Supreme Court Monthly Digest: March 2021 [74 SC Judgments] [Citation LL 2021 SC 118 To LL 2021 SC 192]

JUDGMENTS: 1. Whether Day Of Remand Is To Be Included For Considering A Claim For Default Bail? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench [Case: Enforcement Directorate v. Kapil Wadhawan; Citation: LL 2021 SC 118] Whether the day of remand is to be included or excluded, for considering a claim for default bail? The Supreme Court referred this issue to a larger bench. A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy noticed that, in State of MP v. Rustom & Ors.1995 (Supp) 3 SCC 221 , Ravi Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar (2015) 8 SCC 340 and M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, Director of Revenue Intelligence, it was held that the date of remand is to be excluded for computing the permitted period for completion of investigation. On the other hand, the judgments in Chaganti Satyanarayan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1986) 3 SCC 141 , CBI v. Anupam J Kulkarni (1992) 3 SCC 141 , State v. Mohd. Ashraft Bhat (1996) 1 SCC 432, State of Maharashtra v. Bharati Chandmal Varma (2002) 2 SCC 121, and Pragyna Singh Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 10 SCC 445, have held that the date of remand must be included for computing the available period for investigation for determining entitlement to default bail. 2. Contract Is Void If Prohibited By Statute Under A Penalty Even If It Does Not Expressly Declare It Void: Supreme Court [Case: Asha John Divianathan v. Vikram Malhotra; Citation: LL 2021 SC 119] The Supreme Court observed that a contract is void if prohibited by a statute under a penalty, even without express declaration that the contract is void. A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi observed that the condition predicated in Section 31 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, of obtaining "previous" general or special permission of the Reserve Bank of India for transfer or disposal of immovable property situated in India by sale or mortgage by a person, who is not a citizen of India, is mandatory. The bench clarified that the transactions which have already become final including by virtue of the decision of the court of competent jurisdiction, need not be reopened or disturbed in any manner because of this pronouncement. 3. Proceedings Under Section 34 Of Arbitration Act Also Covered By Moratorium Under Section 14 IBC: Supreme Court [Case: P Mohanraj & Ors. v. M/s Shah Brothers Ispat Ltd.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 120] A Bench comprising of Justices RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and KM Joseph observed that an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to set aside an award is covered by moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Section 34 proceeding is a proceeding against the corporate debtor in a court of law pertaining to a challenge to an arbitral award and would be covered just as an appellate proceeding in a decree from a suit would be covered, the bench headed by Justice RF Nariman observed in the judgment titled P Mohanraj & Ors. v. M/s Shah Brothers Ispat Ltd. Also Read: Moratorium Under Section 14 IBC Covers Section 138 NI Act Proceedings Against Corporate Debtor For Cheque Dishonour: Supreme Court 4. Residential Accommodation For Nuns & Hostels For Students Can Claim Property Tax Exemption U/s 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act: Supreme Court [Case: Government Of Kerala v. Mother Superior Adoration Convent; Citation: LL 2021 SC 121] The Supreme Court held that residential accommodation for nuns and hostel accommodations for students which are attached to various educational institutions can claim property tax exemption under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. "If nuns are living in a neighbouring building to a convent only so that they may receive religious instruction there, or if students are living in a hostel close to the school or college in which they are imparted instruction, it is obvious that the purpose of such residence is not to earn profit but residence that is integrally connected with religious or educational activity," a bench headed by Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman observed while upholding a full bench judgment of the Kerala High Court. 5. Insolvency Proceedings Maintainable Even If Winding Up Petition Is Pending Against Corporate Debtor: Supreme Court [Case: A. Navinchandra Steels Pvt Ltd v. SREI Equipment Finance Ltd; Citation: LL 2021 SC 122] The Supreme Court held that a petition either under Section 7 or Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is an independent proceeding which is unaffected by winding up proceedings that may be filed against the same company. The bench comprising Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai observed that a secured creditor stands outside the winding up and can realise its security de hors winding up proceedings. In this appeal, the appellant's contention was that post admission of a winding up...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest: March 2021 [74 SC Judgments] [Citation LL 2021 SC 118 To LL 2021 SC 192]

Akshita Saxena

Tags