Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [April 5 To April 11, 2021]

IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Petition Styled As One Under Article 226 Would Not Bar High Court To Exercise Its Jurisdiction Which Otherwise It Possesses: Supreme CourtCase: Kiran Devi Vs. Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board [CA 6149 OF 2015] Citation: LL 2021 SC 195The bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, S. Abdul Nazeer and Hemant Gupta observed that a petition styled as one under Article 226 would not bar the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction which otherwise it possesses under a Statute and/or under Article 227 of the Constitution. In this case, the appellant's contention was that the order of the Wakf Tribunal could not be challenged by way of writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution as only a revision in terms of proviso to sub-section (9) of Section 83 of the Wakf Act could be preferred.The bench noted that sub-section (9) of Section 83 of the Act confers power on the High Court to call for and examine the records relating to any dispute, question or other matter which has been determined by the Tribunal for the purpose of satisfying its elf as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such determination.2. 'Frequent & Causal Summoning Of High Officials By Court Cannot Be Appreciated': Supreme CourtCase Title: State of UP & Ors. v. Manoj Kumar SharmaCitation: LL 2021 SC 199Division Bench comprising of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta observed that frequent, causal and lackadaisical summoning of high officials by the Court cannot be appreciated. The observation came in a SLP filed by the UP Government against a summoning order passed by the Allahabad High Court in a contempt case."Once the order of which contempt was alleged was stayed, there would be no cause for calling the officers as there was no question of any non-compliance of the order which had been stayed. This Court has even on various occasions through judicial pronouncements deprecated the practice of unnecessarily calling officers to Court. In that context, it has been observed that the trust, faith and confidence of the common man in the judiciary cannot be frittered away by unnecessary and unwarranted show or exercise of power." The Bench observed.3. Question Of Novation Of Contract Cannot Be Considered In A Petition Under Section 11 Arbitration Act: Supreme CourtCase: Sanjiv Prakash Vs. Seema Kukreja Citation: LL 2021 SC 198 The bench comprising Justices RF Nariman, BR Gavai and Hrishikesh Roy observed that the question of novation of contract containing an arbitration clause cannot be considered by the Court in a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.The Court was considering an appeal against dismissal of a petition under Section 11 of the Act filed before the High Court of Delhi. The High Court was of the view that the memorandum of understanding [which contained the arbitration clause] ceased to exist on and from the date of the Shareholders' Agreement which superseded the aforesaid MoU and novated the same. The court said that a Section 11 court would refer the matter when contentions relating to non-arbitrability are plainly arguable, or when facts are contested. The court cannot, at this stage, enter into a mini trial or elaborate review of the facts and law which would usurp the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal.4. No Automatic Vacation Of Stay Under 3rd Proviso To Section 254(2A) Income Tax Act If Assessee Is Not Responsible For Delay In Hearing Appeal: Supreme CourtCase: Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Pepsi Foods Ltd. [CA 1106 OF 2021] Citation: LL 2021 SC 197 Bench comprising of Justices BR Gavai and Hrishikesh Roy upheld a Delhi High Court judgment which read down the third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961."The third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act will now be read without the word "even" and the words "is not" after the words "delay in disposing of the appeal". Any order of stay shall stand vacated after the expiry of the period or periods mentioned in the Section only if the delay in disposing of the appeal is attributable to the assessee", the bench said.The court noted that the object sought to be achieved by the third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act is the speedy disposal of appeals before the Appellate Tribunal in cases in which a stay has been granted in favour of the assessee. 5. Quality Of Reasons Matters The Most: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted To Accused In Dowry Death CaseCase: Sonu vs. Sonu Yadav [Crl.A.377/2021] Citation: LL 2021 SC 200The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah that while the reasons may be brief, it is the quality of the reasons which matters the most. The observation came while the bench was setting aside an Allahabad High Court which granted bail to a man accused in a dowry death case.In this case, after recording the rival submissions, the High Court allowed the bail application, observing thus: "Considering the ...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [April 5 To April 11, 2021]

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags