Supreme Court Monthly Digest: December 2020

Important Judgements/Orders: 1. High Courts Having No Commercial Division Competent To Consider Cancellation Of Design Under Section 22(4) Of Designs Act: Supreme Court Order dated December 1, 2020 The Supreme Court discussed the interplay between the Designs Act, 2000 and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and Ajay Rastogi held that it is not necessary that a suit involving the issue of cancellation of design under Section 22(4) of the Designs Act should be heard by a High Court having a Commercial Division. It held that a High Court without original civil jurisdiction and a commercial division is also competent to consider such a case. The Court was hearing an appeal against High Court order stating that since the Commercial Courts Act 2015 has an overriding effect, the suit has to be considered by a Commercial Court and not the High Court as envisaged by the Designs Act. The Apex Court noted that there is no provision in the 2015 Act either prohibiting or permitting the transfer of the proceedings under the Designs Act to the High Courts which do not have ordinary original civil jurisdiction. [Case: SD Containers, Indore v. M/s Mold Tek Packaging] 2. [Doctrine Of Legitimate Expectation] State Must Discard The Colonial Notion That It Is A Sovereign Handing Out Doles At Its Will: Supreme Court Order dated December 1, 2020 The state must discard the colonial notion that it is a sovereign handing out doles at its will, remarked the Supreme Court. The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra observed that the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation is one of the ways in which the guarantee of non-arbitrariness enshrined under Article 14 finds concrete expression. The Court was hearing an appeal against a Jharkhand High Court order, holding the State Government to its promise to give the benefit of an exemption of 50 per cent in electricity duty for a period of five years, for self-consumption or captive use, to all new and existing industrial units setting up captive power plants in the State. While confirming the High Court's verdict, the Top Court said that the scope of the doctrine of legitimate expectation is wider than promissory estoppel because it not only takes into consideration a promise made by a public body but also official practice, as well. [Case: State of Jharkhand v. Brahmputra Metallics Ltd., Ranchi] 3. Ensure CCTV Cameras Are Installed In Each And Every Police Stations: Supreme Court Directs States/UTs Order dated December 2, 2020 The Supreme Court observed that the State and Union Territory Governments should ensure that CCTV cameras are installed in each and every Police Station functioning under them. A Bench of Justices RF Nariman, KM Joseph and Aniruddha Bose observed that these directives shall be implemented in letter and in spirit as soon as possible. The court also directed the Central Government to install CCTV cameras and recording equipment in the offices of central agencies like CBI, NIA etc. The court issued these directives while disposing SLP filed by one Paramvir Singh Saini, which raised issues regarding audio-video recordings of statements and the installation of CCTV cameras in police stations generally. [Case: Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh] 4. Dowry Death - No Conviction Under Section 304B IPC If Unnatural Death Is Not Established: Supreme Court Order dated December 2, 2020 The Supreme Court held that the offence of dowry death under Section 304B of IPC cannot be made out if the cause of death has not been established as unnatural. The Court also held that it has to be shown that the deceased wife was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death. Holding that these factors were not established, a bench comprising Justices RF Nariman, KM Joseph and Aniruddha Bose set aside the conviction and life sentence awarded by the Uttarakhand High Court to three persons (husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased wife) under the said provision. [Case: Sandeep Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand] 5. Supreme Court Upholds Levy Of GST On Lottery, Betting & Gambling Order dated December 3, 2020 The Supreme Court upheld the levy of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on lotteries, betting and gambling. A three-judge bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subash Reddy and MR Shah held that Lottery, betting and gambling are well known concepts and have been in practice in this country since before independence and were regulated and taxed by different legislations. When Act, 2017 defines the goods to include actionable claims and included only three categories of actionable claims, i.e., lottery, betting and gambling for purposes of levy of GST, it cannot be said that there was no rationale for including these three ...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest: December 2020

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags