the post-conviction circumstances.
"The unfortunate reality is that in the absence of well-documented mitigating circumstances at the trial level, the aggravating circumstances seem far more compelling, or overwhelming, rendering the sentencing court prone to imposing the death penalty, on the basis of an incomplete, and hence, incorrect application of the Bachan Singh test", the bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi observed.
Case Title: Harnek Singh vs Gurmit Singh | CA 4126-4127/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 511
The Supreme Court observed that the findings of the report of Medical Council Of India on professional conduct of doctors are relevant while considering medical negligence compensation claims. The bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha also observed that in the proceedings for damages due to professional negligence, the question of intention does not arise.
Case Title: Dr. K. M. Sharma vs State of Chhattisgarh | CA 3030 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 512
The Supreme Court held that Shiksha Karmis in Chhattisgarh cannot claim parity in pay-scale with that of Municipal teachers on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Referring to the relevant rules, the bench comprising Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna dismissed the appeals by observing thus:
When the Municipal teachers and the Shiksha Karmis are appointed under different Rules and there are different methods of selection and recruitment, a Shiksha Karmi cannot claim parity in pay-scale with that of Municipal teachers on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Therefore, it is observed and held that Shiksha Karmis, who are governed by the Shiksha Karmis Rules, 1998 under which they were appointed, are entitled to pay-scales under the Shiksha Karmis Rules, 1998 only, which are being paid to them.
Case Title: Union of India vs Anil Prasad |CA 4073 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 513
The Supreme Court observed that an Armed Forces employee on reemployment in government service is not entitled to his pay scales at par with his last drawn pay in Armed Force. The reference to the last drawn pay in the armed forces is only to ensure that the pay computed in the civil post in the manner envisaged in para 8 of Central Civil Services (fixation of Pay of Reemployed Pensioners) Order, 1986 does not exceed the basic pay (including the deferred pay but excluding other emoluments) last drawn by the personnel in the armed forces, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
Case Title: Employees State Insurance Corporation vs Dr. Vinay Kumar | CA 4150 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 514
The Supreme Court observed that a candidate does not have a legal right to insist that the recruitment process set in motion be carried to its logical end.
Even inclusion of a candidate in the select list may not clothe the candidate with such a right, the bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy observed. The bench clarified that this does not mean that the employer is free to act in an arbitrary manner.
Case Title: Munni Devi Alias Nathi Devi (D) vs Rajendra Alias Lallu Lal (D) | CA 5894 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 515
The Supreme Court observed that settled exclusive possession of a property of Hindu Undivided Family(HUf) by a widow would create a presumption that such property was earmarked for realization of her pre-existing right of maintenance.
This is more particularly when the surviving coparcener did not earmark any alternative property for recognizing her pre-existing right of maintenance, the bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi observed.
Case Title: Abhishek vs State of Maharashtra | CrA 869 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 516
The Supreme Court observed that continuing unlawful activity with the objective of gaining advantages other than economic or pecuniary is also an "organised crime" under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999. There could be advantage to a person committing a crime which may not be directly leading to pecuniary advantage or benefit but could be of getting a strong hold or supremacy in the society or even in the syndicate itself, the bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose said.
Case Title: Baiju KG vs Dr VP Joy | CP(C) 244/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 517
While considering a contempt plea preferred by victims of endosulfan alleging failure on the part of State of Kerala to disburse 5 lakhs compensation, the Supreme Court asked the State's Chief Secretary to hold monthly meetings to undertake the process of identification of the victims of endosulfan, ensuring disbursement of compensation of Rs 5 lakhs and taking steps to ensure provision of medical facilities.
Case Title: Independent Schools' Association Chandigarh (Regd.) & Ors. V Union Of India & Ors.| Civil Appeal No(S).3877/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 518
The Supreme Court recently struck down the clause of April 2018 notification issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs which required private unaided educational institutions in Chandigarh to inter alia publish their balance sheets/ income and expenditure account on their websites.
The part of the notification was struck down by the bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, AS Oka and JB Pardiwala while considering special leave petition assailing Punjab and Haryana High Court's order dated May 28, 2021 of upholding an April 2018 notification issued by the authority by exercising powers under Section 87 of Punjab Re- organisation Act, 1966.
