100 Major Supreme Court Judgments Of 2021 [Part 3, Judgments 76 -100]

This is the third part of the article covering 100 major Supreme Court judgments of 2021. The first part covered 52 judgments delivered from January to June. The second part included judgments(53-75) delivered from July to October. The third part will cover judgments (76-100) from October to December. Read the first part here and the second part here.76. National Green Tribunal Has Suo Motu Jurisdiction[Case : Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha; Citation : LL 2021 SC 549]The Supreme Court declared that the National Green Tribunal is vested with suo motu powers to take cognizance on the basis of letters, representations and media reports.A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar delivered the judgment on a batch of petitions which raised the issue whether NGT has suo motu jurisdiction (Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha and other and connected cases).The Court held that the NGT must be seen as a sui generis institution as the National Green Tribunals Act, 2010 (NGT Act) provides the Tribunal with wide ranging powers beyond that of a mere adjudicatory body. Opining on the intention behind the legislature in establishing such a tribunal, the Court held, "NGT Act, when read as a whole, gives much leeway to the NGT to go beyond a mere adjudicatory role. The Parliament's intention is clearly discernible to create a multifunctional body, with the capacity to provide redressal for environmental exigencies. Accordingly, the principles of environmental justice and environmental equity must be explicitly acknowledged as pivotal threads of the NGT's fabric. The NGT must be seen as a sui generis institution and not unus multorum, and its special and exclusive role to foster public interest in the area of environmental domain delineated in the enactment of 2010 must necessarily receive legal recognition of this Court" The Court also acknowledged that environmental impact on climate change is gaining increasing visibility in recent times and thus the NGT must be given the discretion to exercise suo moto powers in order to salvage adverse environmental consequences for generations to come. 77 .Director Of Enforcement Can Be Appointed For A Period Of More Than Two Years[Case: Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 429]The Supreme Court has held that a Director of Enforcement can be appointed for a period of more than two years by following the procedure prescribed Section 25 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003. The bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai also upheld the power of the Union of India to extend the tenure of Director of Enforcement beyond the period of two years. It clarified that extension of tenure granted to officers who have attained the age of superannuation should be done only in rare and exceptional cases.The Court was delivering its judgment in a PIL that challenged the extension of tenure given to ED Director SK Mishra. The Court however held that SK Mishra's tenure should not be further extended.Note : The Parliament later passed a law allowing the extension of the term of ED Director and CBI Chief up to five years.78. Magistrates Cannot Extend Time To Complete Investigation In UAPA Cases[Case: Sadique v. State of Madhya Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 434]The Supreme Court held that magistrates would not be competent to extend the time to complete investigations in UAPA cases. The only competent authority to consider such request would be "the Court" as specified in the proviso in Section 43-D (2)(b) of the UAPA, the bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Belam M Trivedi held. 79. PC Act Is A Code By Itself- Bank Account Of A Person Accused of Prevention of Corruption Act Cannot Be Attached U/S 102 CrPC[Case: Ratan Babulal Lath v. The State Of Karnataka; Citation: LL 2021 SC 440]The Supreme Court has observed that bank account of a person accused under Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be attached invoking Section 102 of Code of Criminal Procedure. "It is not possible to sustain the freezing of the bank account of the appellant taking recourse to Section 102 Cr.P.C. as the Prevention of Corruption Act is a Code by itself", the bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh observed while allowing an appeal against a Karnataka High Court judgment. I80 .Refund For Unutilised Input Tax Credit Can't Be Claimed On Account Of Input Services: Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of Section 54(3) CGST Act[Case: Union of India v. VKC Footsteps India Pvt Ltd; Citation: LL 2021 SC 446]The Supreme Court has held that Section 54(3) of the Central Goods and Services Act excludes unutilised input tax credit that accumulated on account of input services. "When there is neither a constitutional guarantee nor a statutory entitlement to refund, the submission that goods and services must...

100 Major Supreme Court Judgments Of 2021 [Part 3, Judgments 76 -100]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags