- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Monthly Round-Up...
Supreme Court Monthly Round-Up March 2022
Shruti Kakkar
3 April 2022 5:03 AM GMT
Limitation Period Cannot Be Extended On Equitable Grounds: Supreme CourtCase Title: Lingeswaran vs Thirunagalingam | SLP 2054-2055/2022 | Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 227 The Supreme Court observed that an application for condonation of delay has to be dismissed if it is found that the delay is not properly explained and that the period of limitation cannot be extended on equitable...
Limitation Period Cannot Be Extended On Equitable Grounds: Supreme Court
Case Title: Lingeswaran vs Thirunagalingam | SLP 2054-2055/2022 |
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 227
The Supreme Court observed that an application for condonation of delay has to be dismissed if it is found that the delay is not properly explained and that the period of limitation cannot be extended on equitable ground. Otherwise, it would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna said.
Not Safe To Convict A Person For Murder Solely On Basis Of Recovery Of Stolen Article : Supreme Court
Case Title: Tulesh Kumar Sahu v State of Chattisgarh| Criminal Appeal No(s). 753/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 228
The Supreme Court recently set aside the conviction of a person for the offence of murder, after noting that the only evidence which linked him to the offence was the alleged recovery of stolen article from him. A bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha referred to the precedents which held that merely on the basis of recovery of article, it may not be safe to sustain a conviction for murder.
Case Name: Nandu Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh)| Criminal Appeal No.285 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 229
The Supreme Court has held that the absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused. "In a case based on substantial (circumstantial) evidence, motive assumes great significance. It is not as if motive alone becomes the crucial link in the case to be established by the prosecution and in its absence the case of Prosecution must be discarded. But, at the same time, complete absence of motive assumes a different complexion and such absence definitely weighs in favour of the accused," bench of Justices U.U. Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and P.S. Narasimha observed.
Case Title: Luckose Zachariah @ Zak Nedumchira Luke and Others v. Joseph Joseph and Others| Criminal Appeal No 256 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 230
The Supreme Court has observed that a Judicial Magistrate should consider both the initial final report submitted under Section 173(2) CrPC and the supplementary report submitted under Section 173(8) before deciding whether there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offense. The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant made the observation while considering a criminal appeal assailing Kerala High Court's order dated March 3, 2021.
Case Title: Priyashi Aashi Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs Mitrajyoti Deka | SLP 2074-2075/2022 |
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 231
The Supreme Court, in an order passed last month, criticized last moment filing of additional documents in Special Leave Petitions. By not filing the application for additional documents at the time of filing the Special Leave Petition but filing the same at the last moment and on the previous day of the posting of the Special Leave Petition and many a time late in the evening causes great inconvenience to the Court, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
Mere Filing Of Representation Before Authorities Does Not Extend Limitation Period : Supreme Court
Case Title: Surjeet Singh Sahni vs State of U.P. | SLP (C) 3008 of 2022 |
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 232
The Supreme Court observed that mere filing of representation before authorities does not extend the period of limitation. If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches, the High Court should dismiss it at the threshold and ought not to dispose of the writ petition by relegating the writ petitioner to file a representation and/or directing the authority to decide the representation, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
Case Title: Binay Kumar Dalei vs State of Odisha | CA 1627-1628 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 233
The Supreme Court bench of Justices LN Rao and BR Gavai directed the State of Odisha to implement the Comprehensive Wildlife Management Plan before permitting any mining activity in the eco-sensitive zone. In this case, the National Green Tribunal had directed that mining activity shall not be permitted within and in the vicinity of Simplipal - Hadagarh - Kuldiha – Simplipal elephant corridor. The Tribunal ordered completion of the process under Section 36 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 for declaration of conservation reserve in respect of the elephant corridor within a period of three months.
Prosecution Is Not Required To Prove Its Case Beyond All Iota Of Doubt: Supreme Court
Case name: Karan Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh | SLP (Crl.) No.717 of 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 234
The prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and not beyond all iota of doubt, remarked the Supreme Court bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and V Ramasubramanian observed while dismissing a criminal appeal filed by a murder accused.
Highest Bidder Has No Vested Right To Have The Public Auction Concluded In His Favour: Supreme Court
Case Title: State of Punjab vs. Mehar Din | CA 5861 OF 2009
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 235
The Supreme Court observed that the highest bidder has no vested right to have the auction concluded in his favour. The acceptance of the highest bid or highest bidder is always subject to conditions of holding a public auction and the right of the highest bidder is always provisional to be examined in the context in different conditions in which the auction has been held, the bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka observed.
Case Title: Rama Negi vs Union of India | CA 1713-1714 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 236
The Supreme Court observed that an unblemished or clean record of an employee is a significant factor while considering his/her suitability for promotion to a 'selection post'. "A marred service record, though not an insurmountable bar, must carry some consequences, and it could be a comparative disadvantage in promotion for a selection post. The employer's preference for a person with a clean service record can be well appreciated", the bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy said.
Appointments To Reserved Vacancies Meant Only For Members Of Reserved Community Alone: Supreme Court
Case Title: : Jayashree vs Director Collegiate Education | CA 1559/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 237
The Supreme Court observed that the appointments to the reserved vacancies are meant only for those who are deserving by being members of reserved community alone. If any person other than a member of the reserved community is appointed, it would clearly constitute an infringement of the rights of the genuinely deserving members of the said community, the bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy observed.
Case Title: Loop Telecom and Trading Limited vs Union of India | CA 1447-1467 of 2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 238
The Supreme Court observed that the principle of Restitution under Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act will not apply when the party claiming restitution was equally or more responsible for the illegality of the Contract. In adjudicating a claim of restitution, the court must determine the illegality which caused the contract to become void and the role the party claiming restitution has played in it, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath observed.
Case Title: Harish Kumar (D) vs Pankaj Kumar Garg | CA 253 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 239
The Supreme Court observed that a landlord is not required to be "unemployed" to seek eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. All that the provision contemplates is that the requirement so pleaded by the landlord must be bona fide, the bench comprising Justices UU Lalit and S. Ravindra Bhat observed.