Case Title: Gurukanwarpal Kirpal Singh vs Surya Prakasam | SLP(Crl) 5485/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 519
The Supreme Court observed that the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 405 will not be attracted if there was no entrustment of the property with the accused. Sine qua non for attracting Section 405 IPC is the entrustment of the property with the accused persons, the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and CT Ravikumar observed.
Case Title: Babasaheb Raosaheb Kobarne vs Pyrotek India Private Limited | SLP(C) 2522/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 520
The Supreme Court observed that its order excluding the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 for the purposes of limitation is applicable with respect to the limitation prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 also. In this case, the Trial Court refused to condone the delay in filing the written statement by the defendants. The Bombay High Court, dismissing the petition challenging this order of the Trial Court, observed that the period of 120 days within which the written statement could have been taken on record, expired on 09.05.2020 which was during the lock-down imposed.
Allowing the appeal filed by the defendants, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed that the High Court ought to have excluded the aforesaid period for the purpose of filing the written statement and ought to have been permitted to take the written statement on record.
Case Title : Aarav Jain versus Bihar Public Service Commission
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 521
The Supreme Court has set aside the decision of Bihar Public Service Commission to reject the applications of 8 candidates to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) on the ground that they had not produced the originals of their certificates at the time of interviews. A bench comprising Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath passed the order taking note of the fact that these candidates had scored higher marks than last selected candidate, and that no one had a case that the particulars furnished by them were incorrect.
522. Compassionate Appointments Must Be Decided Within Six Months Of Applications : Supreme Court
Case Title: Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa And Ors. Civil Appeal No. 4103 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 522
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna has opined that the applications for appointment on compassionate ground ought to be decided in a time bound manner and not beyond a period of six months from the date of submission of the completed applications. The Apex Court was apprehensive that if the applications are not decided expeditiously, then the whole purpose of such appointments would be frustrated.
Case Title: M/s Shree Vishnu Constructions v. The Engineer in Chief Military Engineering Service Service And Ors. SLP (C) No. 5306 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 523
The Supreme Court of India has made strong observations emphasising the need for High Courts to decide applications for appointments of Arbitrators at the earliest. A bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna has observed that if the arbitrators are not appointed at the earliest and the applications under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration Act for appointment of arbitrators are kept pending for a number of years, it will defeat the object and purpose of the enactment of the Act and it may lose the significance of an effective Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism.
Case Title : Advocate Association Bengaluru versus Anoop Kumar Mendiratta Contempt Petition (Civil) No.708/2021 filed in Madras Bar Association versus Union of India WP(c) No.502/2021
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 524
The Supreme Court disapproved the practice of the Central Government putting off the appointments of members to Tribunals despite recommendations by the Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) citing new inputs about the candidates. If fresh materials come to light about the candidates cleared by the SCSC, such materials should be shared with the SCSC. Not doing so will be a deviation from fair process, the Court stated.
Case Title: Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal And Ors. Criminal Appeal No. 135 of 2010]
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 525
The Supreme Court directed Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to issue Aadhaar Cards to sex workers on the basis of a proforma certification submitted by a Gazetted Officer at NACO or the Project Director of the State Aids Control Society. A Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and A.S. Bopanna asked UIDAI to ensure that confidentiality of the sex workers is maintained in the process of issuance of Aadhar Cards.
Case Name: C.C., C.E. & S.T. - Bangalore (Adjudication) Etc. v. M/s. Northern Operating Systems Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 526
The Supreme Court has held that when the Overseas group companies providing skilled employees, on secondment basis, to its Indian counterparts amounts to supply of manpower services, the Indian company would be considered as service recipient. Therefore, the Indian company is liable to pay service tax on the salaries of the seconded employees reimbursed to the overseas company.
While the judgment is related to the service tax regime, it can have an impact on the GST regime as well in view of the similarity of the relevant provisions.
