Supreme Court Weekly Roundup(9th-15th Oct)

Customs Duty - Undervaluation Must Be Proved By Evidence Of Prices Of Contemporaneous Imports; Else Benefit Of Doubt Goes To Importer: Supreme CourtCase Title: Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai v. M/s Ganpati OverseasCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 864The Supreme Court has recently highlighted that the transaction value (the price actually paid or payable for the goods) should be the primary basis for customs valuation and that other valuation methods be invoked sequentially only when there is evidence to doubt the correctness of the declared transaction value.Liberal Approach Be Taken Regarding Delay In Appeals Filed By State: Supreme CourtCase Title: Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors. V. Union Of India & Anr.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 865The Supreme Court, recently (October 9), while deciding over a discretionary order of the High Court granting the prayer for condonation of delay observed that such an exercise of discretion does, at times, call for a liberal and justice-oriented approach by the Courts, where certain leeway could be provided to the State.The Bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta reiterated the well-settled that “a court of appeal should not ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by the courts below”Cheque Dishonour Cases - What Should Courts Ask Accused Once Presumption Under S.139 NI Act Is Applicable? Supreme Court ExplainsCase Title: Rajesh Jain v. Ajay SinghCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 866Reiterating the principles relating to the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, the Supreme Court reversed the acquittal of an accused in a case for cheque dishonor. A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and SVN Bhatti observed that there was a "fundamental flaw" in the approach taken by both the Trial Court and the High Court.It held "Once the presumption under Section 139 was given effect to, the Courts ought to have proceeded on the premise that the cheque was, indeed, issued in discharge of a debt/liability. The entire focus would then necessarily have to shift on the case set up by the accused, since the activation of the presumption has the effect of shifting the evidential burden on the accused. The nature of inquiry would then be to see whether the accused has discharged his onus of rebutting the presumption. If he fails to do so, the Court can straightaway proceed to convict him, subject to satisfaction of the other ingredients of Section 138. If the Court finds that the evidential burden placed on the accused has been discharged, the complainant would be expected to prove the said fact independently, without taking aid of the presumption. The Court would then take an overall view based on the evidence on record and decide accordingly".What Does `Vacant Land’ Under Section 2 Of Urban Land Ceiling Act Mean? Supreme Court Refers To Larger BenchCase Title: M/s. Kewal Court Pvt. Ltd. V. The State of West BengalCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 867The Supreme Court on Tuesday referred the question of the construction, meaning and import of the term ‘vacant land’ contained in Section 2(q) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 to a larger bench.The Ceiling Act was enacted to impose a ceiling on the acquisition of urban property. It imposed a ceiling on ‘vacant land’ in urban agglomeration. The acquisition of urban land in excess of the ceiling limit, and construction of buildings on such land is regulated under the Act. The intention of the Act was to prevent the concentration of urban land in the hands of a few individuals.Advocates Cannot Claim Right Of Legal Representation Under Industrial Disputes Act: Supreme Court Answers ReferenceCase Title: Thyssen Krupp Industries India Private Limited & Ors v. Suresh Maruti ChouguleCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 868The Supreme Court has affirmed that an Advocate cannot claim the right of legal representation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Agreeing with the view expressed in Paradip Port Trust, Paradip vs. Their Workmen (1977) 2 SCC 339, a three-judge bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, CT Ravikumar, and Sudhanshu Dhulia answered a reference against the judgment.S.141 NI Act - Only That Person Who Was Responsible For Conduct Of Company's Affairs At The Time Of Cheque Dishonour Is Liable: Supreme CourtCase Title: Siby Thomas v. Somany Ceramics Ltd.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 869In a judgment pronounced on October 11, the Supreme Court reiterated the principles relating to liability of a director of a company for the dishonour of a cheque issued by the company.Referring to Section 141(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, the Court said, "only that person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company alone shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished."If Convict's...

Supreme Court Weekly Roundup(9th-15th Oct)

Suraj Parmar

Tags