States Cannot Levy Excise Duty On Alcohol Which Is Not Fit For Human Consumption: Supreme Court
Case Title: State of Orissa vs Utkal Distilleries Ltd | CA 5666-Â5668 OF 2009
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 240
The Supreme Court observed that States have power to levy excise duty only in respect of the alcoholic liquor for human consumption. Alcoholic liquors other than for human consumption have been left to the Central Legislature for levy of duty of excise, the bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai noted.
Case Title: Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (D) vs Maniben Jagmalbhai (D) | CA 1382 OF 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 241
The Supreme Court observed that a suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable against the true owner of the property when the dispute with respect to title is settled against the plaintiff. Once the suit is held to be barred by limitation qua the declaratory relief, the prayer for permanent injunction, which is a consequential relief can also be said to be barred by limitation, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
Case Name: Gambhirdhan K Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat And Ors.| Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1525 of 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 242
The Supreme Court bench of Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna has held that appointment of a Vice Chancellor of a University, even under a State legislation, cannot be contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations. The Apex Court noted that in cases where the State legislature is repugnant to the Central legislation, Central legislation is to prevail as per Article 254 as 'education' is an item in the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule. In view of the same it was of the view that such an appointment would be considered to be in violation of the statutory provisions and hence a fit case for issuing writ of quo warranto.
Case: Abdul Vahab vs State of Madhya Pradesh | CrA 340 /2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 243
The Supreme Court observed that the acquittal of an accused in a criminal case under Madhya Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004, is a factor to be considered while deciding confiscation proceedings under the Act. "In a case where the offender/accused are acquitted in the Criminal Prosecution, the judgment given in the Criminal Trial should be factored in by the District Magistrate while deciding the confiscation proceeding", the bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy observed.
Case: Union of India vs Managobinda Samantaray | CA 1622-1623 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 244
The Supreme Court observed that courts cannot interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority unless it is grossly disproportionate. Quantum of punishment is within the discretionary domain and the sole power of the decision-making authority once the charge of misconduct stands proved, the bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi observed.
Physical Analysis Is Not Prescribed Under NDPS Act For Testing Opium : Supreme Court
Case: Sukhdev Singh vs State of Punjab | CrA 1004 of 2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 245
The Supreme Court observed that physical analysis is not prescribed under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for testing the opium. The physical nature of the material is not relevant for determining whether the contents of the sample analyzed were actually opium or not, the bench headed by CJI NV Ramana observed thus while dismissing an appeal filed against a judgment passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana confirming conviction of the accused under NDPS Act.
Case: Darshan Kaur Bhatia vs Ramesh Gandhi | CA 1701-1702 /2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 246
The Supreme Court bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh has reiterated that a suit for declaration based on adverse possession having matured into ownership is maintainable. In this case, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title pleading that the adverse possession on the suit property granted him certain rights. The Trial court allowed the application filed by defendant under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure and rejected the plaint.
Case Title: Narendra Singh @ Mukesh @ Bhura v. State of Rajasthan SLP (Crl) No. 7830 of 2021]
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 247
The Supreme Court has reiterated that Trial Court does not have the jurisdiction to sentence an accused to life imprisonment which is to extend to the remainder of their life.
Taking note of the Constitution Bench judgment in Union of India Vs. V. Sriharan @ Muruganand Others 2016 (7) SCC 1, a Bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka modified the sentence of life imprisonment extending to the remainder of the natural life, imposed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court to life imprisonment simpliciter.
Case: Amritlal vs Shantilal Soni | CrA 301 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 248
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath has observed that the relevant date for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence.
Case: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Prem Kumar Shukla | CA 1690 OF 2022 | 28 Feb 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 249
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna has observed that there must be an independent application of mind and at least some independent reasoning to be given by the appellate Court while deciding and disposing of the writ appeal.
Case : Rakesh Kumar vs State of Bihar | CA 1517 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 250
The Supreme Court reinstated a judicial officer whose appointment was cancelled since he could not join the service before the stipulated date on account of the nationwide lockdown imposed in view of Covid-19 pandemic. "There was considerable confusion also about what a person could do and what a person could not do during the time of the lockdown. It was an unprecedented situation which affected the nation", the bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy observed. The court added that it cannot ignore the reality that restrictions imposed during lockdown were severe and stringent.
Case: M. Nageswara Reddy vs State of Andhra Pradesh | CrA 72-73 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 251
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathnareiterated that evidence of witnesses cannot be discarded merely because they were the relatives of the deceased victim. Eleven accused were tried together in a murder case. The trial Court convicted three accused for the offences under Sections 148 & 302 IPC and acquitted others. The conviction of these three accused was reversed by the High Court. According to the High Court, the eye witnesses, who are relatives of the deceased, were planted witnesses.
Power To Condone Delay Under Section 5 Of Limitation Act Does Not Apply To Suits : Supreme Court
Case : F. Liansanga vs Union of India | SLP(Civil) 32875-32876 OF 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 252
The Supreme Court has observed that the power to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to suits. The Court also noted that Limitation Act is applicable in the State of Mizoram with effect from 21.01.1972. The limitation may harshly affect a particular party, but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes, the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari said while upholding a Gauhati High Court judgment.
Case Name: Bank of Baroda v. M/s. Karwa Trading Company And Anr.| Civil Appeal No 363 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 253
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna has held that a borrower cannot redeem the mortgaged property put for public auction by the bank by only paying the reserve price for the auction or even the highest bid amount. Under Section 13(8) of the the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("SARFAESI Act"), the transfer of the mortgaged property in public auction can be stalled only when the entire dues along with all cost, charges and expenses are paid to the Bank before the date fixed for such transfer, the Court held.
Case Title : Union of India vs Manpreet Singh Poonam | CA 517-518 of 2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 254
The Supreme Court observed that mere existence of vacancy per se will not create a right in favour of an employee for retrospective promotion. The promotion to a post should only be granted from the date of promotion and not from the date on which vacancy has arisen, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh observed.
Case Title: Rajbir vs Suraj Bhan | CA 1700/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 255
The Supreme Court observed that the provisions of Order XXI Rule 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be diluted and it has to invite objections from the judgment debtor to the draft deed/document submitted by the decree holder. "The departure from the provisions can have highly deleterious consequences not merely qua the parties in question but also persons who come to deal with those parties in future. It can lead to further litigation.", the bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy observed.
Case Title: Chandra Sekhar Jha v. Union of India And Anr.| Civil Appeal No 1566 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 256
The Supreme Court bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy has held that the benefit of the first proviso to Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 before substitution, whereby the Appellate Tribunal was vested with the power to dispense with the deposit of the penalty amount to be made during the pendency of appeal, could not be extended to the appellants who had filed appeal after the provision was substituted by the new Section 129E that came into effect on 06.08.2014. The Apex Court stated that the substitution of a provision results in repeal of the older provision and replacement by the new provision.
Case Title: Yeruva Sayireddy vs State of Andhra Pradesh | CrA 233 OF 2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 257
The Supreme Court observed that an amicus curiae who was appearing for deceased appellant cannot be treated as 'near relative' under Section 394 CrPC for the purpose of continuance of appeal. The bench comprising Justices Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose noted that a criminal appeal filed by a convict will abate on his death if no application for leave to continue the appeal is made within 30 days by a near relative viz. a parent, spouse, lineal descendant, brother or sister.
Case Title: State of MP vs Ramji Lal Sharma | CrA 293 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 258
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna has observed that once it is established that all the accused came at the place of incident with a common intention to kill the deceased, it is immaterial whether any of the accused who shared the common intention had used any weapon or not and/or any of them caused any injury on the deceased.
Case Name: Amit Katyal v. Meera Ahuja And Ors.| Civil Appeal No 3778 of 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 259
The Supreme Court has allowed withdrawal of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against a builder in an application filed by three homebuyers in view of a settlement plan agreed upon by the majority of them. In the larger interest of the homebuyers, the Apex Court exercised power under Article 142 to permit withdrawal of the CIRP proceedings and set aside all matters pending between the parties. While allowing the application, a Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna reserved liberty in favour of the homebuyers and Krrish Provence Flat Buyers Association ("Association") to approach it, in case the settlement does not go through as per the proposal. The Court also directed the promoters of the builder to pay Rs.6,00,000/- to the IRP along with litigation costs.
Case Title: Devadassan v. The Second Class Executive Magistrate, Ramanathapuram & Ors.| Criminal Appeal No. 388 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 260
While upholding an order of detention passed by an Executive Magistrate, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshewari has explained the scheme of Chapter VII of the Code of Criminal Procedure which contains provisions relating to bond for keeping peace and good behavior and also the consequences flowing from the breach of such bond.
Case Title: The Vice Chairman Delhi Development Authority V. Narender Kumar & Ors.| Civil Appeal No(s). 1880 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 261
The Supreme Court has set aside a judgment of the Delhi High Court which directed for applying the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme in the Delhi Development Authority with effect from January 1, 2006.
The bench of Justices UU Lalit, SR Bhat and Bela M Trivedi was considering SLP assailing Delhi High Court's order of directing to extend the MACP benefits to the Delhi Development Authority employees from 1st January, 2006.
Case Name: Mandeep Kumar And Ors. v. U.T. Chandigarh And Ors.| Civil Appeal No 1908 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 262
The Supreme Court rejected the plea seeking direction to the Government of Punjab to fill up vacant posts of ETT (Education Trained Teacher) for SC/ST categories from eligible candidates of the OBC category, by interchanging the vacant seats in SC/ST quota as per a policy letter of the State Government dated 17.03.1954.
The Apex Court noted that the dereservation of reserved vacancy cannot be done by the appointing authority, but only by the Department of Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes as per Section 7(2) of the the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Service) Act, 2006.
A Bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari refused to interfere with the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which rejected the plea of interchangeability/de-reservation.
State of Rajasthan vs Ashok Khetoliya | CA 1814 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 263
The Supreme Court observed that the Constitution (Seventy-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1992, does not take away legislative competence of the State Legislatures to legislate on the subject of local Government.
It is the State Legislature alone which is competent to legislate in respect of the municipalities with only one limitation that the provisions of the State Act cannot be inconsistent with the mandate of the Scheme of Part IXA of the Constitution, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian said.
Contempt Jurisdiction Would Not Cease Merely Because Order Is Executable : Supreme Court
Case Title: Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund vs Dharmesh S. Jain | Contempt Petition (C) 940 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 264
The Supreme Court observed that the jurisdiction of a Court under the Contempt of Courts Act would not cease, merely because the order or decree of which contempt is alleged, is executable. "Questions as to executability of such order is a question which concerns the parties inter-se. The power of the Court to invoke contempt jurisdiction, is not, in any way, altered by the rights of the parties inter-se.", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna said.
Case Title: Sagar vs State of UP | CrA 397 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 265
The Supreme Court reiterated that the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a discretionary and extraordinary power which should be exercised sparingly. "The crucial test to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction", the bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S.Oka said.
Case Title :SK Naushad Rahman and others vs Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266
Observing that the State's transfer policy must give due consideration to the importance of protecting family life, the Supreme Court has urged the Union of India to revisit the policy relating to transfers in the tax administration department. The bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Vikram Nath was considering appeals against a Kerala High Court judgment which rejected the challenge against a circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs(CBIC) in 2018 withdrawing Inter-Commissionerate Transfers(ICT)
Section 50 NDPS Act Not Followed During Search - Supreme Court Restores Acquittal
Case Title: Sanjeev vs State of Himachal Pradesh | CrA 870 OF 2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 267
The Supreme Court bench of Justices UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha acquitted the accused in an NDPS case on the ground of non-compliance of requirement of affording an option to be searched before a Magistrate of a competent Gazetted Officer. In this case, the accused were acquitted by the Trial Court observing that the Police did not give any option to them to be searched before a Magistrate of a competent Gazetted Officer. The High Court, allowing the appeal filed by the State, convicted them.
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Singh vs State of Jharkhand | CA 1760 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 268
In a judgment delivered, the Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna explained Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure which enables an appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. The court observed that an application seeking to adduce additional evidence can be allowed where (1) the additional evidence sought to be adduced removes the cloud of doubt over the case and (2) the evidence has a direct and (3) important bearing on the main issue in the suit and interest of justice clearly renders it imperative that it may be allowed to be permitted on record.
Case Title: OLX India BV vs State of Haryana | CrA 378 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 269
The Supreme Court quashed the directions issued by Punjab and Haryana High Court to OLX India to adopt a screening mechanism with respect to the sellers who could post an advertisement on its Platform. "There was no occasion for the High Court to pass these directions; and more particularly, without hearing the appellant"., the bench headed by Justice UU Lalit said while allowing the appeal filed by OLX India B.V.
Case Title: Bajaj Alliance General Insurance v Rambha Devi & Ors, CA 841/2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 270
A 3-judge Bench of the Supreme Court has referred to a larger bench the issue whether a person, on the strength of a driving licence for Light Motor Vehicles(LMV), can drive a Transport Vehicle having unladen weight below 7500 kilograms. A 3-judge Bench comprising Justice UU Lalit, Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha doubted the correctness of the decision given by a coordinate bench in the case Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2017) 14 SCC 663.
Shobha vs Chairman, Vithalrao Shinde Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. | CA 1860 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 271
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed that the liability to pay the interest on the amount of arrears/compensation under Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, shall be from the date of accident and not from the date of the order.
Case Title: Kamla Devi vs State of Rajasthan | CrA 342 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 272
The Supreme Court reiterated that a Court deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case.
The material aspects includes the following:
(1) allegations made against the accused;
(2) severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt which would result in a conviction;
(3) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused;
(4) tampering of the evidence;
(5) the frivolity in the case of the prosecution;
(6) criminal antecedents of the accused; and
(7) a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused.
The bench comprising Justices MR shah and BV Nagarathna observed thus while setting aside the bail granted by the High Court to some murder accused.
Case Title: Pramina Devi (Dead) Thr. Lrs. V. State Of Jharkhand| Civil Appeal No. 1762 Of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 273
In a matter related to land acquisition, the Supreme Court recently observed that judgment must have a clarity on the exact relief that is granted by the Court so that it may not create further complication and/or difficulty in the execution. The bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna made this observation while considering appeals preferred by the claimants landowners assailing Jharkhand High Court's order dated March 28, 2019.
Case Title : M Kendra Devi vs Government of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 274
The Supreme Court bench of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S Oka has strongly deprecated the practice of the State of Tamil Nadu in making compassionate appointments to Group B posts in violation of the 1994 judgment which held that compassionate appointments must be restricted to Class III or Class IV or Group C or Group D Posts.
Case name: Tedhi Singh vs Narayan Dass Mahant| CrA 362 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 275
The Supreme Court observed that it cannot be expected of a complainant to initially lead evidence to show that he had financial capacity unless such a case was set up in the reply notice by the accused.
However, the accused has the right to demonstrate that the complainant in a particular case did not have the financial capacity by producing independent materials, namely, by examining his witnesses and producing documents, by pointing to the materials produced by the complainant himself, or through the cross examination of the witnesses of the complainant, the bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy observed.
Case name: Swaminathan vs Alankamony (D)| CA 798-799/2013
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 276
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian has held that Letters of Administration can be revoked on the ground that all the legal heirs were not impleaded in the petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act for the grant of Letters of Administration with Will annexed.
Case Title: The Chief Personnel Officer & Ors. v. A Nishanth George| Civil Appeal No. 294 of 2022 and The General Manager Vs. P. Balamurugan| Civil Appeal No. 295 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 277
The Supreme Court reiterated that the Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff notified by the Railways ("LARSGESS Scheme") provides an avenue for backdoor entry into service and is contrary to the mandate of Article 16 which guarantees equal opportunity in matters of public employment.
The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna was considering civil appeals assailing Madras High Court's judgements dated March 21, 2018 and September 3, 2019.
Case Name: Union Bank of India v.Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Kanpur| Civil Appeal Nos. 1861- 1862 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 278
The Supreme Court has reiterated that Banks are exempted from the mandate of Section 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to deduct tax at the source (TDS), on payment of interest to corporations established by a statute. A Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Surya Kant allowed an appeal assailing the order of the Allahabad High Court which held that the appellant bank cannot be absolved from paying penalty for non-deduction of TDS on interest paid to Agra Development Authority, even if the TDS was deducted subsequently and deposited with the Central Government before the closing of the financial year.
Article 227 - High Court Cannot Go Deep Into Factual Issues Like An Appellate Body : Supreme Court
Case Name: M/s. Puri Investments v. M/s. Young Friends And Co. And Ors.| Civil Appeal No 1609 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 279
The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered on 23rd February, held that the High Court while exercise powers of a supervisory Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot act as an appellate body to re-appreciate evidence.
The High Court, under Article 227, can interfere with the decisions of a fact-finding forum only when its findings are perverse i.e.
- Erroneous on account of non-consideration of material evidence, or
- Being conclusions which are contrary to the evidence, or
- Based on inferences that are impermissible in law.
A Bench comprising Justices Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose allowed an appeal assailing the order of the Delhi High Court, which, it opined, had gone beyond its limited scope of interference as a supervisory Court.
Case Title: Biswanath Banik vs Sulanga Bose| CA 1848 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 280
While considering an application for rejection of plain under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to go through the entire plaint averments and cannot reject the plaint by reading only few lines/passages and ignoring the other relevant parts of the plaint, the Supreme Court has held.
A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna set aside the judgment of the Calcutta High Court which rejected a plain on the ground that suit for declaratory relief under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act was not maintainable.
Failure To Pay Rent Is Not A Penal Offence: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against A Tenant
Case Name: Neetu Singh vs State of UP| SLP(Crl) 783/2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 281
Failure to pay rent may have civil consequences, but is not a penal offence under the Indian Penal Code, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi observed while quashing an FIR registered against a tenant by a landlord. The court was considering an appeal against the Allahabad High Court order that refused to quash an FIR registered for the offence of cheating under Section 415 and that of misappropriation under Section 403 IPC.
Case Title: Shyam Sel And Power Limited vs Shyam Steel Industries Limited| CA 1984 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 282
The Supreme Court observed that a Letters Patent Appeal cannot be entertained against orders which does not have the traits and trappings of finality. An order of single judge, though may cause some inconvenience to one of the parties or, to some extent, some prejudice to one of the parties, cannot be treated as a 'judgment' under clause 15 of Letters Patent of the Calcutta High Court, the bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai observed.
Ganesh Patel vs Umakant Rajoria | S.L.P. (CRL.) NO. 9313 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 283
The Supreme Court observed that the bar under Section 362 of Criminal Procedure Code does not apply to an application seeking a procedural review. The bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi observed thus while upholding an order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court which recalled an order passed in a criminal case.
Case Title: Abhay Jain vs High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan | CA 2029 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 284
The Supreme Court, while reinstating a judicial officer, observed that mere negligence cannot be treated as misconduct to terminate services of a judicial officer. The bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran observed that disciplinary proceedings against a judicial officer is not warranted merely because a wrong order has been passed by him/her or the action taken by him could have been different.
Case Title: Local Self Government Department vs K Chandran | CA 7437-7438 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 285
The Supreme Court has held that pendency of the appeal by a convicted employee cannot disentitle the State from withholding his Death-cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG). The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh set aside the judgment of a Full bench of Kerala High Court which held that the recovery under Rule 3 of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR) could only be against pension and not DCRG. Rule 3A insofar as it permitted DCRG to be withheld was struck down by the High Court.
Case Title: High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma | SLP(C) 4432-4435/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 286
Upheld the minimum age requirement of 35 years for applying for the Delhi Higher Judicial Services Examination, the Supreme Court on Monday held that the prescription of a minimum age limit for the selection of District Judges is not contrary to the Constitution. The Court held that Article 233(2) of Constitution only prescribes a minimum eligibility that an advocate should have at least 7 years practice for selection as a District Judge and that this does not preclude the stipulation of a minimum age requirement.
Case Title: Gadadhar Chandra vs State of West Bengal | CrA 1661 OF 2009
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 287
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and AS Oka has observed that existence of a prior concert and preÂarranged plan has to be established for convicting accused by invoking Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Vipul Rasikbhai Koli Jankher |Crl.A.407/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 288
The Supreme Court observed that the severity of sentence is not the only determinant for doing justice to the victims. In determining the quantum of sentence, the Court must bear in mind the circumstances pertaining to the offence and all other relevant circumstances including the age of the offender, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant said.
Case Title: Indian Ex Servicemen Movement (An All India Federation Of Military Veterans Organisation Represented Vs. Union Of India Department Of Exservicemen Welfare Ministry Of Defence Secretary| Writ Petition (Civil) 419/2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 289
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the manner in which the Central Government introduced the "One Rank One Pension"/ ("OROP") scheme in defence forces as per its notification dated November 7, 2015. The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath refused to accept the challenge made by the association "Indian Ex-Service Movement" against the 2015 notification issued by the Centre.
Case Title: State of Madhya Pradesh vs Sadique | | Review Petition (Crl) Diary No. 1930 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 290
The Supreme Court dismissed a review petition filed by State of Madhya Pradesh against its judgment holding that magistrates would not be competent to extend the time to complete investigations in UAPA cases. The grounds taken in the Review Petition do not make out any error apparent on record to justify interference, the bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Belam M Trivedi said.
Case Name: Nahar Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh | | CrA 443 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 291
The Supreme Court observed that the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on the basis of a police report in terms of Section 190 (1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can issue summons to any person not arraigned as an accused in the police report or in the FIR. "If there are materials before the Magistrate showing complicity of persons other than those arraigned as accused or named in column 2 of the police report in commission of an offence, the Magistrate at that stage could summon such persons as well upon taking cognizance of the offence", the bench comprising Justices Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose held.
Case Name: State of Punjab vs Dev Brat Sharma | CA 2064 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 292
The Supreme Court observed that, under Section 7(i) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, ad valorem Court-fees would be payable on the amount claimed if the suit is a money suit for compensation and damages. It is only with respect to the category of suits specified in clause (iv) of Section 7 of the Act that the plaintiff has the liberty of stating in the plaint the amount at which relief is valued and Court-fees would be payable on the said amount, the bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath observed.
Case Title: Asean Cableship Pte. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs | SLP(C) 2208 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 293
The Supreme Court observed that an appeal under Section 130(2) of the Customs Act will be maintainable before the High Court if the impugned order relates to claim of exemption under Section 87 of the Act. Dispute concerning an exemption cannot be equated with a dispute in relation to the rate of duty, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
Case Title: N. Karthikeyan And Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu And Ors. WP(C) No. 53 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 294
The Supreme Court bench of Justices LN Rao and BR Gavai has expressed a prima facie view that States are competent to provide reservation for in-service doctors in super-speciality medical courses. Observing so, the Court refused to stay the G.O. dated 07.11.2020 issued in the State of Tamil Nadu purporting to reserve 50% seats at the Super Specialty level in Government Medical Colleges to in-service doctors. The Apex Court clarified that it has passed the present interim order on prima facie considerations as it is yet to decide the issue in the main matter on merits.
Balaji Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vs Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. | SLP(C) 1616/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 295
The Supreme Court observed that a bidder/tenderer cannot be permitted to challenge the bid condition/clause which might not suit him and/or convenient to him. Owner should always have the freedom to provide the eligibility criteria and/or the terms and conditions of the bid unless it is found to be arbitrary, mala fide and/or tailor made, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
No Parity Can Be Claimed Based On Regularization Of Services Made In Earlier Years : Supreme Court
Case Name: Managing Director, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer vs Chiggan Lal | CA 1875 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 296
The Supreme Court observed that the date from which regularization of services has to be granted is a prerogative of the employer and that no parity can be claimed based on regularization made in respect of earlier years. The bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari observed that the date of regularization and grant of pay scale is a prerogative of the employer/screening committee and no parity can be claimed in the matter of regularization in different years.
Handwriting Expert's Opinion Not The Only Mode To Prove Signature And Handwriting : Supreme Court
Case Title: Manorama Naik vs State of Odisha | CrA 423/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 297
The Supreme Court observed that the opinion of the handwriting expert is not the only way or mode of proving the signature and handwriting of a person. The signatures and handwriting of the person can also be proved under Sections 45, 47 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, the court said.Allowing the appeal, the bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi observed thus:
"It is pointed out that the opinion of the handwriting expert was filed for the first time before the High Court and was not available with the Trial Court at the time when cognizance was taken. That apart, the signatures and handwriting of the person can also be proved under Sections 45, 47 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, opinion of the handwriting expert is not the only way or mode of providing the signature and handwriting of a person"
Case Title: M Gopalakrishnan & Ors. v Pasumpon Muthuramalingam & Anr| SLP (Criminal) Diary No(s). 30839
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 298
The Supreme Court has observed that when petitions seeking directions to trial court to expedite the trial are filed before the higher courts, the same need to be examined from all angles. The bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath made this observation while considering a SLP against Madras High Court's order of directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings and close the trial within 6 months.
Case Name: Mohinder Singh (D) The. Lrs. And Ors. v. Mal Singh (D) Through. Lrs)| C.A. No. 1731 of 2009
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 299
The Supreme Court bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh as held that while determining the validity of a gift deed, Courts should not pass "value judgment" on the relationship between the donor and the donee, and the only thing which matters is if the deed was validly executed.
Case Title: Umesh Chandra Yadav V. The Inspector General And Chief Security Commissioner, R.P.F., Northern Railway, New Delhi & Others| Civil Appeal No(S). 1964 Of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 300
The Supreme Court has held that suppression of information relating to a criminal case by a candidate can be ignored in certain situations. The Court observed that competent authority while dealing with the case related to suppression of material information by a candidate in the selection process has to consider nature of post, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability and that the power has to be exercised with due diligence.
Case Title : Gangadhar Narayan Nayak @ Gangadhar Hiregutti versus The State of Karnataka
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 301
A 2-judge bench of the Supreme Court has delivered a split verdict on the issue whether Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure will apply to the investigation of an offence under Section 23 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). As per Section 155(2) CrPC, a police officer cannot investigate a non-cognizable offence without the order of a Magistrate. Section 23 of POCSO relates to the offence of disclosure of the identity of the victim of the sexual offence.
Case Title: N.G. Projects Limited vs Vinod Kumar Jain | CA 1846 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 302
The Supreme Court observed that a Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender even if it suffers from total arbitrariness and malafides. It should instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contract, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed. The court added that the injunction or interference in the tender leads to additional costs on the State and is also against public interest.
Case Title: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v Sanjesh and Anr| SLP(C) 3978 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 303
The Supreme Court has observed that a condition in the insurance policy which bars the filing of the claim after the specified time period is contrary to Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 ("Act") and thus void. The observation was made by the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian while dismissing a special leave petition filed by the Oriental Insurance Company assailing Allahabad High Court's order dated September 22, 2021.
Case Title: State of Karnataka vs Umesh | CA 1763-1764 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 304
The Supreme Court observed that the acquittal of the delinquent employee in a criminal case does not debar the employer from proceeding with disciplinary enquiry. The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant observed that a Court in the exercise of judicial review of disciplinary proceedings must restrict its review to determine whether:
(i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with;
(ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence;
(iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed;
(iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity;
(vi) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct.
Mere Breach Of Contract Cannot Give Rise To Criminal Prosecution For Cheating: Supreme Court
Case Title: Vijay Kumar Ghai vs State of West Bengal/CrA 463 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305
The Supreme Court reiterated that a mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating. The court observed that a mere breach of contract is not in itself a criminal offence and gives rise to the civil liability of damages.
"Even in a case where allegations are made in regard to failure on the part of the accused to keep his promise, in the absence of a culpable intention at the time of making promise being absent, no offence under Section 420 IPC can be said to have been made out.", the bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari said.
Case Title: Ratan Lal Patel vs Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya | | CA 2057 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 306
The Supreme Court observed that an order allowing a review petition should be a speaking and reasoned order as to what was the error apparent on the face of the record. "Merely stating that there is an error apparent on the face of the record is not sufficient. It must be demonstrated," the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
Avoid Shortcut Approach In Judgments; Courts Must Adjudicate All Issues : Supreme Court
Case Title: Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Bangalore vs State of Karnataka | CA 1345Â-1346 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 307
The Supreme Court observed that the courts have to adjudicate on all the issues raised in a case and render findings and the judgment on all the issues involved. Adopting a shortcut approach and pronouncing the judgment on only one issue, would increase the burden on the appellate court and in many cases if the decision on the issue decided is found to be erroneous and on other issues there is no adjudication and no findings recorded by the court, the appellate court will have no option but to remand the matter for its fresh decision, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
Case Title: The State of Maharashtra and another vs Madhukar Antu Patil and another, CA 1985/2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 308
The Supreme Court has held that the services rendered by an employee on work charge basis can not be considered for the grant of benefit of first time bound promotion if the employee is absorbed in service on a different payscale. A Bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna also observed that the benefit of Time Bound Promotion scheme shall be applicable when an employee has worked for twelve years in the same post and in the same pay scale.
Case Title : State of Karnataka and another vs State of Meghalaya and another and other connected cases
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 309
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has held that State legislatures have the competence to levy tax on the lotteries organized by other states.
Holding so, a bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna allowed the appeals filed by the States of Karnataka and Kerala challenging the judgments of Karnataka and Kerala High Courts which held that they lacked the legislative competence to levy tax on the lotteries organized by other states like Nagaland, Meghalaya and Sikkim.
Case Title: Union of India & Ors v Lt Gen SK Sahni| Criminal Appeal 2169 of 2014
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 310
The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside the conviction and dismissal from service of former Lt Gen SK Sahni for allegations relating to procurement of ration by Army purchase organisation. The bench of Justices L Nagswara Rao and BR Gavai set aside the conviction and dismissal of service while considering a criminal appeal preferred by Union of India assailing order dated 10th October 2013 passed by Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh Regional Bench at Chandimandir ("AFT") dated 10th October 2013.
Case Title: Manju Sharma v The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors| Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3332/2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 311
The Supreme Court has observed that holding a license to run the fair price shop cannot be said to be holding a civil post. The bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna rendered this observation while considering a Special Leave Petition assailing Allahabad High Court's order dated October 22, 2021.
COVID-19 Ex-Gratia Compensation: Supreme Court Sets Outer Limit For Filing Claims
Case Title: Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India| Interlocutory Application No. 40111 Of 2022 (Application For Directions) In Miscellaneous Application No. 1805 Of 2021 In Writ Petition (C) No. 539 Of 2021
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 312
The Supreme Court, on Thursday, set out an outer limit of sixty days to file claims for ex-gratia compensation of deaths due to COVID-19 which had occurred prior to 20.03.2022. For future deaths, a period of 90 days from the death was determined to be proper to file a claim for compensation.
"...we deem it appropriate to fix the outer limit of sixty days from today to file the claims for compensation in case the death occurred due to COVID-19 prior to 20.03.2022. For future deaths, ninety days' time is provided from the date of death due to COVID-19 to file the claim for compensation. The earlier order to process the claims and to make the actual payment of compensation within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of claim is ordered to be continued."
Also from the order - Making Fake COVID Death Compensation Claim Punishable Under Section 52 DMA; Supreme Court Allows Random Scrutiny Of 5% Claims In 4 States
Case Title: State of Gujarat vs R.J. Pathan |CA 1951 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 313
The Supreme Court observed that a High Court cannot direct regularisation of temporary employees by creating supernumerary posts.
"Such a direction to create supernumerary posts is unsustainable. Such a direction is wholly without jurisdiction", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed while setting aside the Gujarat High Court direction to the State to consider the cases of some temporary employees for regularisation sympathetically and if necessary, by creating supernumerary posts.
Case Title: S. Senthil Kumar vs State of Tamil Nadu | | SLP (Crl) 2693/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 314
The Supreme Court has observed that a mandatory direction to arrest the accused cannot be issued by a Court ordinarily while rejecting his petition for anticipatory bail. When the prayer for pre-arrest bail is declined, it is for the investigating agency to take further steps in the matter, the bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose observed
Case Title: Laxmikant vs State of Maharashtra | CA 1965 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 315
The Supreme Court observed that the Court cannot grant additional period for acquisition of land if the law does not contemplate any further period for acquisition. "The land owner cannot be deprived of the use of the land for years together. Once an embargo has been put on a land owner not to use the land in a particular manner, the said restriction cannot be kept open-ended for indefinite period," the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed.
Case Title: Special Land Acquisition Officer vs N. Savitha | CA 2052-2053/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 316
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah & BV Navarathna observed that a consent award cannot be the basis to determine the compensation in other acquisition more particularly, when there are other evidences on record.
A Litigant Cannot Take Contradictory Stands Before Two Different Courts/Authorities: Supreme Court
Case Status: Premlata @ Sunita vs Naseeb Bee
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 317
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah & BV Navarathna has observed that a litigant cannot be permitted to take two contradictory stands before two different authorities/courts.
Case Title: Pahwa Plastics Pvt. Ltd vs Dastak NGO
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 318
The Supreme Court has observed that the Environmental Protection Act does not not prohibit grant of ex post facto Environmental Clearance absolutely. The bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari observed that it should not be granted routinely, but in exceptional circumstances taking into account all relevant environmental factors.
Case Title: Securities and Exchange Board of India vs Mega Corporation Limited | CA 2104 of 2009 | Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 319
The Supreme Court, while dismissing an appeal against an order passed by Securities Appellate Tribunal, explained the scope and ambit of statutory appeal under Section 15Z of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992.
CaseTitle: State of Uttarakhand And Ors. v. Sanjay Singh Chauhan And Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 320
The Supreme Court, on Thursday, upheld the order of the Uttarakhand High Court that under the NRHM/NHM Scheme, Ayurvedic Doctors will be entitled to parity in salary with Allopathic Medical Officers and Dental Medical Officers. A Bench comprising Justices Vineet Saran and J.K. Maheshwari refused to entertain the plea challenging the order of the High Court. But, clarified - "However, we may only clarify that the respondents who are Ayurvedic doctors will be entitled to be treated at par with Allopathic Medical Officers and Dental Medical Officers under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM/NHM) Scheme."
Section 188 CrPC - Sanction Not Required If A Part Of Offence Is Committed In India: Supreme Court
Case Title: Sartaj Khan vs State of Uttarakhand | CrA 852 of 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 321
The Supreme Court observed that Section 188 of the Criminal Procedure Code will not be attracted if a part of the offence was committed in India. The Section gets attracted when the entirety of the offence is committed outside India; and the grant of sanction would enable such offence to be enquired into or tried in India, the bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha observed.
Case Title: Vishal Ashwin Patel vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 25(3) | CA 2200 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 322
The Supreme Court observed that it is the duty of a court to deal with issues/grounds raised in a writ petitions and thereafter to pass a reasoned order.
"When the Constitution confers on the High Courts the power to give relief it becomes the duty of the Courts to give such relief in appropriate cases and the Courts would be failing to perform their duty if relief is refused without adequate reasons.", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
Case Title : Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Circle 1(2) versus M/s MR Shah Logistics Private Ltd
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 323
The Supreme Court bench of Justices UU Lalit and SR Bhat has found fault with a Gujarat High Court judgment for extending the immunity under the "Income Declaration Scheme" (IDS) to an assessee who was not the declarant under the scheme. The High Court had quashed the reassessment notice issued under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against a company M/s MR Shah Logistics Private Ltd. One of the grounds for the re-opening of the assessment was contended to have been a declaration by another company, Garg Logistics Private Ltd, regarding an investment of Rs 6.3 crores in the shares of the assessee.
No One Can Be Permitted To Take The Benefit Of A Wrong Order Passed By A Court: Supreme Court
Case Title: Mekha Ram vs State of Rajasthan | CA 2229-2234 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 324
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna had observed that no one can be permitted to take the benefit of the wrong order passed by the court which has been subsequently set aside by the higher forum/court.
Case Title : Bata India Ltd vs Workmen of Bata India Ltd and another
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 325
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna has affirmed a Karnataka High Court judgment of 2008 which held that an employer must give proper opportunity of hearing to the workmen before deducting their wages for "go slow" approach by which they had failed to produce the agreed output.
Case Name: S.V. Fashions Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As SVG Fashions Ltd). v. Ritu Murli Manohar Goyal And Anr.| Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 326
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian held that the failure of NCLAT as the first appellate authority to look into a vital aspect of the matter regarding which NCLT had already recorded a specific finding of fact, would vitiate its order.
Case Title: Jai Bhavani Shikshan Prasarak Mandal v Ramesh & Ors| CIVIL APPEAL NO.7937 of 2011
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 327
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian has applied the "Doctrine of Necessity" to sustain the findings of a Disciplinary Enquiry Committee against a School Principal, after noting that the President of the Committee had to be replaced due to ill health.
Case Title: Swarnalatha vs Kalavathy | CA 1565 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 328
The Supreme Court observed that the exclusion of one of the natural heirs from the bequest in a Will, cannot by itself be a ground to hold that there are suspicious circumstances.
"In the matter of appreciating the genuineness of execution of a Will, there is no place for the Court to see whether the distribution made by the testator was fair and equitable to all of his children. The Court does not apply Article 14 to dispositions under a Will.", the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian remarked.
Case Title: Ravi Ranjan Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs Aditya Kumar Chatterjee | SLP(C) 17397-17398/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 329
The Supreme Court observed that an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for the appointment of an Arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal cannot be moved in a High Court irrespective of its territorial jurisdiction.
"It could never have been the intention of Section 11(6) of the A&C Act that arbitration proceedings should be initiated in any High Court in India, irrespective of whether the Respondent resided or carried on business within the jurisdiction of that High Court, and irrespective of whether any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of that Court, to put an opponent at a disadvantage and steal a march over the opponent.", the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and AS Bopanna observed.
Motor Accident Leaves 5 Year Old Child Paralysed : Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To Rs 50 Lakh
Case Title: Master Ayush v The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd, CA 2205/2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 330
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian has enhanced the compensation payable to over Rupees 50 Lakhs in a motor accident case where a person has been rendered paralysed for life after he met with an accident as a 5 year old boy in 2010.
"The mental and physical loss cannot be computed in terms of money but there is no other way to compensate the victim except by payment of just compensation", the Bench observed while determining the payable compensation comes at 49,93,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a.
Case Name: Shripati Lakhu Mane v. The Member Secretary, Maharashtra Water Supply And Sewerage Board And Ors.| Civil Appeal No. 556 of 2012
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 331
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian held that the refusal of a contractor to continue to execute the work, unless the reciprocal promises are performed by the other party, cannot be termed as abandonment of contract. Moreover, when material alteration takes place in the terms of the contract due to the act of one party, the other party can choose not to perform the original contract and it would not amount to abandonment.
Mere Filing Of Representation Before Authorities Does Not Extend Limitation Period : Supreme Court
Case Title: Surjeet Singh Sahni vs State of U.P. | SLP (C) 3008 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 232
The Supreme Court observed that mere filing of representation before authorities does not extend the period of limitation.
If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches, the High Court should dismiss it at the threshold and ought not to dispose of the writ petition by relegating the writ petitioner to file a representation and/or directing the authority to decide the representation, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
Case Title: Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal And Ors. Civil Appeal No. 2600 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333
The Supreme Court bench of Justices LN Rao and BR Gavai on Thursday held the 2021 Tamil Nadu Act that provided 10.5% reservation in educational institutions and government jobs for the Vanniyar community out of the 20% reservation available to the Most Backward Classes to be unconstitutional.
Sub-Classification Amongst Backward Classes Permissible : Supreme Court In Vanniyar Quota Case
105th Constitutional Amendment Act Is Prospective In Nature : Supreme Court In Vanniyar Quota Case
Local Unit Of A Registered Society Can't Institute Suit Unless Byelaws Authorise It : Supreme Court
Case Details: P Nazeer Etc v Salafi Trust & Anr CA 3132/2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 334
The Supreme Court bench of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V Ramasubramanian has observed that a society registered under the Societies Registration Act is entitled to sue and be sued, only in terms of its byeÂlaws.
Case Title: Surendra Pratap Singh vs Vishwaraj Singh || SLP (C) 18912/2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 335
The Supreme Court bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh recently deprecated the course adopted by the Allahabad High Court in delaying the uploading of the final judgment in a case for nearly 4 months after the dictation of the operative portion.
"What emerges is something which we cannot countenance. It is stated that the operative portion of the order was dictated in Court on 06.11.2019 but the final order was dictated only on 15.03.2020 i.e. after 4 months!" the Supreme Court remarked
Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh vs Subhash @ Pappu | CrA 436 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 336
The Supreme Court observed that non-framing of a charge under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code would not vitiate the conviction in the absence of any prejudice caused to the accused. If ingredients of the section are obvious or implicit in the charge framed then conviction in regard thereto can be sustained, irrespective of the fact that said section has not been mentioned, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna noted.
Case Name: Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation v. Sanjay Gajanan Gharat And Anr.| Civil Appeal No. 2643 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 337
The Supreme Court, on Thursday, held that the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation has the power to suspend or initiate departmental proceedings against the Additional Municipal Commissioner under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949.
A Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai allowed a plea assailing the judgment of the Bombay High Court, which found that the power to suspend Additional Municipal Commissioner of Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation was conferred neither on the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation nor the Corporation, but only the State Government.
