35 Notable Judgments Delivered By Justice Vineet Saran

Justice Vineet Saran, who retired as a Judge of the Supreme Court on 10th May 2022, had been instrumental in developing jurisprudence of various aspects of law. He has authored and delivered multiple landmark verdicts during the span of almost 4 years of his judgeship at the Apex Court. From being part of Division Benches to penning down orders for the Constitution Benches, he has left indelible mark of his judicial intellect. It is incumbent upon us to discuss some of the most notable judgments rendered by him. Notable Judgments Authored by Justice Vineet Saran: 1. Statutory Authorities Can Review Orders Only If Concerned Statute Provides Such Power Case Title: Naresh Kumar & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Judgment Dated: 17 October 2019 Coram: Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran & S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. The court, speaking through Justice Saran, observed that there is no provision under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for review of the Award once passed under Section 11 of the Act and attains finality and the only provision is for correction of clerical errors in the Award which is provided for under Section 13A of the Act. In the absence of any such provision in the concerned statute, such power of review cannot be exercised by the authority concerned, the Bench said while referring to the following observation made in Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania: "The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that in the absence of any statutory provision providing for review, entertaining an application for review or under the garb of clarification/modification/correction is not permissible." 2. There Is No Stigma With Regard To Any Crime Committed By A Juvenile Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Ramesh Bishnoi Judgment Dated: 29 November 2019 Coram: Uday Umesh Lalit & Vineet Saran, JJ. The Court was deciding a petition filed by a person who cleared the recruitment process to the post of Sub-Inspector in CISF, but was found unsuitable for appointment only on the ground that a criminal case was lodged against him in the past. While granting relief to him, the Court held, "Even if the allegations were found to be true, then too the respondent could not have been deprived of getting a job on the basis of such charges as the same had been committed while the respondent was juvenile. The thrust of the legislation, i.e. the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as well as The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is that even if a juvenile is convicted, the same should be obliterated, so that there is no stigma with regard to any crime committed by such person as a juvenile. This is with the clear object to reintegrate such juvenile back in the society as a normal person, without any stigma." 3. Consumer Forum Has No Power To Extend Time Beyond 45 Days For Opposite Party's Version Case Title: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Judgment Dated: 4 March 2020 Coram: Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah & S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. The Supreme Court held that the time period for filing opposite party's version in consumer case cannot be extended beyond the period of 45 days prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act. The Court held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 did not empower the Consumer Forum to extend the time beyond the period of 45 days. The time period prescribed under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act is mandatory, and not directory, held the judgment authored by Justice Vineet Saran for the Constitution Bench. 4. Notice Sent Under Certificate Of Posting Is Sufficient Where Mode Of Giving Notice Is Not Mentioned Case Title: Mohd. Asif Naseer v. West Watch Company through Its Proprietor Judgment Dated: 24 April 2020 Coram: R. Banumathi & Vineet Saran, JJ. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that Notice sent under Certificate of Posting is sufficient, where mode of service is not mentioned. The Bench was considering the issue whether a landlord had served proper notice to the tenant for vacation of premises in accordance with Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Speaking for the Bench, Justice Vineet Saran noted: "It may be so that mere receipt of notice having been sent under certificate of posting, in itself, may not be sufficient proof of service, but if the same is coupled with other facts and circumstances which go to show that the party had notice, the same could be held to be sufficient service on the party." 5. Arbitration Award Fixing Price Of Land Can't Be Executed Like A Decree For Specific Performance Of Sale Agreement Case Title: Firm Rajasthan Udyog & Ors. v. Hindustan Engineering & Industries Ltd. Judgment Dated: 24 April 2020 Coram: Uday Umesh Lalit &...

35 Notable Judgments Delivered By Justice Vineet Saran

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags