Supreme Court Monthly Digest- August 2019


5 Oct 2019 6:58 AM GMT

  • Supreme Court Monthly Digest- August 2019

    Section 313 CrPC: Inculpatory Material As Not Put To The Accused Must Be Eschewed Samsul Haque vs. State of Assam The Supreme Court has reiterated that the incriminating material that came in evidence is to be put to the accused during his examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code.The bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice KM Joseph said that...

    Section 313 CrPC: Inculpatory Material As Not Put To The Accused Must Be Eschewed

    Samsul Haque vs. State of Assam

    The Supreme Court has reiterated that the incriminating material that came in evidence is to be put to the accused during his examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code.The bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice KM Joseph said that this is in recognition of the principles of audi alteram partem so that the accused gets a fair chance to defend himself.

    NDPS: Reverse Burden Of Proof Does Not Absolve Prosecution From Establishing Prima Facie Case Against Accused

    Hanif Khan @ Annu Khan vs. Central Bureau Of Narcotics

    The Supreme Court observed that, though Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act carries reverse burden of proof, it does not absolve the prosecution from establishing a prima facie case against the accused.The bench comprising Justice Navin Sinha and Justice Indira Banerjee was considering an appeal challenging conviction of an accused under Sections 8 and 18(b) of the NDPS Act sentencing him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment, along with fine of Rs. 1 lakh, with a default stipulation

    Proof That Offence Was Committed Only Because Victim Was SC-ST Member Necessary To Sustain Conviction U/s 3(2)(v) SC-ST (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act

    Khuman Singh vs. State of MP

    In order to sustain a conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, it must be proved that the offence was committed only on the ground that the victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste, the Supreme Court has reiterated. The bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice AS Bopanna set aside the conviction of the accused under the SC-ST Act on the ground that there is nothing to suggest that the offence was committed by the accused only because the deceased belonged to a Scheduled Caste.

    Outer Limit Of 120 Days To File 'Section 34' Application To Set Aside Arbitral Award Not Diluted By 2015 Amendment

    NHAI vs. Subhash Bindlish

    The Supreme Court observed that the mandate under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act providing outer limit of 120 days to file an application to set aside Arbitral Award remains unchanged even after 2015 amendment of the Act.

    Subsequent Bail Application Maintainable Before Sessions Court After Withdrawal Of First One Filed Before HC

    Sharad vs. State of Maharashtra

    An accused after withdrawing his bail application before the High Court can file a subsequent bail application before the Sessions Court, the Supreme Court held. The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana and Justice Ajay Rastogi was considering appeal filed against a High Court order that revoked the bail granted to accused by the Sessions Court on the ground that the application was not maintainable before it as he previously approached the High Court for bail and subsequently withdrew the bail application.

    Judicial Service- HC Can't Modify/Relax Instructions Issued By Public Service Commission

    State of Tamil Nadu V. G. Hemalathaa

    The Supreme Court recently observed that instructions issued by the Public Service Commissions to the candidates are mandatory and to be strictly complied with and the High Courts cannot relax/modify these instructions.

    Can SC Interfere With HC's Discretion Entertaining Writ Petition In Spite Of There Being Alternative Remedy? SC Bench Delivers Split Judgment

    State of Rajasthan vs. Lord Northbrook

    Can the Supreme Court interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution to quash the order of the High Court, merely on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy? A two judge bench comprising of Justice R. Banumathi and Justice Indira Banerjee recently delivered a split judgment on the issue. Disagreeing with Justice Banumathi's order setting aside a judgment of the High Court on the ground of alternative remedy, Justice Banerjee observed that it is always a matter of discretion with the Court and if the discretion has been exercised by the High Court not unreasonably or perversely, it is settled practice of this Court not to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the High Court.

    Judicial Service-A Candidate Applied For General Category Cannot Subsequently Claim Seat Reserved For Disabled Candidate

    Rajasthan HC V. Neetu Harsh

    The Supreme Court held that a Candidate Applied for General Category cannot claim the seat reserved for disabled candidates at a later stage.The Bench comprising Justices R Banumati and AS Bopanna dismissed the claim of a visually impaired candidate who had filled the application form under General category, and later claimed a seat reserved for Persons with Disabilities (PWD) category in Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination, 2016.

    Expert Evidence Should Not Be Given Precedence Over Substantive Evidence

    ChennadiJalapathi Reddy vs. Baddam Pratapa Reddy (Dead)

    The Supreme Court reiterated that expert evidence should not be given precedence over substantive evidence. In this case the disputed signature of the first defendant was identified by his brother as those of the first defendant himself.

    Rent Control Revision- HC Can't Re-appreciate Oral Or Documentary Evidence On Record

    Daya Rani vs. Shabbir Ahmed

    In the context of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, the Supreme Court reiterated that while exercising revisional power, the High Court cannot reappreciate oral or documentary evidence on record. The bench comprising Justice UdayUmeshLalit and Justice Vineet Saran was considering an appeal against Punjab and Haryana High Court order in a revision petition that set aside concurrent orders of the courts below.

    Unfair Means During Examination: Discovery Of Material With Candidate Sufficient To Take Action

    UPSC vs. Mayank Rai

    The Supreme Court has observed that the discovery of material with a candidate which was meant to use for 'unfair means' during examination would suffice to take action against him/her. It is not as if only on actual use being made of the material detected by the examiner that action can be taken, the bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice KM Joseph said.

    Approval Of UGC & AICTE Mandatory For Institutions Intending To Offer B.TechThrough Distance Learning Mode

    Vinit Garg vs. UGC

    The Supreme Court reiterated that it mandatory for institutions intending to impart technical courses through distance learning mode to seek approval and recognition of University Grants Commission and All India Council for Technical Education.

    Development Cost Bangalore Its Beauty: SC Expresses Concern About City's Degrading Environment

    Vinayak House Building Cooperative Society Ltd vs. State of Karnataka

    The city's environment is degraded so much and so fast that the time will not be far away for us to say "once upon a time Bangalore was a beautiful city", said a concerned Supreme Court. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice MR Shah made these quite 'out of context' observations in a judgment disposing civil appeals in a Land Acquisition Matter.

    NHAI: Application Under Section 11 Arbitration & Conciliation Act To Appoint Arbitrator Not Maintainable

    NHAI vs.Sayedabad Tea Company Ltd.

    The Supreme Court held that an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for appointment of an Arbitrator in relation to disputes with National Highways Authority Of India is not maintainable in view of Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 which provides for such appointment by the Central Government.The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana, Justice Mohan M. Shanthanagoudar and Justice Ajay Rastogi set aside an order passed by the High Court of Calcutta appointing an Arbitrator invoking Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

    SC Upholds Enhancement Of Maximum Age Limit To Post Of Medical College Professors In UP

    Dr. Professor Rajendra Chaudhary vs. State of UP

    The Supreme Court has upheld enhancement of the maximum age limit to the posts of Professor in Medical Colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh from 45 years to 65 years. One of the issues raised was whether enhancement of the upper age limit for appointment to the post of Professor by direct recruitment is contrary to the Uttar Pradesh Medical Colleges Teachers' Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2005.

    Gang Rape And Murder Of Minor Girl: SC Confirms Death Sentence

    Manoharan V. State

    The Supreme Court (2:1) upheld the death sentence awarded to a man involved in gang rape of a ten year old girl and thereafter murdering her and her brother. However, Justice Sanjiv Khanna dissented with the confirmation of death sentence and opined that the case does not fall under the category of 'rarest of rare' case, but would fall within the special category of cases, where the appellant should be directed to suffer sentence for life.

    Magistrate Has Power To Direct An Accused To Give Voice Samples During Investigation Without His Consent

    Ritesh Sinha v State of U.P.

