- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Monthly Digest: May...
Supreme Court Monthly Digest: May 2022 [Citation No 434 To 536]
Shruti Kakkar
1 Jun 2022 2:03 PM GMT
![Supreme Court Monthly Digest: May 2022 [Citation No 434 To 536]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2022/06/01/750x450_420207-supreme-court-monthly-digest-may-2022.jpg "Supreme Court Monthly Digest: May 2022 [Citation No 434 To 536]")
1. Parliament Must Provide Clarity On Reservation Benefits In Successor States After State Reorganization : Supreme Court Case Title: Akhilesh Prasad V. Jharkhand Public Service Commission And Ors.| Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18890 of 2021 Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 434 While deciding a dispute related to the reservation of an employee serving the State of...
Case Title: Akhilesh Prasad V. Jharkhand Public Service Commission And Ors.| Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18890 of 2021
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 434
While deciding a dispute related to the reservation of an employee serving the State of Jharkhand after the bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the Supreme Court highlighted the need for the Parliament to provide clarity on the rights of individuals after state reorganization. The observations in this regard were made in a separate but concurring judgment written by Justice S Ravindra Bhat while sharing bench with Justices UU Lalit and PS Narasimha.
Case Title: Widescreen Holdings Private Limited vs Religare Finvest Limited | SLP(C) 6826-6829/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 435
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna has observed that a Court or a Tribunal cannot impound a document for insufficient stamp unless and until the same is produced on record before it.
Case Title: Vivek Krishna vs Union of India | WP(C) 1034/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 436
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and A S Bopanna recently dismissed a writ petition to impose restrictions to prevent Civil Servants from contesting elections immediately after retirement or resignation from service, by imposing a "Cooling off Period".
Case Title: Kangaro Industries (Regd) vs Jaininder Jain | CA 5007 OF 2008
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 437
The Supreme Court bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Abhay S. Oka and CT Ravikumar observed that a Court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot enlarge the scope of relief claimed in the main proceedings.
Case Name: Thomas Daniel vs State of Kerala | CA 7115 OF 2010
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 438
The Supreme Court observed that the excess payment of emoluments or allowances to an employee are not recoverable if it was on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order which is subsequently found to be erroneous.
This relief against the recovery is granted not because of any right of the employees but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employees from the hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered, the bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath said.
6. Nobody Can Be Forced To Get Vaccinated; Vaccine Mandates Not Proportionate : Supreme Court
Case Details : Jacob Puliyel vs Union Of India| WP(C) 607 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 439
The Supreme Court bench of Justices LN Rao and BR Gavai held that no individual can be forced to get vaccinated and the right to bodily integrity of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution include the right to refuse vaccinate.
The Court also held that the vaccine mandates imposed by various state governments and other authorities in the context of COVID-19 pandemic are "not proportionate". The Court held so as no substantial data has been produced on record to show that the risk of transmission of COVID-19 virus from the unvaccinated persons are higher than from vaccinated persons.
Also Read: No Haste In Granting Emergency Use Authorization To Covaxin & Covishield: Supreme Court
Case Name: Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited vs Central Bureau of Investigation| MA 706 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 440
The Supreme Court bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy refused to apply the dictum of automatic vacation of stay in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and Another v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018) 16 SCC 299 to an order passed by High Court in writ proceedings.
In this case, a division bench of a High Court stayed operation of the order passed by the Single Judge in a writ petition. By filing a miscellaneous application before the Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and Another v. Central Bureau of Investigation, the writ petitioner sought clarification that the order passed in the said judgment would apply to the facts of this case.
Case Name: Pawan Kumar vs Union of India | CA 3574 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 441
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna observed that mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service.
Case Name: Vipan Aggarwal vs Raman Gandotra | CA 3492 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 442
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed that an application seeking recall of a compromise decree on the ground that it suffers from fraud and collusion can be filed before the Court which granted the decree.
Case Title:Narsingh Ispat Ltd. vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr, CA 10671/2016
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 443
The Supreme Court has held that the terms in the exclusion clause in an insurance policy will govern the parties and that the insurer cannot rely upon definitions in external sources such as statutes to repudiate a policy.
"When the policy itself defines the acts of terrorism in the Exclusion Clause, the terms of the policy being a concluded contract will govern the rights and liabilities of the parties.Therefore, the parties cannot rely upon the definitions of 'terrorism' in various penal statutes since the Exclusion Clause contains an exhaustive definition of acts of terrorism" a bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka held in the case Narsing Ispat Ltd versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Case Title: Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal Civil Appeal No. 3005 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 444
The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, directed that reassessment notices under Section 148 of the unamended Income Tax Act which were issued beyond 01.04.2021 (the effective date of amendment of the said provision by the Finance Act, 2021) to be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and be construed as show cause notices in terms of section 148A(b).
While deciding an appeal against an order of the Allahabad High Court which had set aside the reassessment notices issued by the Revenue after 01.04.2021, under unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, a Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna passed a slew of directions in respect of such reassessment notices.
Case Details : Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd versus SP Velayutham and others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 445
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian has held that a Registering Authority under the Registration Act 1908, while registering a sale deed executed by a Power of Attorney holder, is bound to verify if the Power of Attorney empowers the agent to sell the property.
The Court noted that the provisions of the Registration Act, particularly Section 34(3)(c), imposes an obligation on the Registering Officer to satisfy himself about the right of a person appearing as a representative, assign or agent.
Case Title: Dr. Jacob Thudipara v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.| Civil Appeal No. 2974 Of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 446
The Supreme Court recently reiterated that teachers in government aided private educational institutions in Madhya Pradesh are entitled to get the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation of 65 years.
The bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna rendered the observation while considering SLP assailing Madhya Pradesh High Court's order dated May 9, 2017 by which the High Court had dismissed the appellant's appeal and observed that teachers serving in the aided private educational institutions in Madhya Pradesh are entitled to get the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation of 65 years.
Case Name: The Secretary of Govt. of Kerala Irrigation Department And Ors. v. James Varghese And Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 447
The Supreme Court has held that the Kerala Revocation of Arbitration Clauses and Reopening of Awards Act, 1998 to be unconstitutional as it had an effect of annulling the awards passed by the arbitrators and the judgments and decrees passed by the courts. A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai dismissed the appeals filed by the State of Kerala against a Kerala High Court judgment which had held the law to be unconstitutional.
Case Title: Ms P vs State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 448
In a case where posters saying "Bhaiya is back" was put up to celebrate the release of a rape-accused on bail, the Supreme Court set aside the bail, observing that "brazen conduct of the accused has evoked a bona fide fear in complainant's mind that she would not get a free and fair trial if he remains enlarged on bail and that there is a likelihood of his influencing the material witnesses".
Case Name: State of Bihar And Ors. v. Shyama Nandan Mishra| Civil Appeal No 7364 of 2014
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 449
The Supreme Court bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy have opined that when substantive legitimate expectation, which is not ultra vires the power of the State, has been induced, then State cannot be allowed to change course against such expectation. The Apex Court further noted that upsetting such expectation in absence of any compelling public interest amounts to abuse of power by the State.
Case Title : Muzaffar Hussain versus State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 450
The Supreme Court has upheld the disciplinary action taken against a judicial officer in Uttar Pradesh for passing orders to unduly favour certain parties.
A division bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Bela M Trivedi observed that "showing undue favour to a party under the guise of passing judicial orders is the worst kind of judicial dishonesty and misconduct".
"A judge must decide the case on the basis of the facts on record and the law applicable to the case. If he decides a case for extraneous reasons, then he is not performing his duties in accordance with law", the Court stated in the case Muzaffar Hussain versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others.
Case Title : Indira Jaising versus Supreme Court of India
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 451
While assessing applications for senior advocate designations, the High Courts should allocate one mark each for each year of practice from 10 to 20 years, instead of allocating 10 marks flat for the counsel who has put in 10-20 years practice, clarified the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
Case Title: Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, Civil Appeal No. 3657 of 2022 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 4901 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 452
The Supreme Court has held that the power of the arbitral tribunal to award interest is subject to an agreement between the parties to the contrary. The Court held that the tribunal cannot award interest if the parties have agreed otherwise.
The Division Bench of Justice L. Nageshwar Rao and Justice B.R. Gavai held that when the parties have an agreement between themselves that governs the issue of interest, the arbitrator would lose its discretion and will be guided by the agreement between the parties.
Case Title: THE DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE HEALTH CARE & ORS. v. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED & ORS. | CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3464 OF 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 453
The Supreme Court has observed that once the statute has fixed the condition of pre-deposit before filing an appeal, such condition is required to be satisfied.
The bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian rendered this observation while considering SLP assailing Punjab and Haryana High Court's order dated October 27, 2016 wherein the High Court had held that the requirement of pre-deposit under Section 45-AA of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 is not mandatory.
Case Title: Swadesh Kumar Agarwal versus Dinesh Kumar Agarwal & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 454
The Supreme Court has ruled that there is a difference between the arbitrator appointed under Section 11(5) and under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) and failing any written agreement between the parties on the procedure for appointing an arbitrator (s) under Section 11(2), application for appointment of arbitrator (s) shall be maintainable under Section 11(5) and not under Section 11(6).
The Bench of Justices M. R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna held that once the dispute is referred to arbitration and the sole arbitrator is appointed by the parties by mutual consent, the arbitration agreement cannot be invoked for the second time.
22. "Group Of Companies" Doctrine Needs Relook, Says Supreme Court; Refers Issues To Larger Bench
Case Name: Cox and Kings Limited v. SAP India Private Limited And Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 455
The Supreme Court has referred various aspects regarding the application of the doctrine of 'Group of Companies', which is often utilised to bind non-signatories to an Arbitration Agreement, to a larger Bench.
"There is a clear need for having a relook at the doctrinal ingredients concerning the group of companies doctrine", observed a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India, N.V. Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and A.S. Bopanna.
23. In PMLA Cases, Courts Cannot Proceed On The Basis Of Preponderance Of Probabilities: Supreme Court
Case Title: J.Sekar @Sekar Reddy Versus Directorate of Enforcement| Criminal Appeal No. 738 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 456
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Vineet Saran and JK Maheshwari has observed that in cases of PMLA, Court cannot proceed on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.
It was also observed that it is incumbent upon the Court to look into the allegation and the material collected in support thereto and to find out whether the prima facie offence is made out.
The Top Court had rendered this observation while considering a criminal appeal assailing Madras High Court's order dated February 4, 2021 wherein the High Court while dismissing the petition u/s 482 of CrPC held that the appellant's argument that the FIR with respect to schedule offense was closed for want of evidence and in absence of connected evidence with a crime of schedule offense, the prosecution for offenses under Sections 3 & 4 of "PMLA could not be sustained.
Case Title : Dilip Hariramani vs Bank of Baroda
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 457
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna has held that a person cannot be convicted for the offence of dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act merely because he was a partner of the firm which had taken the loan or that he stood as a guarantor for such a loan.
Case Title: Sathyanath vs Sarojamani | CA 3680 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 458
The Supreme Court observed that a plea of res judicata cannot be determined as preliminary issue when it is a mixed question of law and fact.
Preliminary issues can be those where no evidence is required and on the basis of reading of the plaint or the applicable law, if the jurisdiction of the Court or the bar to the suit is made out, the Court may decide such issues with the sole objective for the expeditious decision, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian said.
26. [Delhi Govt vs LG] Supreme Court Refers Questions On The Issue Of Services To Constitution Bench
Case Title: Govt Of NCT Delhi vs Union of India: CA 2357/2017
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 459
A 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli referred to a Constitution Bench limited questions pertaining to the legal dispute between the Delhi Government and the Central Government regarding the control over administrative services in the national capital.
Case Title: Samarpan Varishtha Jan Parisar vs Rajendra Prasad Agarwa
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 460
The Supreme Court observed that the inmates of a old age home are licensees and have a legal right to stay in the room of the old age home only so long as they comply with the terms and conditions of such license.
"The inmates in the old age home are licensees and are expected to maintain a minimum level of discipline and good behaviour and not to cause disturbance to the fellow inmates who are also senior citizens.", the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian.
Case Name: Ravinder Singh @ Kaku vs State of Punjab | CrA 1307 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 461
The Supreme Court bench of Justices UU Lalit and Vineet Saran has observed that the certificate under Section 65B(4) of Evidence Act is mandatory to produce electronic evidence and that the oral evidence in the place of such certificate cannot possibly suffice.
Case Title: Veena Singh (D) vs District Registrar/Additional Collector (F/R)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 462
The Supreme Court observed that the execution of a document/deed does not stand admitted merely because a person admits to having signed the document/deed.
The "term" execution in Section 35(1)(a) Registration Act means that a person has signed a document after having fully understood it and consented to its terms, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna and Bela M. Trivedi observed.
Case Title : Suresh Mahajan versus State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 463
Noting that "the reality in the state of Madhya Pradesh as of now, is that, more than 23, 263 local bodies are functioning without the elected representatives for last over two years and more", the Supreme Court on Tuesday observed, "This is bordering on break down of rule of law and more so, palpable infraction of the constitutional mandate qua the existence and functioning of such local self-government, which cannot be countenanced"
Case Name: Nedumpilli Finance Company Limited vs State of Kerala | CA 5233 0F 2012
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 464
The Supreme Court has held that the state enactments such as Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 and Gujarat Money Lenders Act, 2011 will have no application to Non Banking Financial Companies (NBFC) regulated by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).
The bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed that the Chapter IIIB of the RBI Act is a complete code in itself and the power of intervention available for the RBI over NBFCs, is 'from the cradle to the grave'.
Case Title: Bharat Kalra vs Raj Kishan Chabra | CA 3788 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 465
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian has reiterated the time limit for filing of the written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure is not mandatory (if it is not a commercial suit).
In this case, a suit for injunction was filed by the plaintiff. The High Court upheld the Trial court order refusing to condone the delay of 193 days in filing of the written statement on the ground that there was "no plausible explanation and coherent reason" explaining the delay in filing the written statement.
Case Name: Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh vs State of Goa
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 466
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed that only the clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any order fixing or revising minimum rates of wages can be corrected by invoking Section 10 of the Minimum Wages Act.
Case Name: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 467
The Supreme Court revoked the approval granted by the Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) for doubling the existing railway line from Castlerock (Karnataka) to Kulem (Goa).
The bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, B R Gavai and Aniruddha Bose observed that the assessment of the impact which the project would have on the environment..would have to be strictly undertaken before the project is considered by the NBWL.
Case Title: Rekha Jain vs State of Karnataka | CrA 749 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 468
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna has observed that, to make out a case against a person for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, there must be a dishonest inducement to deceive a person to deliver any property to any other person.
Case Title: New Delhi Municipal Council vs Minosha India Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 469
The Supreme Court bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy has held that the entire period during which the moratorium was in force in respect of corporate debtor can be excluded while computing the period of limitation for a suit or proceeding by the corporate debtor.
37. KEEP THE SEDITION LAW IN ABEYANCE: SUPREME COURT RULES IN A HISTORIC ORDER
Case Title: S.G. VOMBATKERE vs UNION OF INDIA ( WPC 682/2021) EDITORS GUILD OF INDIA AND ANR. vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (WPC 552/2021)
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 470
In a historic development, the Supreme Court on ordered that the 152-year old sedition law under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code should be effectively kept in abeyance till the Union Government reconsiders the provision.
In an interim order, the Court urged the Centre and the State governments to refrain from registering any FIRs under the said provision while it was under re-consideration.
A bench comprising the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli held that all pending trials, appeals and proceedings with respect to charges framed under Section124 A be kept in abeyance. Adjudication with respect to other sections may proceed with no prejudice be caused to the accused, it held.
Case Title: M.P. Rajya Tilhan Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Maryadit vs Modi Transport Service
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 471
The Supreme Court observed that a court appointed commissioner's report is only an opinion or noting and are 'non-adjudicatory in nature'.
The parties can contest an expert opinion/commissioner's report, and the court, after hearing objections, can determine whether or not it should rely upon such an expert opinion/commissioner's report, the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi observed.
39. Appeal To NCLAT Shall Be Filed Within A Period Of 30 Days, Reiterates Supreme Court
Case Title: Safire Technologies Pvt. Ltd Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 472
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justice L N Rao and Justice P S Narasimha in the case of Safire Technologies Pvt Ltd versus Regional Provident Fund Commissioner reiterates that an appeal against the order of NCLT shall be filed before the NCLAT within a period of 30 days and the appellate tribunal can only condone delay for a period of 15 days.
Case Title: Aravinth R.A. vs Secretary To Government Of India Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 473
The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of Regulations 4(a)(i), 4(a)(ii), 4(b) & 4(c) of the National Medical Commission (Foreign Medical Graduate Licentiate) Regulations 2021, Schedule II 2(a) and 2(c)(i) of the National Medical Commission (Compulsory Rotating Medical Internship) Regulations, 2021.
The court held that the National Medical Commission has power to frame these Regulations for foreign medical graduates.
"It is true that the country needs more doctors, but it needs really qualified doctors and not persons trained by institutions abroad, to test their skills only in their mother land.", the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed.
Case Title: Prabha Tyagi vs Kamlesh Devi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 474
The Supreme Court held that a victim of domestic violence can enforce her right to reside in a shared household, irrespective of whether she actually lived in the shared household.
"Even if an aggrieved person is not in a domestic relationship with the respondent in a shared household at the time of filing of an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act but has at any point of time lived so or had the right to live and has been subjected to domestic violence or is later subjected to domestic violence on account of the domestic relationship, is entitled to file an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act.", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna held.
42. Contract Act Does Not Recognize Sale Of Pledged Goods By Pawnee To Self : Supreme Court
Case Title : PTC India Financial Services Ltd versus Venkateswarlu Kari and another
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 475
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna has held that the Indian Contract Act 1872 does not recognize the sale of the pledged goods by a pawnee to himself in the event of default of payment by the pawnor.
The Court noted that as per Section 176 of the Contract Act, in the event of default by the pawnor, the pawnee may bring a suit or sell the pledged items on giving the pawnor reasonable notice of the sale.
Case Name: Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. And Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 476
The Supreme Court has bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian has held that a person who purchased a land after it vested with the State under land acquisition proceedings has no right to claim lapsing of the proceedings invoking Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Case: K Dhandapani vs State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 477
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a man accused in a POCSO case after noticing that he had married the prosecutrix and had two children.
"This Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix. We have been informed about the custom in Tamilnadu of the marriage of a girl with the maternal uncle.", the bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai observed while rejecting the objection raised by the State which contended that the marriage might be only for the purpose of escaping punishment.
Case Title: Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. vs Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission | CA 2578-2579 OF 2008
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 478
The Supreme Court bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai has observed that an association of corporate bodies can establish a captive power plant primarily for their own use.
46. Duomatic Principle In Company Law Applicable Even In Indian Context: Supreme Court
Case Title: Mahima Datla vs Renuka Datla | CA 2776 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 479
The Supreme Court observed that Duomatic Principle that 'strict adherence to a statutory requirement may be dispensed with if it is demonstrated otherwise on facts, if the same is consented by all members' is applicable even in the Indian context.
The bench comprising Justices Vineet Saran and JK Maheshwari clarified that the said principle is only applicable in those cases wherein bona fide transactions are involved and that 'Fraud' is a clear exception.
Case Title: Veerendra vs State of Madhya Pradesh | CrA 5 & 6 OF 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 480
The Supreme Court observed that a lapse or omission to carry out DNA profiling, by itself, cannot be held to be fatal in rape cum murder cases.
"The lapse or omission (purposeful or otherwise) to carry out DNA profiling, by itself, cannot be permitted to decide the fate of a trial for the offence of rape especially, when it is combined with the commission of the offence of murder as in case of acquittal only on account of such a flaw or defect in the investigation the cause of criminal justice would become the victim.", the bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and C T Ravikumar observed.
Case Title : Ibrat Faizan versus Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 481
The Supreme Court has held that an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 can be challenged in a writ petition filed before a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna held that NCDRC is a "tribunal" falling under Article 227 . The legality of the order passed by the Delhi High Court by which it held as maintainable the Article 227 petition filed against the NCDRC order was in question before the Supreme Court.
Case Title: Surendran vs State of Kerala |CrA 1080 of 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 482
Overruling some of its earlier judgments, the Supreme Court observed that evidence of a deceased wife under Section 32 of Evidence Act with respect to cruelty could be admissible in a trial for a charge under Section 498A of the IPC.
This is, however, subject to satisfaction of two preconditions (1) Her cause of death must come into question in the matter (2) The prosecution will have to show that the evidence that is sought to be admitted with respect to Section 498A of the IPC must also relate to the circumstances of the transaction of the death.
The bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli upheld the judgment of the Kerala High Court which had set aside the concurrent findings of conviction of the courts below and acquitted the appellant under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code while confirming his conviction under Section 498A of the IPC.
Case Title: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Chetan Jeff| Civil Appeal No. 3116 Of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 483
The Supreme Court recently approved the rejection of the candidature of a person for the post of police constable for suppressing the pendency of a criminal case against him.
A division bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna was considering an appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgments of a single bench and a division bench of the Rajasthan High Court which had directed for accepting the candidature(State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Chetan Jeff). The High Court had observed that the application can be accepted as the offences are trivial.
Case Title: Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah @ Lala Vakil vs State of Gujarat | WP(C) 135 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 484
The Supreme Court observed that the remission or premature release in terms of the policy which is applicable in the State where the crime was committed has to be considered.
The bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath observed that the appropriate Government under Section 432(7) CrPC can be either the Central or the State Government but there cannot be a concurrent jurisdiction of two State Governments.
Case : Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority versus Maradu Municipality and others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 485
The Supreme Court has held that the owners of the flats in the four buildings in Maradu, Kochi, which were demolished in 2020 for CRZ violations, are not entitled to interest on the refund payable to them by the builders.
A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai ruled so on the reasoning that the purchasers had been staying in the flats allotted to them for a period of 8-9 years on an average and that they still have undivided share in the land, the market value of which has increased substantially. The bench also observed that the flats that were taken possession of in the years between 2009-2013 would have depreciated in value.
53. "Will Create Chaos & Uncertainty": Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Postpone NEET PG 2022 Exam
Case Title: Dr R Dinesh Kumar Reddy v. Medical Counselling Committee| WP(C) 341 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 486
The Supreme Court dismissed pleas to postpone NEET-PG 2022 scheduled for May 21, saying postponement will create chaos and uncertainty and will impact patient care and will cause prejudice to over 2 lakh students who have prepared.
Case Name: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Levis Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd.| Civil Appeal No. 2955 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 487
The Supreme Court, recently, held that in cases of overlapping insurance policies, when the defined loss of the insured is fully indemnified by one insurer, the second insurer is not liable for the claim towards the same incident.
"A contract of insurance is and always continues to be one for indemnity of the defined loss, no more no less. In the case of specific risks, such as those arising from loss due to fire, etc., the insured cannot profit and take advantage by double insurance."
A Bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and P.S. Narasimha allowed appeal assailing the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which directed the insurance company to pay Rs. 1.78 crores towards the claim raised by the insured.
Case Title: Satish Kumar Jatav vs State of UP | CrA 770 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 488
The Supreme Court observed that when a clear case is made out for the offences alleged, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the ground that "no useful purpose will be served by prolonging the proceedings of the case".
The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna reiterated that a High Court must pass a speaking and reasoned order while disposing petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Case Title: Nanjundappa vs State of Karnataka | CrA 900 OF 2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 489
The Supreme Court noted that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur stricto sensu would not apply to a criminal case.
"For bringing home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has to firstly prove negligence and then establish direct nexus between negligence of the accused and the death of the victim.", the bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli observed while acquitting two persons accused under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code for causing death by negligence.
Case Title: Suresh Chandra vs State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 490
The Supreme Court observed that Advocates On Record have to comply with the requirements under the Supreme Court Rules 2013 of certifying execution of Vakalatnama.
Justice Abhay S. Oka, in an order passed last week, observed:
-If the Vakalatnama is executed in presence of the Advocate on Record himself, it is his duty to certify that the execution was made in his presence. If he knows the litigant personally, he can certify the execution. If he does not personally know the litigant, he must verify the identity of the person signing the Vakalatnama from the documents such as Aadhaar or PAN card.
-If the client has not signed the Vakalatnama in his presence, the AOR must ensure that it bears his endorsement as required by clause (b)(ii) of Rule 7 of Supreme Court Rules 2013.
Case Title: New Okhla Industrial Development Authority versus Anand Sonbhadra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 491
Supreme Court in the case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority versus Anand Sonbhadra held that the NOIDA is an operational creditor under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. (IBC/Code)
The Bench comprising of Justice KM Joseph and Justice Hrishikesh Roy dismissed the appeal filed by NOIDA against the judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) wherein NCLAT held that the NOIDA is an operational Creditor under IBC and cannot be considered as a Financial Creditor of the Corporate Debtor under the provisions of the Code.
Case Title: Sudhir Ranjan Patra (D) vs Himansu Sekhar Srichandan | CA 3641 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 492
The Supreme Court observed when an ex parte decree is set aside and the suit is restored to file, the defendants cannot be relegated to the position prior to the date of hearing of the suit when he was placed ex parte.
The bench comprising Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna, in this case, observed that a Trial Court can consider whether on setting aside the exparte decree, defendants' prayer to permit them to file their written statement can be allowed?
Case Title: BBR (India) Private Limited vs S.P. Singla Constructions Private Limited | CA 4130-4131 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 493
The Supreme Court observed that the appointment of a new arbitrator who holds the arbitration proceedings at a different location would not change the jurisdictional 'seat' already fixed by the earlier or first arbitrator.
The place of arbitration in such an event should be treated as a venue where arbitration proceedings are held, the bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna observed.
Case Title: A.G. Perarivalan v. State, Through Superintendent of Police CBI/SIT/MMDA, Chennai, Tamil Nadu And Anr. Crl.A. No. 10039-10040 of 2016]
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 494
The Supreme Court while exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution to release A.G. Perarivalan, one of the convicts in Rajiv Gandhi's assassination, restated that Governor has the power under Article 161 to remit/commute/pardon sentences imposed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, since the executive power of the State extends to the said provision.
A Bench comprising Justices L. Nageshwara Rao, B.R. Gavai and A.S. Bopanna was unable to accept the submission made by the Additional Solicitor General, Mr. K.M. Nataraj that the President has the exclusive power under Article 72 to pardon or grant remission or commute sentences imposed under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
62. "Low Case Load": Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Establish NGT Benches In Every State
Case Title: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association vs Union of India | WP(C) 433 OF 2012
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 495
In its judgment upholding constitutionality of Section 3 of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010, the Supreme Court also observed that the seat of the NGT benches can be located as per exigencies and it is not necessary to locate them in every State.
If the NGT Benches are set up in all 28 States and 8 union territories as is suggested, the judges and other members in these forums might be left twiddling their thumbs, the bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy observed.
Case Title: Indian Overseas Bank vs RCM Infrastructure Ltd | CA 4750 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 496
The Supreme Court observed that the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act cannot be continued once the CIRP is initiated and the moratorium is ordered.
The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai noted that, in such a situation, any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the Corporate Debtor in respect of its property including any action under the SARFAESI Act is prohibited.
64. Section 18 Limitation Act Is Applicable To IBC Proceedings, Reiterates Supreme Court
Case Title: State Bank of India vs Krishidhan Seeds Private Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 497
The Supreme Court observed that the provisions of Section 18 of the Limitation Act are applicable to proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
An acknowledgement in a balance sheet without a qualification can furnish a legitimate basis for determining as to whether the period of limitation would stand extended, so long as the acknowledgement was within a period of three years from the original date of default, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant observed.
Case Title: Jaswinder Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representative v. Navjot Singh Sidhu And Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 498
While enhancing the sentence of Navjot Singh Sidhu to one year imprisonment in the 1988 road rage case, the Supreme Court of India on Thursday made important observations regarding the necessity of maintaining a reasonable proportion between the seriousness of the crime and the punishment.
The observations have been made while allowing the review petition filed by victim's family against Supreme Court's 2018 verdict reducing Sidhu's sentence to Rs 1000 fine from 3 years imprisonment.
A bench of Justices A. M. Khanwilkar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul observed that while undue harshness is not required in awarding punishment, inadequate punishment may lead to sufferance of the community at large.
Case Title: Canara Bank vs GS Jayarama
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 499
The Supreme Court observed that the Permanent Lok Adalats have adjudicatory functions under the Legal Services Act,1987 and thus empowered to decide a dispute before it on merits.
The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and PS Narasimha held that conciliation proceedings under Section 22-C of the LSA Act are mandatory in nature. Even if the opposite party does not appear, the Permanent Lok Adalat is still bound to follow the step-by-step procedure.
The court observed that the main goal is conciliation and settlement of disputes in relation to public utilities, with a decision on merits always being the last resort.
Case Title : Union of India and Anr versus M/s Mohit Minerals Through Director
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 500
In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court has held that the recommendations of the GST council are not binding on the Union and the State Governments.
A bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud held that the Parliament intended that the recommendations of the GST Council will have persuasive value.
Importantly, the Court held that both the Parliament and the State Legislatures can equally legislate on matters of Goods and Service Tax.
Case Title: Rashtreeya Sikshana Samithi Trust vs Committee For Fixation of Fee Structure Of Private Professional Colleges
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 501
The Supreme Court, in an order passed has prohibited managements of private medical colleges from accepting payment of fees in cash.
This is to avoid charging of capitation fee. The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai also agreed to the suggestion for setting up web-portal under the aegis of Supreme Court wherein any information about the private medical colleges charging capitation fees can be furnished by the students.
Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh vs Raj Kumar| CA 9746 -9747 of 2011
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 502
The Supreme Court held that the conditions of service of a public servant, including matters of promotion and seniority, are governed by the extant rules.
The three judge bench headed by Justice Uday Umesh Lalit overruled its judgment in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao which held that the appointments to the public posts that fell vacant prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the old Rules and not by the amended rules.
The bench, also comprising Justices S.Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha, observed that the rights and obligations of persons serving the Union and the States are to be sourced from the rules governing the services and that there is no right for an employee outside the said rules.
Case Title: Sabitri Samantaray vs State of Odisha | CrA 988 OF 2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 503
The Supreme Court observed that the Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act applies to cases where chain of events has been successfully established by the prosecution, from which a reasonable inference is made out against the accused.
"In a case based on circumstantial evidence, whenever an incriminating question is posed to the accused and he or she either evades response, or offers a response which is not true, then such a response in itself becomes an additional link in the chain of event," the bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli observed.
Case Title: Faizabad-Ayodhya Development Authority vs Dr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey | CA 2915 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 504
The Supreme Court held that landowners who obtained interim orders due to which awards could not be passed under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 could not invoke Section 24(1) of RFCTLARR Act to claim higher compensation.
"In a case where on the date of commencement of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, no award has been declared under Section 11 of the Act, 1894, due to the pendency of any proceedings and/or the interim stay granted by the Court, such landowners shall not be entitled to the compensation under Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013," the Court held.
The bench comprising Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna observed that such landowners shall be entitled to the compensation only under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Case Title: Knit Pro International vs State of NCT of Delhi | CrA 807 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 505
The Supreme Court held that the offence of copyright infringement under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable and non-bailable offence.
If the offence is punishable with imprisonment for three years and onwards but not more than seven years the offence is a cognizable offence, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
Case Title: Gurmel Singh vs Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 506
The Supreme Court observed that while settling the claims, the insurance company should not be too technical and ask for the documents, which the insured is not in a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control.
The bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna noted that, in many cases, it is found that the insurance companies are refusing the claim on flimsy grounds and/or technical grounds.
Case Title: SP Velumani vs Arappor Iyakkam & Ors
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 507
The Supreme Court criticized the Madras High Court for not allowing SP Velumani, former Tami Nadu Minister during the AIADMK term, to have a copy of the preliminary report filed against him in a corruption case.
"When the State has not pleaded any specific privilege which bars disclosure of material utilized in the earlier preliminary investigation, there is no good reason for the High Court to have permitted the report to have remained shrouded in a sealed cover", said a bench led by the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana while ordering the High Court to give copy of the preliminary report to Velumani.
Case Title : IN RE: EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT 1881
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 508
With a view of reduce the pendency of cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Supreme Court on Thursday directed the establishment of pilot courts presided over by retired judges in 5 districts of 5 states with the highest pendency (namely, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh).
A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and S Ravindra Bhat passed the direction in the suo motu case taken by the Supreme Court last year to deal with the pendency of cheque dishonour cases(In Re Expeditious Trial Of Cases Under Section 138 of N.I Act).
76. Supreme Court Lifts Curbs On Iron Ore Sale From Mines In Karnataka; Allows Export
Case Title : Samaj Parivarthana Samudaya versus State of Karnataka and others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 509
The Supreme Court lifted the curbs on sale of iron ore sale in Karnataka and allowed the export of the ore subject to the terms and conditions of the Government of India.
The Court allowed the mine operators to sell the already excavated iron ore by entering into direct contracts without resorting to e-auction.
Case Title : Manoj & Others versus State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510
Observing that death sentences are most often imposed by the trial courts in a retributive sense, the Supreme Court has issued a set of practical guidelines to ensure that the mitigating circumstances of the accused are properly considered at the trial stage itself.
The Court noted that in most cases, the information relating to the mitigating circumstances are collected at the appellate stage, and such information mostly relate to the post-conviction circumstances.
"The unfortunate reality is that in the absence of well-documented mitigating circumstances at the trial level, the aggravating circumstances seem far more compelling, or overwhelming, rendering the sentencing court prone to imposing the death penalty, on the basis of an incomplete, and hence, incorrect application of the Bachan Singh test", the bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi observed.
Case Title: Harnek Singh vs Gurmit Singh | CA 4126-4127/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 511
The Supreme Court observed that the findings of the report of Medical Council Of India on professional conduct of doctors are relevant while considering medical negligence compensation claims.
The bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha also observed that in the proceedings for damages due to professional negligence, the question of intention does not arise.
Case Title: Dr. K. M. Sharma vs State of Chhattisgarh | CA 3030 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 512
The Supreme Court held that Shiksha Karmis in Chhattisgarh cannot claim parity in pay-scale with that of Municipal teachers on the principle of equal pay for equal work.
Referring to the relevant rules, the bench comprising Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna dismissed the appeals by observing thus:
When the Municipal teachers and the Shiksha Karmis are appointed under different Rules and there are different methods of selection and recruitment, a Shiksha Karmi cannot claim parity in pay-scale with that of Municipal teachers on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Therefore, it is observed and held that Shiksha Karmis, who are governed by the Shiksha Karmis Rules, 1998 under which they were appointed, are entitled to pay-scales under the Shiksha Karmis Rules, 1998 only, which are being paid to them.
Case Title: Union of India vs Anil Prasad |CA 4073 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 513
The Supreme Court observed that an Armed Forces employee on reemployment in government service is not entitled to his pay scales at par with his last drawn pay in Armed Force.
The reference to the last drawn pay in the armed forces is only to ensure that the pay computed in the civil post in the manner envisaged in para 8 of Central Civil Services (fixation of Pay of Reemployed Pensioners) Order, 1986 does not exceed the basic pay (including the deferred pay but excluding other emoluments) last drawn by the personnel in the armed forces, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
Case Title: Employees State Insurance Corporation vs Dr. Vinay Kumar | CA 4150 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 514
The Supreme Court observed that a candidate does not have a legal right to insist that the recruitment process set in motion be carried to its logical end.
Even inclusion of a candidate in the select list may not clothe the candidate with such a right, the bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy observed. The bench clarified that this does not mean that the employer is free to act in an arbitrary manner.
Case Title: Munni Devi Alias Nathi Devi (D) vs Rajendra Alias Lallu Lal (D) | CA 5894 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 515
The Supreme Court observed that settled exclusive possession of a property of Hindu Undivided Family(HUf) by a widow would create a presumption that such property was earmarked for realization of her pre-existing right of maintenance.
This is more particularly when the surviving coparcener did not earmark any alternative property for recognizing her pre-existing right of maintenance, the bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi observed.
Case Title: Abhishek vs State of Maharashtra | CrA 869 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 516
The Supreme Court observed that continuing unlawful activity with the objective of gaining advantages other than economic or pecuniary is also an "organised crime" under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999.
There could be advantage to a person committing a crime which may not be directly leading to pecuniary advantage or benefit but could be of getting a strong hold or supremacy in the society or even in the syndicate itself, the bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose said.
Case Title: Baiju KG vs Dr VP Joy | CP(C) 244/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 517
While considering a contempt plea preferred by victims of endosulfan alleging failure on the part of State of Kerala to disburse 5 lakhs compensation, the Supreme Court asked the State's Chief Secretary to hold monthly meetings to undertake the process of identification of the victims of endosulfan, ensuring disbursement of compensation of Rs 5 lakhs and taking steps to ensure provision of medical facilities.
Case Title: INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS' ASSOCIATION CHANDIGARH (REGD.) & ORS. v UNION OF INDIA & ORS.| CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).3877/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 518
The Supreme Court recently struck down the clause of April 2018 notification issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs which required private unaided educational institutions in Chandigarh to inter alia publish their balance sheets/ income and expenditure account on their websites.
The part of the notification was struck down by the bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, AS Oka and JB Pardiwala while considering special leave petition assailing Punjab and Haryana High Court's order dated May 28, 2021 of upholding an April 2018 notification issued by the authority by exercising powers under Section 87 of Punjab Re- organisation Act, 1966.
Case Title: Gurukanwarpal Kirpal Singh vs Surya Prakasam | SLP(Crl) 5485/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 519
The Supreme Court observed that the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 405 will not be attracted if there was no entrustment of the property with the accused.
Sine qua non for attracting Section 405 IPC is the entrustment of the property with the accused persons, the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and CT Ravikumar observed.
Case Title: Babasaheb Raosaheb Kobarne vs Pyrotek India Private Limited | SLP(C) 2522/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 520
The Supreme Court observed that its order excluding the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 for the purposes of limitation is applicable with respect to the limitation prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 also.
In this case, the Trial Court refused to condone the delay in filing the written statement by the defendants. The Bombay High Court, dismissing the petition challenging this order of the Trial Court, observed that the period of 120 days within which the written statement could have been taken on record, expired on 09.05.2020 which was during the lock-down imposed.
Allowing the appeal filed by the defendants, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed that the High Court ought to have excluded the aforesaid period for the purpose of filing the written statement and ought to have been permitted to take the written statement on record.
Case Title : Aarav Jain versus Bihar Public Service Commission
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 521
The Supreme Court has set aside the decision of Bihar Public Service Commission to reject the applications of 8 candidates to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) on the ground that they had not produced the originals of their certificates at the time of interviews.
A bench comprising Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath passed the order taking note of the fact that these candidates had scored higher marks than last selected candidate, and that no one had a case that the particulars furnished by them were incorrect.
89. Compassionate Appointments Must Be Decided Within Six Months Of Applications : Supreme Court
Case Title: Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa And Ors. Civil Appeal No. 4103 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 522
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna has opined that the applications for appointment on compassionate ground ought to be decided in a time bound manner and not beyond a period of six months from the date of submission of the completed applications. The Apex Court was apprehensive that if the applications are not decided expeditiously, then the whole purpose of such appointments would be frustrated.
Case Title: M/s Shree Vishnu Constructions v. The Engineer in Chief Military Engineering Service Service And Ors. SLP (C) No. 5306 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 523
The Supreme Court of India has made strong observations emphasising the need for High Courts to decide applications for appointments of Arbitrators at the earliest.
A bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna has observed that if the arbitrators are not appointed at the earliest and the applications under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration Act for appointment of arbitrators are kept pending for a number of years, it will defeat the object and purpose of the enactment of the Act and it may lose the significance of an effective Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism.
Case Title : Advocate Association Bengaluru versus Anoop Kumar Mendiratta Contempt Petition (Civil) No.708/2021 filed in Madras Bar Association versus Union of India WP(c) No.502/2021
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 524
The Supreme Court disapproved the practice of the Central Government putting off the appointments of members to Tribunals despite recommendations by the Search-cum-Selection Committee (SCSC) citing new inputs about the candidates. If fresh materials come to light about the candidates cleared by the SCSC, such materials should be shared with the SCSC. Not doing so will be a deviation from fair process, the Court stated.
Case Title: Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal And Ors. Criminal Appeal No. 135 of 2010]
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 525
The Supreme Court directed Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to issue Aadhaar Cards to sex workers on the basis of a proforma certification submitted by a Gazetted Officer at NACO or the Project Director of the State Aids Control Society.
A Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and A.S. Bopanna asked UIDAI to ensure that confidentiality of the sex workers is maintained in the process of issuance of Aadhar Cards.
Case Name: C.C., C.E. & S.T. - Bangalore (Adjudication) Etc. v. M/s. Northern Operating Systems Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 526
The Supreme Court has held that when the Overseas group companies providing skilled employees, on secondment basis, to its Indian counterparts amounts to supply of manpower services, the Indian company would be considered as service recipient. Therefore, the Indian company is liable to pay service tax on the salaries of the seconded employees reimbursed to the overseas company.
While the judgment is related to the service tax regime, it can have an impact on the GST regime as well in view of the similarity of the relevant provisions.
Upon perusal of the agreements entered between the Overseas group companies and the assessee (Indian counterpart), a Bench comprising Justices U.U. Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and P.S. Narasimha determined the assessee to be a service recipient and liable to be taxed, but the invocation of the extended period of limitation by the revenue was held to be untenable.
Case Title: State of West Bengal vs Gitashree Dutta (Dey) | CA 4254 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 527
The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge against cancelation of the declaration of Fair Price Shop vacancies in view of the implementation of National Food Security Act, 2013.
By recalling the vacancy notification, the State endeavored to enforce the statute and that there can be no estoppel against a statute, the bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath observed.
Case Title: Kishor Ghanshyamsa Paralikar (D) Balaji Mandir Sansthan Mangrul (Nath)| CA 3794 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 528
The Supreme Court observed that the time for payment of sale consideration can be extended even in a consent decree of specific performance.
The court added that Section 28 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, not only permits the judgment debtors to seek rescission of the contract but also permits extension of time by the court to pay the amount.
A suit for specific performance does not come to an end on the passing of a decree and the court which has passed the decree for specific performance retains control over the decree even after the decree has been passed, the bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath observed.
Case Title: Chandrapal vs State of Chhattisgarh | CrA 378 OF 2015
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 529
The Supreme Court observed that extra judicial confession made by the co-accused could be admitted in evidence only as a corroborative piece of evidence.
In absence of any substantive evidence against the accused, the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the co-accused loses its significance and there cannot be any conviction based on such extra judicial confession of the co-accused, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Bela M. Trivedi said.
Case Title: P. R. Adikesavan Versus The Registrar General High Court Of Madras And Anr.| Crl.A. No. 847/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 530
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge against a High Court's judgment which punished an advocate for contempt of court.
A vacation bench comprising Justices DY Chandracud and Bela M Trivedi was hearing a special leave petition against the Madras High Court's order holding an advocate guilty of Contempt and sentencing him to 2 weeks imprisonment as well as debarring him from practicing for a period of 1 year for obstructing the execution of a non-bailable warrant issued by the HC against him.
Terming the Advocate's conduct as "thoroughly contemptuous", the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Bela M Trivedi orally remarked,
"Ultimately you know, judges are assaulted. There is no protection of judges in the district judiciary, sometimes not even a lathi welding policeman. This is happening across the country. You cannot level wanton allegations. Imagine 100 lawyers gathering. Lawyers are also subject to the process of law and we are all citizens of the state. I've seen what happens in other parts of the country and this is becoming a new part of fashion in making allegations against the judges. The stronger the judge, the worse the allegations. This is happening in Bombay, rampant in Uttar Pradesh and now even Madras."
98. Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi HC Bail To Man Accused Of Kidnap-Murder Of 13 Year Old Boy
Case Title: Mamta and Anr Vs The State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 531
The Supreme Court has set aside the Delhi High Court order granting bail to a man accused of kidnapping and murdering the 13-year-old son of a Delhi jeweler in 2014, whose body was found in a drain in East Delhi in November 2014.
The Court observed that the trial is going on and important witnesses are yet to be examined. The Court added that the High Court ignored relevant aspects while granting bail and omitted to note the gravity of the offence and the role attributed to the accused.
Case Title: Nazma Naz vs Rukhsana Bano | CrA 820 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 532
The Supreme Court observed that any fault or shortcoming on the part of the staff of the Subordinate Court or any delay in compliance by the Court are not by itself a reason to transfer a case.
While considering the appeal filed against this order, the bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose observed:
"In the totality of circumstances of the case, we do not wish to make any comments on the nature of proceedings this matter has undergone but, we are clearly of the view that because of any fault or shortcoming on the part of the staff of the Subordinate Court and for that matter, any delay in compliance by the Court were hardly the reasons for the High Court to immediately adopt the course of transferring the matter and that too, to a different station."
Case Title: Levaku Pedda Reddamma vs Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma | CA 4096 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 533
The Supreme Court observed that refusing permission to a party in a civil suit to produce additional documents even if there is some delay will lead to denial of justice.
In such cases, the trial Court can impose some costs rather than to decline the production of the documents itself, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed.
In this case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court affirming the order passed by the trial Court refusing to permit the defendant to produce additional documents in terms of Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The defendant approached the Apex Court.
101. Recovery Certificate Holder Can Initiate CIRP As Financial Creditor Under IBC : Supreme Court
Case Name: Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. A. Balakrishna And Anr.| Civil Appeal No. 689 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 534
The Supreme Court bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and A.S. Bopanna, held that a liability in respect of a claim arising out of a Recovery Certificate under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 would be a "financial debt" within the meaning of Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and a holder of such Recovery Certificate would be a "financial creditor" under Section 5(7) of the IBC.
It further held that a person would be entitled to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) within a period of three years from the date on which such Recovery Certificate is issued.
"..we hold that a liability in respect of a claim arising out of a Recovery Certificate would be a "financial debt" within the meaning of clause (8) of Section 5 of the IBC. Consequently, the holder of the Recovery Certificate would be a financial creditor within the meaning of clause (7) of Section 5 of the IBC. As such, the holder of such certificate would be entitled to initiate CIRP, if initiated within a period of three years from the date of issuance of the Recovery Certificate"
Case Title: Pragya Higher Secondary School vs National Institute of Open Schooling | WP(C) 343/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 535
Allowing a writ petition filed by a school, the Supreme Court observed that National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) has a duty to fix examination centres in a manner to enable students to appear in the examination with certainty and ease.
"It is for NIOS to go an extra mile rather than expecting the students to walk long distances from villages and towns to take the examination", the bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and PS Narasimha observed.
Case Name: Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority Etc. v. Shakuntla Education And Welfare Society And Ors. Etc.| Civil Appeal Nos. 4178-4197 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 536
Recently, the Supreme Court reiterated that change in policy by the Government, if guided by reason and done in public interest, would prevail over private agreements entered between Governments and private parties.
The Court held : "...it is more than settled that a change in policy by the Government can have an overriding effect over private treaties between the Government and a private party, if the same was in the general public interest. The additional requirement is that such change in policy is required to be guided by reason".
A Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai allowed an appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh assailing the order of the Allahabad High Court, which had set aside its policy decision to issue additional notices seeking additional premium from original allottees of the plots developed by the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority in Gautam Budh Nagar.