Upon perusal of the agreements entered between the Overseas group companies and the assessee (Indian counterpart), a Bench comprising Justices U.U. Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and P.S. Narasimha determined the assessee to be a service recipient and liable to be taxed, but the invocation of the extended period of limitation by the revenue was held to be untenable.
Case Title: State of West Bengal vs Gitashree Dutta (Dey) | CA 4254 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 527
The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge against cancelation of the declaration of Fair Price Shop vacancies in view of the implementation of National Food Security Act, 2013. By recalling the vacancy notification, the State endeavored to enforce the statute and that there can be no estoppel against a statute, the bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath observed.
Case Title: Kishor Ghanshyamsa Paralikar (D) Balaji Mandir Sansthan Mangrul (Nath)| CA 3794 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 528
The Supreme Court observed that the time for payment of sale consideration can be extended even in a consent decree of specific performance.
The court added that Section 28 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, not only permits the judgment debtors to seek rescission of the contract but also permits extension of time by the court to pay the amount.
A suit for specific performance does not come to an end on the passing of a decree and the court which has passed the decree for specific performance retains control over the decree even after the decree has been passed, the bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath observed.
Case Title: Chandrapal vs State of Chhattisgarh | CrA 378 OF 2015
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 529
The Supreme Court observed that extra judicial confession made by the co-accused could be admitted in evidence only as a corroborative piece of evidence. In absence of any substantive evidence against the accused, the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the co-accused loses its significance and there cannot be any conviction based on such extra judicial confession of the co-accused, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Bela M. Trivedi said.
Case Title: P. R. Adikesavan Versus The Registrar General High Court Of Madras And Anr.| Crl.A. No. 847/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 530
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge against a High Court's judgment which punished an advocate for contempt of court.
A vacation bench comprising Justices DY Chandracud and Bela M Trivedi was hearing a special leave petition against the Madras High Court's order holding an advocate guilty of Contempt and sentencing him to 2 weeks imprisonment as well as debarring him from practicing for a period of 1 year for obstructing the execution of a non-bailable warrant issued by the HC against him.
Terming the Advocate's conduct as "thoroughly contemptuous", the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Bela M Trivedi orally remarked,
"Ultimately you know, judges are assaulted. There is no protection of judges in the district judiciary, sometimes not even a lathi welding policeman. This is happening across the country. You cannot level wanton allegations. Imagine 100 lawyers gathering. Lawyers are also subject to the process of law and we are all citizens of the state. I've seen what happens in other parts of the country and this is becoming a new part of fashion in making allegations against the judges. The stronger the judge, the worse the allegations. This is happening in Bombay, rampant in Uttar Pradesh and now even Madras."
531. Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi HC Bail To Man Accused Of Kidnap-Murder Of 13 Year Old Boy
Case Title: Mamta and Anr Vs The State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 531
The Supreme Court has set aside the Delhi High Court order granting bail to a man accused of kidnapping and murdering the 13-year-old son of a Delhi jeweler in 2014, whose body was found in a drain in East Delhi in November 2014.
The Court observed that the trial is going on and important witnesses are yet to be examined. The Court added that the High Court ignored relevant aspects while granting bail and omitted to note the gravity of the offence and the role attributed to the accused.
Case Title: Nazma Naz vs Rukhsana Bano | CrA 820 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 532
The Supreme Court observed that any fault or shortcoming on the part of the staff of the Subordinate Court or any delay in compliance by the Court are not by itself a reason to transfer a case. While considering the appeal filed against this order, the bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose observed:
"In the totality of circumstances of the case, we do not wish to make any comments on the nature of proceedings this matter has undergone but, we are clearly of the view that because of any fault or shortcoming on the part of the staff of the Subordinate Court and for that matter, any delay in compliance by the Court were hardly the reasons for the High Court to immediately adopt the course of transferring the matter and that too, to a different station."
Case Title: Levaku Pedda Reddamma vs Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma | CA 4096 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 533
The Supreme Court observed that refusing permission to a party in a civil suit to produce additional documents even if there is some delay will lead to denial of justice.
In such cases, the trial Court can impose some costs rather than to decline the production of the documents itself, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed.
In this case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court affirming the order passed by the trial Court refusing to permit the defendant to produce additional documents in terms of Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The defendant approached the Apex Court.
534. Recovery Certificate Holder Can Initiate CIRP As Financial Creditor Under IBC : Supreme Court
Case Name: Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. A. Balakrishna And Anr.| Civil Appeal No. 689 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 534
The Supreme Court bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and A.S. Bopanna, held that a liability in respect of a claim arising out of a Recovery Certificate under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 would be a "financial debt" within the meaning of Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and a holder of such Recovery Certificate would be a "financial creditor" under Section 5(7) of the IBC.
It further held that a person would be entitled to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) within a period of three years from the date on which such Recovery Certificate is issued.
"..we hold that a liability in respect of a claim arising out of a Recovery Certificate would be a "financial debt" within the meaning of clause (8) of Section 5 of the IBC. Consequently, the holder of the Recovery Certificate would be a financial creditor within the meaning of clause (7) of Section 5 of the IBC. As such, the holder of such certificate would be entitled to initiate CIRP, if initiated within a period of three years from the date of issuance of the Recovery Certificate"
Case Title: Pragya Higher Secondary School vs National Institute of Open Schooling | WP(C) 343/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 535
Allowing a writ petition filed by a school, the Supreme Court observed that National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) has a duty to fix examination centres in a manner to enable students to appear in the examination with certainty and ease.
"It is for NIOS to go an extra mile rather than expecting the students to walk long distances from villages and towns to take the examination", the bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and PS Narasimha observed.
Case Name: Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority Etc. v. Shakuntla Education And Welfare Society And Ors. Etc.| Civil Appeal Nos. 4178-4197 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 536
Recently, the Supreme Court reiterated that change in policy by the Government, if guided by reason and done in public interest, would prevail over private agreements entered between Governments and private parties.
The Court held : "...it is more than settled that a change in policy by the Government can have an overriding effect over private treaties between the Government and a private party, if the same was in the general public interest. The additional requirement is that such change in policy is required to be guided by reason".
"when a policy is changed by the State, which is in the general public interest, such policy would prevail over the individual rights/interests"
A Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai allowed an appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh assailing the order of the Allahabad High Court, which had set aside its policy decision to issue additional notices seeking additional premium from original allottees of the plots developed by the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority in Gautam Budh Nagar.
537. Pension Is A Continuous Cause Of Action; Arrears Can't Be Denied On Ground Of Delay : Supreme Court
Case Name: Shri M.L.Patil (Dead) Through LRs v. State of Goa And Anr.| Civil Appeal No. 4100 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 537
The Supreme Court, recently, held that arrears of pension cannot be denied on the ground of delay in approaching the Court as pension is a continuous cause of action. A Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna set aside the order of the High Court to the extent it denied arrears of pension. It held that the appellant are entitled to pension at the revised rates from the day they turn 60. Furthermore, arrears of pension were directed to be paid to the appellant within a period of four weeks.
538. GUJCOTOC Act Can't Be Invoked If Only One Chargesheet Has Been Filed Against Accused : Supreme Court
Case Title: Mohamad Iliyas Mohamad Bilal Kapadiya V. The State Of Gujarat
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 538
Opining that for invoking the provisions of the draconian Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015, it is necessary that more than one charge-sheet must have been filed in respect of an activity which can be said to have been undertaken by one as a member of an organised crime syndicate on behalf of such syndicate, the Supreme Court on Monday released the petitioner on bail.
The bench of Justices B. R. Gavai and Hima Kohli was hearing an SLP against the January decision of the Gujarat High Court rejecting the application filed by the petitioner/applicant for grant of bail in connection with a 2021 FIR for offense under Sections 3(1)(2), 3(2) and 3(4) of the GUJCTOC Act.
Case Title: Ardhendu Kumar Das vs State of Odisha & ors, Sumanta Kumar Ghadei vs State of Orissa & Ors
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 539
The Supreme Court dismissed two petitions filed against the construction and redevelopment works undertaken by the Odisha Government at the iconic Shree Jagannath Temple premises at Puri. Terming the petitions as frivolous and contrary to public interest, the Court dismissed them with a cost of Rupees one lakh each.
"In the recent past it is noticed that there's a mushrooming growth of PILs.Many such petitions are either publicity interest litigation or personal interest litigation. We deprecate the practice of filing such PIL as it is a waste of judicial time and it needs to be nipped in the bud so that development work is not stalled", the bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Hima Kohli observed.
Case Title : In Re : TN Godavarman Thirumalpad versus Union of India
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 540
In a significant order, the Supreme Court directed that each protected forest should have an Eco Sensitive Zone (ESZ) of 1 kilometer. The Court further directed that no permanent structure will be allowed within the ESZ. Mining within national wildlife sanctuary or national park cannot be permitted and thus will not be allowed.
If the existing ESZ goes beyond the 1 km buffer zone or if any statutory instrument prescribes a higher limit, then such an extended boundary shall prevail. A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and Aniruddha Bose passed the directions in applications filed in the TN Godavarman Thirumulpad case.
Case Name: Vallal Rck v. M/s. Siva Industries And Holdings Limited And Ors| Civil Appeal Nos. 1811-1812 of 2022
Citation: 2022 SC LiveLaw 541
The Supreme Court held that when 90% or more of the creditors decide that it will be in the interest of all the stakeholders to permit Settlement Plan filed by promoter of the Corporate Debtor and withdraw Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process as per Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the adjudicating authority (NCLT) or the appellate authority (NCLAT) cannot sit in appeal over such commercial wisdom of Committee of Creditors (CoC).
Case Title: Jai Bholenath Construction vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Nanded | CA 4140 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 542
The Supreme Court set aside a Bombay High Court judgment which dismissed a writ petition by referring to observations made in M/s N. G. Projects Ltd. Vs. M/s Vinod Kumar Jain and others, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 302. We find that the High court has totally misread the Judgment of this Court, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed.
543. Conviction Cannot Be Based Solely On The Testimony Of A Wholly Unreliable Witness : Supreme Court
Case Title: Mahendra Singh vs State of MP | CrA 764 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 543
The Supreme Court observed that when the Court finds that a witness is "wholly unreliable", neither conviction nor acquittal can be based on the testimony of such a witness. Bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Hima Kohli referred to Vadivelu Thevar vs. The State of Madras (1957) SCR 981and observed:
"It could thus be seen that this Court has found that witnesses are of three types, viz., (a) wholly reliable; (b) wholly unreliable; and (c) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. When the witness is "wholly reliable", the Court should not have any difficulty inasmuch as conviction or acquittal could be based on the testimony of such a single witness. Equally, if the Court finds that the witness is "wholly unreliable", there would be no difficulty inasmuch as neither conviction nor acquittal can be based on the testimony of such witness. It is only in the third category of witnesses that the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial."
Case Title: State of Andhra Pradesh vs Raghu Rama Krishna Raju Kanumuru (MP) | CA 4522-4524 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 544
The Supreme Court observed that the Tribunals like National Green Tribunal are subordinate to High Courts.
"There can be no manner of doubt that in such a situation, it is the orders passed by the constitutional courts, which would be prevailing over the orders passed by the statutory tribunals.", the bench comprising Justices B R Gavai observed.
545. When Remedy Under Statute Is Available, High Court Should Discourage Writs: Supreme Court Reiterates
Case Title: Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v Dilip Bhosale| SLP (C) 13241 of 2019
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 545
The Supreme Court recently reiterated that when a remedy under the statute is available, filing of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to be discouraged by the High Court. The bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi & Vikram Nath rendered this observation while considering SLP preferred by secured creditor assailing Telangana HC's orders passed in a SARFAESI matter.
Case Title: Jagmohan Singh V. Vimlesh Kumar & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 546
Reiterating that "the Court interferes in criminal proceedings under Cr. P. C. Section 482, in rare and exceptional cases, to give effect to the provisions of the Cr.P.C. or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice", the Supreme Court has stressed that criminal proceedings can be said to be in abuse of the process of court "when the allegations in the FIR do not at all disclose any offense or there are materials on record from which the Court can reasonably arrive at a finding that the proceedings are in abuse of the process of the Court"
The Court has added, "While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court should not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry into whether there is reliable evidence or not. The jurisdiction has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution only when such exercise is justified by the specific provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. itself."