    In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court held that a judicial magistrate can direct an accused to provide his voice samples for investigation even without his consent. The three-judges bench led by the CJI thus settled the confusion which arose out of the split verdict in the 2012 verdict by a two judges bench.

    Fundamental Right To Privacy Not Absolute And Must Bow Down To Compelling Public Interest

    Ritesh Sinha vs. State of UP

    The fundamental right to privacy cannot be construed as absolute and but must bow down to compelling public interest, remarked the Supreme Court in its judgment holding that a Judicial Magistrate can order a person to give a sample of his voice for the purpose of investigation of a crime. The three judge bench comprising the Chief Justice of India RanjanGogoi, Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Sanjiv Khanna observed thus while answering the issue whether a judicial order compelling a person to give a sample of his voice violate the fundamental right to privacy under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

    No Room For Sympathy While Sentencing Terror Convicts: SC Restores 7 Yrs Imprisonment For Woman Convicted For Propagating ISIS Ideology

    Union of India V. Yasmeen Mohammed Zahid

    Disagreeing with Kerala High Court Judgment, the Supreme Court restored the sentence of seven years imprisonment awarded to a woman, Yasmeen, convicted for propagating ISIS Ideology. The bench comprising Justice UdayUmeshLalit and Justice Indu Malhotra, however, upheld her acquittal from the offences under Section 125 of the Indian Penal Code.

    Acquittal From Criminal Case Does Not Ipso Facto Absolve Delinquent From Disciplinary Action

    Shashi Bhusan Prasad vs. Inspector General Central Industrial Security Force

    Acquittal by the Court of competent jurisdiction in a judicial proceeding does not ipso facto absolve the delinquent from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority, the Supreme Court observed.

    Application For Putting Back Into Possession Cannot Be Allowed Merely Because Applicant Was In Possession Prior To Dispossession

    Shamsher Singh vs. Lt. Col. Nahar Singh (D)

    In the proceeding under Order XXI Rules 99, 100 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, right, title or interest has to be determined and without establishing right, title or interest, and on mere fact that the applicant was in possession of the premises prior to being dispossessed, he could not be put back into possession, the Supreme Court held.

    Bail Cannot Be Granted Without Assigning Reasons

    Mauji Ram V. State of Uttar Pradesh

    The Supreme Court reiterated that bail cannot be granted without assigning any reason as to on what grounds, even though of a prima facie nature, it is considered just and proper to grant bail.

    Mere Existence Of Alternate Forums Not A Legal Bar To Exercise Writ Jurisdiction

    Maharashtra Chess Association vs. Union of India

    The Supreme Court observed mere existence of alternate forums where the aggrieved party may secure relief does not create a legal bar on a High Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction.It is a factor to be taken into consideration by the High Court amongst several factors, said the bench comprising Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice Indira Banerjee

    Section 143A NI Act On Interim Compensation Has No Retrospective Application

    GJ Raja vs. TejrajSurana

    Settling a confusion in prosecution of cheque bounce cases, the Supreme Court held that Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act on payment of interim compensation to the complainant during the pendency of the case has no retrospective application.

    Compromise Decree In Representative Suit Void If Obtained Without Leave Of Court And Notice To Interested Parties

    AliyathammudaBeethathebiyyappuraPookoya vs. PattakalCheriyakoya

    The Supreme Court observed that a compromise decree in a representative suit obtained without the leave of the court and without issuing notice to the parties interested would be void., the Court found that the parties to the decree in a suit in the nature of a representative suit did not obtain leave of the court and did not give notice to other persons who were interested in the suit as required under Order XXIII Rule 3B.

    Interest Of Victim And Society At Large Must Also Be Kept In View While Sentencing

    SuryakantBaburao @ RamraoPhad vs. State of Maharashtra

    The Supreme Court observed the courts must also keep in view the interest of the victim and society at large while sentencing in criminal matters. The High Court had reduced the sentence of imprisonment from seven years to five years to an 'attempt to murder' accused

    Factors To Be Considered For Cancellation Of Bail And Challenging Bail Order Are Different

    BharatbhaiBhimabhaiBharwad V. State of Gujarat

    The Supreme Court reiterated that the grounds for consideration of an application seeking cancellation of bail and an application challenging the order of grant of bail are different.

    Mere Production Of A Laboratory Report That The Sample Tested Was Narcotics Cannot Be Conclusive Proof

    Vijay Pandey vs. State of UP

    The Supreme Court held that mere production of a laboratory report that the sample tested was narcotics cannot be conclusive proof in a case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

    Second Petition U/s 482 CrPC For Quashing A Complaint Maintainable Under Changed Facts And Circumstances Anil Khadkiwala vs. State (Government Of NCT Of Delhi)

    The Supreme Court observed that second application for quashing of the complaint under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be dismissed as not maintainable merely because of the dismissal of the earlier application.

    Relief Under Domestic Violence Act Can Be Sought Even After Obtaining A Maintenance Order U/s 125 CrPC

    Shome Nikhil Danani V. Tanya BanonDanani

    Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not bar an 'aggrieved person' from seeking appropriate reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The bench comprising Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachudand Justice Indira Banerjee dismissed a special leave petition against a Delhi High Court order which expressed the above view.

    Succession To Private Properties Of Nawab Would Be Governed By His Personal Laws

    Talat Fatima Hasan V. Nawab Syed Murtaza Ali Khan

    The Supreme Court held that the succession to the private properties of the erstwhile ruler of Rampur, Late Nawab Raza Ali Khan would be governed by his personal laws and not by rule of succession applicable to the "Gaddi" (ruler-ship).

    Can Arbitration Clause Be Invoked In A Dispute Arising After Parties Compromise? SC Explains

    Zenith Drugs & Allied Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd

    The Supreme Court observed that when the parties to a contract containing arbitration clause have settled their differences and compromised the matter, arbitration clause in the prior agreement cannot be invoked in the dispute subsequently arising between the parties after such compromise.

    Alleged 'Custodial Murder' Of Civilian By Indian Army: SC Enhances Compensation To Widow, Upholds HC Direction To Register Criminal Case

    Union of India V. JunuGayary

    The Supreme Court upheld a Gauhati High Court direction to the CBI to register criminal case in an alleged custodial murder of a civilian by Indian Army and also enhanced compensation awarded to the widow of the victim.

    Recruiting Agency Can't Be Compelled To Fill Available Posts Even When Persons Of Desired Merit Are Not Available

    Municipal Corporation of Delhi V. Surender Singh

    Supreme Court re-iterated that the recruiting agency cannot be compelled to fill up all available posts even if the persons of the desired merit are not available. The Supreme Court allowed an appeal filed by Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and has held that it was at liberty to set minimum qualifying cut-off marks in exam for appointment of Assistant Teacher (Primary).

    Six Months Cap On Interim Stay Orders Not Applicable To Supreme Court Orders

    Fazalullah Khan Vs. M.Akbar Contractor

    According to the bench comprising Justice Sanjay KishanKaul and Justice KM Joseph Supreme Court's direction in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation the interim stay on civil/criminal proceedings would end on expiry of six months from the date of such order unless extension is granted by a speaking order will not be applicable to Supreme Court orders.

    Landlord Can't Be Precluded From Filing Eviction Petition On The Ground Of Bonafide Need Regarding Non-Residential Premise

    Vinod Kumar vs. Ashok Kumar Gandhi

    The Supreme Court held that the judgment of Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union of India which held that Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is unconstitutional to the extent it discriminates between the premises let for residential and non-residential purposes, cannot be held to be per incuriam. The bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph also rejected the request that Satyawati Sharma judgment needs to be referred to a larger Bench for reconsideration.

    Person Claiming Title By Adverse Possession Can Maintain A Suit Under Article 65 Limitation Act

    Ravinder Kaur Grewal vs. Manjit Kaur

    In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court held that any person who has perfected title by way of adverse possession, can file a suit for restoration of possession in case of dispossession. The bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice MR Shah observed that plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff.

    Criminal Trial- Evidence Of A Solitary Witness Will Call For Heightened Scrutiny

    Jagdish vs. State of Haryana

    The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Navin Sinha observed that the evidence of a solitary witness in a criminal case requires heightened scrutiny.

    Victim Has Right To Assist The Court In A Trial Before The Magistrate

    Amir Hamza Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra

    The Supreme Court observed that, though the Magistrate is not bound to grant permission to a victim to conduct prosecution at the mere asking but the victim has a right to assist the Court in a trial before the Magistrate. The bench comprising of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta observed that if the magistrate is satisfied that the victim is in a position to assist the Court and the trial does not involve such complexities which cannot be handled by the victim, he/she would be within its jurisdiction to grant of permission to the victim to take over the inquiry of the pendency before the Magistrate.

    A Few Days Before Article 370 Repeal, SC Decriminalized Adultery In J&K As Well

    Col. Rajnish Bhandari vs. Union of India

    Just a few days before the special status of Jammu and Kashmir was scrapped by a Presidential order, the Supreme Court held that the entire Section 497 of the Ranbir Penal Code which criminalizes Adultery is also unconstitutional.

    Weakness In The Defence Taken Cannot Become The Strength Of The Prosecution

    Anand Ramachandra Chougule vs. SidaraiLaxmanChougala

    Weakness in the defence taken cannot become the strength of the prosecution, remarked the Supreme Court while reiterating that the benefit of doubt must follow unless the prosecution is able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Navin Sinha upheld the acquittal of the accused in a murder case by the High Court granting them benefit of doubt.

    DNA Test Cannot Be Ordered Without There Being Appropriate Satisfaction For Its Requirement

    Kathi David Raju vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

    The Supreme Court observed that DNA test cannot be ordered without there being appropriate satisfaction for requirement of such test. In this case FIR was registered under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 IPC against the accused alleging that he obtained fake caste certificate. The Court allowed an application seeking a DNA test of the accused, his mother two brothers. The High Court refused to quash the order.

    Unlawful Assembly-Trial Of Offence U/s 149 IPC Not Illegal Merely Because Section 141 IPC Was Not Invoked [Dev Karan vs. State of Haryana]

    The Supreme Court observed that as long as the ingredients of unlawful assembly are met, Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code can be invoked and non invocation of Section 141 IPC would not render the trial under Section 149 IPC illegal.

    Filing Of Criminal Complaint For Settling Civil Dispute Is Abuse Of Process Of Law

    Commissioner of Police vs. DevenderAnand

    The Supreme Court observed that filing of criminal complaint for settling a dispute of civil nature is abuse of process of law. The Three judge bench comprising of Justice Arun Mishra, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice MR Shah observed thus while setting aside a High Court order issuing directions in a writ petition filed by the complainant.

    Filing Of Cross Objections By Defendants Not Necessary To Dispute Adverse Findings In The Dismissed Suit

    State Of Andhra Pradesh vs. B. Ranga Reddy

    The Supreme Court observed that it is not necessary that defendants should file cross objections to the appeal against dismissal of a suit to dispute certain findings adverse to them in the judgment appealed against. The bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta observed that, in such a situation, in the appeal filed by plaintiffs, the defendants have a right to support the ultimate decree passed by the trial court of dismissal of suit on grounds other than which weighed with trial court.

    When Can 'Group Of Companies' Doctrine Be Invoked To Bind Non-Signatory Company To Arbitration? SC Explains

    Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd vs. Canara Bank

    The Supreme court, in a judgment explained the circumstances in which the 'Group of Companies' Doctrine could be invoked to bind the non-signatory affiliate of a parent company to an arbitration? The bench comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Indu Malhotra observed that the 'Group of Companies' Doctrine could be invoked to bind the non-signatory affiliate of a parent company, or inclusion of a third party to an arbitration, if there is a direct relationship between the party which is a signatory to the arbitration agreement; direct commonality of the subject matter; the composite nature of the transaction between the parties.

    Slump In Business Cannot Be The Reason For Default In Payment Of Rent

    Chandigarh Administration V. Hari Ram

    Slump in the business cannot be the reason for default in payment of rent, remarked the Apex Court while considering an appeal filed by Chandigarh Administration against the High Court order that granted relief to its Allottee.

    Appoint Permanent RERA and Appellate Tribunal Within Three Months, SC Tells 'Recalcitrant' States/UTs

    Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd V. Union of India

    The Supreme Court directed the States/Union Territories to appoint permanent adjudicating officers as Real Estate Regulatory Authority and Appellate Tribunal within a period of three months. The court issued this direction in its judgment upholding the amendments made to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code in 2018 to treat homebuyers as financial creditors.

    Treating Homebuyers As Financial Creditors Not Arbitrary : SC Upholds 2018 IBC Amendment

    Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd and Anr vs Union of India

    Dismissing a bunch of petitions filed by nearly 200 realtors, the Supreme Court on Friday upheld the amendments made to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code in 2018 to treat homebuyers as financial creditors. The bench of Justices R F Nariman, Sanjiv Khanna and Surya Kant held that the amendments do not violate Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and rejected the argument that they are 'arbitrary, unreasonable, excessive and disproportionate'.

    Patient With 92% Burn Injuries Can Be In A Fit State Of Mind To Give Dying Declaration

    Bhagwan v State of Maharashtra

    The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by a murder convict by upholding the dying declaration given by his deceased wife. The Court held that the mere fact that the deceased had suffered 92% burn injuries per se would not mean that she was not fit to give the declaration. It also held that the a hyper technical view cannot be adopted by differentiating between 'conscious' and 'fit state of mind' in deciding the veracity of a dying declaration.

    Cheque Bounce Cases: Costs Not To Be Imposed If Settlement Is Reached At The Stage Of Issuance Of Summons

    RiteshAjmera vs. DainikBhaskar

    There is no necessity of imposing cost when the parties to a cheque bounce case have amicably settled the matter at the stage of issuance of summons itself, the Supreme Court reiterated.

    Alienation Of Suit Property Not Illegal Merely Because It Was Done During Pendency Of Suit

    MadhukarNivruttiJagtap vs. PramilabaiChandulalParandekar

    The Supreme Court observed that the effect of doctrine of Lis Pendens is not to annul all the transfers effected by the parties to a suit but only to render them subservient to the rights of the parties under the decree or order which may be made in that suit.

    Section 292BB Income Tax Act Does Not Save Complete Absence Of Notice

    Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal

    The Supreme Court observed that Section 292BB of the Income Tax Act applies only to cure the infirmities in the manner of service of notice of assessment/reassessment, but not intended to cure complete absence of notice itself. In this case the High Court had held that since the issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax for completion of regular assessment in the case of the assessee was a statutory requirement as per the provisions of the Act and non issuance thereof is not a curable defect.

    Deceased Bachelor's Age Is The Basis For Computing Multiplier In Motor Accident Claims

    Joginder Singh vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company

    The 'Multiplier' to be applied in the case of a deceased bachelor, should be computed on the basis of the age of the deceased, not the age of the parents, the Supreme court has reiterated. The bench comprising Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Sanjiv Khanna were considering an appeal filed by parents of a deceased girl, who was just twenty year old and unmarried at the time of accident.

    Certificate Issued By Institutions Incompetent To Confer 'Degrees' Cannot Be Granted Equivalence To 'Degree'

    Institution Of Mechanical Engineers (India) Through Its Chairman V. State Of Punjab &Ors.

    The Supreme Court observed that a certificate issued by an institution or an authority or person other than those specified in Section 22 (1) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 cannot be equivalent to a 'degree'. The bench noticed that right to confer degrees can be exercised only by a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act or by an institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the UGC Act or by an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees.

