100 Important Judgments Of Supreme Court - Part 3 [51-75]

51. Stamp Vendors Are 'Public Servants' Under Prevention Of Corruption Act; Liable For Bribery Over Stamp Paper Sale: Supreme CourtCase Details: Aman Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi)Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 520In a notable judgment, the Supreme Court (May 2) held that stamp vendors fall within the definition of "public servants" under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and hence, can be proceeded under the PC Act for the corrupt practices. The Court held that it was the nature of the duty being discharged by a person which assumes paramount importance when determining whether such a person falls within the ambit of the definition of public servant as defined under the PC Act. "Stamp vendors across the country, by virtue of performing an important public duty and receiving remuneration from the Government for the discharge of such duty, are undoubtedly public servants within the ambit of Section 2(c)(i) of the PC Act," held the bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan.The Court said that mere acceptance of illegal gratification without proof of offer by the bribe-giver and demand by the public servant would not make an offence under the PC Act.52. Supreme Court Criticises Arbitration Bill 2024 For Not Recognising Power To Implead Non-Signatories, Urges Union To Make ChangesCase Details: ASF Buildtech Private Limited v. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private LimitedCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 521The Supreme Court expressed its dissatisfaction with the continued absence of explicit statutory recognition for the power of arbitral tribunals to implead or join non-signatory parties. The Court noted with concern that, despite earlier omissions in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the newly proposed Arbitration and Conciliation Bill, 2024, which seeks to overhaul the legislation, also failed to address this critical issue. “The Department of Legal Affairs has now, once again proposed to replace the existing legislation on arbitration with the Arbitration and Conciliation Bill, 2024. Unfortunately, even the new Bill has taken no steps whatsoever, for ameliorating the position of law as regards the power of impleadment or joinder of an arbitral tribunal. What is expressly missing in the Act, 1996 is still missing in the Arbitration and Conciliation Bill, 2024, despite a catena of decisions of this Court as-well as the various High Courts, highlighting the need for statutory recognition of such power in order to obviate all possibilities of confusion.”, the court observed. “We urge, the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice to take a serious look at the arbitration regime that is prevailing in India and bring about necessary changes while the Arbitration and Conciliation Bill, 2024 is still being considered.”, the bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan added.53. PMLA Accused Entitled To Receive List Of Materials Not Relied Upon By ED: Supreme CourtCase Details: Sarla Gupta and Anr. v. Directorate of EnforcementCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 541In an important judgment relating to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Supreme Court held that an accused is entitled to a list of the documents and statements, which were collected by the Directorate of Enforcement during the investigation but were later given up by them while filing the prosecution complaint. The Court held that the accused must have knowledge about the unrelied upon documents, so that he can apply at the defence stage for their production. When an accused makes such an application, the Courts should be liberal in allowing them, and should deny only in exceptional circumstances, given the reverse burden imposed by the PMLA, the Court added.At the stage of entering defence, the accused can apply for the issuance of process for production of documents or anything recorded under Section 233 CrPC (Section 256(b) BNSS). At this stage, the accused can also apply for the production of a document or thing that is in the custody of the prosecution but is not produced, the Court said."At the time of hearing of an application for bail governed by Section 45 in connection with offences under PMLA, an accused is entitled to invoke Section 91 CrPC seeking production of unrelied upon documents. If investigation or further investigation is in progress, the ED is entitled to raise objections to the production of documents sought by the accused on the ground that if the documents are disclosed, it may prejudice the investigation. Only if the Court, after perusing the documents is satisfied that the disclosure of the documents at this stage may prejudice the ongoing investigation, it may deny the production of such documents," the Court added.54. 'Highly Irresponsible': Supreme Court Slams BJP MP Nishikant Dubey's Comments Against Judiciary & CJICase Details: Vishal Tiwari v. Union of IndiaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 547The Supreme Court strongly deprecated the comments made by BJP MP...

100 Important Judgments Of Supreme Court - Part 3 [51-75]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK