Supreme Court Monthly Digest: May 2020

1. 'Common Parlance', 'Popular Meaning', 'Marketability' Tests Applicable Only If Tariff Entry Classifiable In More Than One Head: SC Order dated May 1, 2020 The division bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose dismissed the Delhi Central Excise Commissioner's appeals against the 2008 decision of the CESTAT holding that "car matting" would be chargeable to duty at 8% under the heading "Carpets and Other Textile Floor Coverings", and not at 16% under "Vehicles other than Railway or Tramway Rolling-Stock and Parts and Accessories Thereof". The Court laid down that the "common parlance test", "marketability test" and "popular meaning test", which are all "tools for interpretation to arrive at a decision on proper classification of a tariff entry", would be required to be applied only "if a particular tariff entry is capable of being classified in more than one heads". In the present case it observed, car mattings are suitable for use "solely" with the vehicle. [Case: Commissioner Of Central Excise, Delhi-III v. M/S. Uni Products India Ltd.] 2. SARFEASI Act Applicable To Cooperative Banks : SC Constitution Bench Order dated May 5, 2020 "The cooperative banks under the State legislation and multi State cooperative banks are 'banks' under section 2(1)(c) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002", held the Constitution Bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose. The bench unanimously held that the Parliament had the legislative competence to bring cooperative banks under the ambit of SARFAESI Act. It thus rejected the argument that 2013 amendment to the SARFAESI Act adding 'mutli-state cooperative bank' in Section 2(1)(c)(iva) was a "colourable exercise of power". It also upheld the 2003 notification issued under the Banking Regulation Act 1949 by which cooperative bank was brought within the class of banks entitled to seek recourse to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. [Case: Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule and others V. Vishwasrao Patil Murgud Sahakari Bank Limited] Also Read: Cooperative Banks Must Comply With Banking Regulation Act And Other Laws Related To Banking: SC 3. Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC: Bar To File Separate Suit Challenging Compromise Decree Applies To Stranger Also: SC Order dated May 6, 2020 The Supreme Court held that the bar under Order 23 Rule 3A Civil Procedure Code to challenge a decree passed on a compromise in a separate suit, also applied to a stranger to the proceedings. A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi examined the intent behind amending Order 23 and observed that "Finality of decisions is an underlying principle of all adjudicating forums. Thus, creation of further litigation should never be the basis of a compromise between the parties" [Case: Triloki Nath Singh v. Anirudh Singh] 4. HC May Decline To Entertain A Writ Petition Which Raises Complex Questions Of Facts: SC Order dated May 6, 2020 "The High Court may decline to entertain a writ petition when it raises complex questions of facts," a division bench comprised of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari reiterated. The bench noted that when the petition raises questions of fact of complex nature which may for their determination require oral and documentary evidence to be produced and proved by the concerned party, the High Courts should be loath in entertaining such writ petitions and instead must relegate the parties to remedy of a civil suit. [Case: Punjab National Bank v. Atmanand Singh] 5. Accused Can Challenge Conviction In Appeal Filed By The State Even If He Did Not Prefer A Formal Appeal: SC Order dated May 6, 2020 A bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari observed that an accused can challenge the finding and order of conviction in the appeal filed by the State, even though the said accused had not preferred a formal appeal. The Court accepted the contention that the accused had a right to challenge the finding of guilt and conviction under Section 326 and 148, IPC, recorded against him, even though the said accused had not preferred a formal appeal against the impugned judgment. Court relied on Chandrakant Patil vs. State through CBI, Sumer Singh vs. Surajbhan Singh & Ors., State of Rajasthan vs. Ramanand vis-à-vis the settled legal position which predicates that in the appeal filed against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy, the accused may plead for his acquittal or for reduction of the sentence. [Case: State of Rajasthan v. Mehram] 6. HC Cannot Disregard Statutory Limitation Period To Entertain Writ Petition Challenging Order Passed By Statutory Authority: SC Order dated May 6, 2020 A bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari observed that a High Court cannot disregard the...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest: May 2020

Akshita Saxena

Tags