    Transferee PendenteLite Has Locus Standi To File Application At The Stage Of Order IX Rule 13 CPC

    Menka Gupta V. Umashree Devi

    The Supreme Court held that a transferee pendentelite has locus standi to file an application seeking substitution of the original defendant who filed a petition to set aside ex parte decree.

    A Doctor Cannot Be Subjected To Travails Of Criminal Prosecution On Vague Allegations Of Medical Negligence

    Dr. V. K. Jain V. State of Rajasthan

    While setting aside criminal proceedings initiated against a Doctor accused of medical negligence, the Supreme Court reiterated that to prosecute a medical professional for negligence under criminal law, it must be shown that he did something or failed to do something which in the given facts and circumstances no medical professional in his ordinary senses and prudence would have done or failed to do.

    Seniority Cannot Be Claimed From The Date Of Initial Appointment As Ad-Hoc District Judges

    Kum C. Yamini V. State of Andhra Pradesh

    The Supreme Court held that the District Judges who previously served as ad-hoc District Judges, cannot claim seniority from the date of their initial appointment as ad-hoc District Judges.

    Second Appeal Not To Be Dismissed Merely On The Ground Of 'Concurrent Findings'

    State of Rajasthan vs. Shiv Dayal

    The Supreme Court observed that a High Court cannot dismiss a second appeal merely on the ground that that there is a concurrent finding of two Courts (whether of dismissal or decreeing of the suit), and thus such finding becomes unassailable. In this case the High Court dismissed a second appeal filed by the state on the ground that that since two Courts have decreed the suit, resulting in passing of the decree against the State, there arises no substantial question of law in the appeals.

    HC Can't Reappreciate Evidence While Exercising Revisional Jurisdiction U/s 20 Of Kerala Rent Control Act

    ThankamonyAmma vs. OmanaAmma N.

    While exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the High Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence, the Supreme Court reiterated.

    Children Born After Dec 3, 2004 Not To Be Included In NRC If Any Of The Parent Is A 'D' Voter, Declared Foreigner Or Pending Case

    Assam Public Works V. Union of India

    While categorically ruling out reopening or re-verification of the National Register of Citizens for Assam, the Supreme Court held that children born after December 3, 2004 are not eligible to be included in the NRC list, if any of the parent is a DV (Doubtful Voter), DF (Declared Foreigner) or PFT (persons with cases pending at Foreigners Tribunals). The bench of CJI RanjanGogoi and Justice R F Nariman approved the suggestions made by the State NRC Co-ordinator PrateekHajela regarding the course to be adopted in cases of children of DV, DF and PFT persons.

    Judge Can Recuse From A Case At His Own Volition, But Not At the Mere Asking Of Litigant

    SeemaSapra V. Court on its own motion

    While rejecting a prayer seeking recusal of a judge who is part of the bench hearing an appeal, the Supreme Court observed that a judge can recuse at his own volition, but need not at the mere asking of a litigating party. The bench comprising of Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice Ajay Rastogi were considering an appeal filed by SeemaSapra against the Delhi High Court judgment holding her guilty of having committed contempt of Court.

    Other Significant Orders and Proceedings

    • The bench of Justices Bhanumati and A S Bopannadismissed the petition filed by the former Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram challenging the August 20 judgment of the Delhi High Court that refused pre-arrest bail to him in the case registered by Central Bureau of Investigation in the INX media case.
    • AllowedSitaramYechury, the general secretary of Communist Party of India (Marxist), to travel to Kashmir to meet detained party leader Mohammad YousufTarigami to ascertain his whereabouts and medical welfare. The bench consisting of CJI RanjanGogoi, Justice S A Bobde and Abdul Nazeer observed that citizens must be allowed to have access to Jammu and Kashmir.
    • The bench headed by Justice N V Ramanaissued notice to governments of Centre and States on a Public Interest Petition (PIL) seeking to direct all States establish online web portals for filing of online RTI applications.
    • Referred to Constitution Bench the petitions challenging the validity of the the abrogation of special status of Jammu and Kashmir and the downgrading of the state into a Union Territory. The bench of CJI RanjanGogoi, Justice S A Bobde and Abdul Nazeer said that the matters will be heard in October.
    • While considering a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 3(2)(f) of the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service Special Rules, 1961, directed that no new appointments be made from now onwards of in-service candidates against quota reserved for Bar.
    • Issued notice on plea to allow deposit of demonitised currency worth rs 1.17 crores
    • A Three Judge Bench referred to larger bench the question whether in the absence of evidence of complainant/direct or primary evidence of demand of illegal gratification, is it not permissible to draw inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution?
    • Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) RanjanGogoi issued notice to Centre, Bar Council of India (BCI) and it's Chairman on a PIL seeking directions to formulate a scheme towards social security measures for women advocates in coordination with respective state bar councils.
    • Issued notice on a plea seeking the protection of identity, reputation & integrity of individuals, allegedly accused of "Sexual Offences", till completion of the investigation into the "truthfulness" of such allegations.
    • Deciding to consider the Unnao tragedy on the judicial side, the CJI-led bench took suo moto cognizance of the letter sent to CJI RanjanGogoi by the family of the Unnao rape survivor seeking protection from threats and intimidation by the accused.
    • Asked the central government and the Delhi transport department to respond to the Environment Pollution Control Authority (EPCA) report on the use of remote sensing technology to help identify polluting vehicles.
    • Appointed Dharmesh Sharma, District Judge, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi to hold the trial in four cases related to Unnaorape.The CJI-led bench transferred the cases from CBI Court, Lucknow to Delhi in the suo moto proceedings based on the letter by family of Unnao rape survivor seeking protection from intimidation by accused.
    • Asked the Centre to take a decision on the elevation of Justice Kureshi as Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court by August 14.
    • Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra issued notice to Centre and state governments on a PIL raising the issue of increasing number of child suicides.
    • Directed NariNiketan in Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh to release a girl detained there against her wishes.
    • In the 1984 anti- Sikh riots case, the bench headed by Justice SA Bobde on decided to give final hearing on the appeal and other applications including bail plea of convict Sajjan Kumar for during Apex Court's summer break in May, 2020.
    • Dismissed some Special Leave Petitions pertaining to an acquisition matter by refusing to condone delay of 21 Years in filing them.
    • Commenced final arguments on a batch of pleas challenging a Reserve Bank of India circular prohibiting banks and financial institutions from providing services in relation to cryptocurrencies.
    • The bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari issued notice on a petition filed by an eleven year old child raising the issue whether a school affiliated to an International Board will come under the purview of Right To Education Act, 2009 (RTE).
    • Declined urgent listing of a petition, seeking to quash Constitution (Application to Jammu & Kashmir) Order, 2019, which scrapped the special status of J&K.
    • Observed that the Centre should be given some more time for restoring normalcy in the Kashmir valley by lifting the curfew measures. The bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, M R Shah and Ajay Rastogi was considering the petition filed by TehseenPoonawalla against the curfew measures imposed in Jammu and Kashmir following the Central Government steps to abrogate the special status enjoyed by it under Article 370 of the Constitution.
    • Warned against politicising the demolition of a Guru Ravidas temple in Tughlaqabad forest area here on its order and threatened to initiate contempt proceedings against those provoking dharnas and demonstrations.
    • In a relief to thousands of Jammu and Kashmir students selected for a special scholarship scheme, the Supreme Court extended by a month the deadline for taking admission in various engineering colleges due to situations prevailing in the state after abrogation of its special status.
    • Pulled up Advocate M L Sharma for filing a shoddy petition challenging the August 5 Presidential Order on Article 370 on the very next day of its issuance.The special bench of CJI RanjanGogoi, Justices S A Bobde and Abdul Nazeer was considering the petitions filed by M L Sharma and AnuradhaBhasin, Executive Editor of Kashmir Times, against the Centre's actions on Jammu and Kashmir.

    Next Story