547. Income, Age, Bigger Family Cannot Be Sole Criteria In Child- Custody Matters : Supreme Court
Case Title: Swaminathan Kunchu Acharya vs State of Gujarat | CrA 898 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 547
The Supreme Court observed that income, age , bigger family cannot be the sole criteria to tilt balance in child- custody cases. The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose observed thus while it granted custody of a five year boy who lost his parents due to covid to his paternal grandfather.
While agreeing with the submissions made by the appellant-grand father, the court observed:
"There cannot be any presumption that the maternal aunt being unmarried having an independent income; younger than the paternal grandparents and having a bigger family would take better care than the paternal grandparents. In our society still the paternal grandparents would always take better care of their grandson. One should not doubt the capacity and/or ability of the paternal grandparents to take care of their grandson. It is said that the grandparents love the interest rather than the principle. Emotionally also the grandparents will always take better care of their grandson. Grandparents are more emotionally attached with grandchildren."
548. NEET PG 2021: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea For Special Stray Round Of Counselling
Case Title: Astha Goel v Medical Counseling Committee | WP(C) 409 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 548
The Supreme Court has dismissed the plea seeking a Special Stray Round of counseling for NEET-PG 2021, to allow the candidates to participate for vacant seats available after the conduct of a stray vacant round of AIQ.
A Bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose observed, "When a conscious decision has been taken by the Union of India and Medical Council of India for not conducting any special stray rounds of counseling, it cannot be considered arbitrary."
It added, "Quality of medical education cannot be compromised which affects public health. Petitioners are not entitled to relief. Granting the relief now may affect medical Education and health."
Case Title: Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan vs Kattukandi Edathil Valsan | CA 6406-6407 of 2010
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 549
The Supreme Court has directed the Trial Courts dealing with partition suits to proceed suo motu with the case soon after passing the preliminary decree.
"We direct the Trial Courts to list the matter for taking steps under Order XX Rule 18 of the CPC soon after passing of the preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of the property, suo motu and without requiring initiation of any separate proceedings.", the bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath observed.
Case Name: Somakka (Dead) By Lrs. v. K.P. Basavaraj (Dead) By Lrs.
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (SC) 550
The Supreme Court held that, non-consideration of the evidence on record, in particular those relied upon by the Trial Court and not stating the points for determination, by the First Appellant Court would lead to infirmity in its judgment.
The Apex Court reiterated that it is the duty of the First Appellate Court to decide the appeal keeping in view the scope and powers conferred to it under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC").
A Bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath set aside an order of the Karnataka High Court and reinstated the decree passed by the Trial Court. It noted that the High Court had neither formed the points for determination nor considered the evidence on record, especially those appreciated by the Trial Court. It was of the view that the judgment of the Appellate court should reflect application of mind and record findings with reason in respect of all the issues, along with the contentions raised by the parties. It held that in the present case, the judgment of the High Court being non-compliant with the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 was unsustainable in law.
551. Accused Taking Plea Of Self Defence Need Not Prove It Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court
Case Title: Ex. Ct. Mahadev vs Director General, Border Security Force | CA 2606 of 2012
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 551
The Supreme Court observed that an accused who takes up the plea of self defence need not prove it beyond reasonable doubt and that it would suffice if he could show the preponderance of probabilities.
The accused, who was serving in the BSF, had allegedly caused the death of a civilian namely Nandan Deb. General Security Force Court rejected his plea of private defence and held him guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (murder) and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. Delhi High Court dismissed his appeal and therefore he approached the Apex Court.
Case Name: Bharat Bhushan Gupta v. Pratap Narain Verma And Anr.| Civil Appeal No. 4577 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 552
The Supreme Court has held that the nature of relief claimed in a plaint is decisive in the valuation of the suit. Market value does not become decisive of suit valuation merely because immovable property is the subject-matter of litigation. The Apex Court further stated that it is trite law that a suit for mandatory and prohibitory injunction is not required to be valued at the market value of the property.
A Bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath allowed an appeal assailing the order of the Delhi High Court, which had held that the valuation of the suit for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction at Rs. 250 for each of the reliefs of mandatory and prohibitory injunction and at Rs. 1 lakh for damages was wholly arbitrary when it is an admitted fact that the value of the property at the time of filing the suit was as high as Rs. 1.8 crores.
Case Title : Krishna Rai (Dead) Through LRs versus The Benarus Hindu University & Others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 553
The Supreme Court recently held that the principle of estoppel or acquiescence will not apply in a selection process when it is held contrary to the relevant rules. A bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Vikram Nath reiterated that "principle of estoppel cannot override the law" and that the procedure in the relevant service manual will prevail over the principle of estoppel or acquiescence.
Case Name: Ms. P XXX v. State of Uttarakhand And Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 554
The Supreme Court has reiterated that whether two or more acts constitute the same transaction for the purpose of being tried together under Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), is purely a question of fact. The reasonable determination of the same would however depend on elements like proximity of time, unity or proximity of place, continuity of action and community of purpose or design.
A Bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath dismissed an appeal assailing the order of the Uttarakhand High Court, which had upheld the decision of the Court of Sessions Judge, Chamoli to discharge the accused in respect of a set of offenses (S. 376 IPC) for want of jurisdiction. The Sessions Court was of the opinion that the offenses alleged by the appellant (one set under S. 376 IPC; and the other under S. 504 and 506 IPC] did not meet the requirement of Section 220 Cr.P.C. for being tried together.
Case Title: Sanjay V. The State (NCT Of Delhi) & Anr
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 555
Stating that "in a matter involving personal liberty, the Court is expected to pass orders in one way or other taking into account the merits of the matter at the earliest," the Supreme Court has observed that "posting an application for anticipatory bail after a couple of months cannot be ".
Case Title: Saud Faisal V. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 556
The Supreme Court has held that "merely because a different statement was given by the same prosecution witness in another case relating to the same incident, that itself would not be a reason for recalling the witness under section 311, Cr. P. C."
Case Title : Manoj Pratap Singh versus State of Rajasthan
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 557
The Supreme Court has upheld the death penalty awarded to a 37-year old man for the rape and murder of a seven and a half year old girl who was mentally and physically challenged.
The crime occurred in 2013 in Rajasthan, when the convict Manoj Pratap Singh was around 28 years old.
A 3-judges bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar observed that the crime in question had been of "extreme depravity", particularly looking at the vulnerable state of the victim and also the manner of committing the crime.
Case Title: Zakia Ahsan Jafri and another versus State of Gujarat and another | Diary No.34207/2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 558
The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition filed by Zakia Ehsan Jafri challenging the closure report filed by SIT discarding the allegations of larger conspiracy by high state functionaries including the then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi and 63 others in the Gujarat riots of 2002 that ensued the Godhra train massacre.
A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar upheld the decision of the Magistrate in accepting the closure report filed by the Special Investigation Team in the larger conspiracy case.
559. Preventive Detention Can't Be Invoked For Ordinary Law & Order Situation : Supreme Court
Case Title: Shaik Nazneen V. The State Of Telangana & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 559
Stressing that the preventive detention law "strikes hard on the freedom and liberty of an individual, and cannot be exercised in a routine manner", the Supreme Court has observed that "the powers to be exercised under this law are exceptional powers which have been given to the government for its exercise in an exceptional situation".
The Court has once again highlighted the distinction that while a law and order situation can be dealt with under the ordinary law of land, it is only when there is a public order situation that the invocation of the powers under the law of Preventive Detention is justified, absent which the preventive detention would be bad and would be in violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution as it encroaches upon the liberty and freedom of an individual.
Case Title: Manoj Parihar And Ors v. State of Jammu And Kashmir And Ors. SLP(C) No. 11039 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 560
The Supreme Court has upheld the order of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court that inter-se seniority for Munsiffs appointed by way of direct recruitment on the recommendation of the State Public Service Commission is to be determined on the basis of their inter-se merit at the time of selection and not roster points.