- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Monthly Digest:...
Supreme Court Monthly Digest: September 2022
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
9 Oct 2022 11:02 AM GMT
Magistrate Cannot Make Observations Regarding Rights Of Parties On Property While Dropping Proceedings U/Sec 145 CrPC: Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that, while dropping the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC because of the pendency of civil litigations, a Magistrate cannot make any observations or return...
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that, while dropping the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC because of the pendency of civil litigations, a Magistrate cannot make any observations or return any findings as regards rights of the parties qua the property in question.
Arbitrator Has Discretion To Award Post-Award Interest On A Part Of The 'Sum': Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that an arbitrator has the discretion to award post-award interest on a part of the 'sum'. The bench comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna observed that, the arbitrator has the discretion to determine the rate of reasonable interest, the sum on which the interest is to be paid, that is whether on the whole or any part of the principal amount, and the period for which payment of interest is to be made - whether it should be for the whole or any part of the period between the date on which the cause of action arose and the date of the award.
The Supreme Court observed that the bar of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC cannot apply to an amendment which is sought on an existing suit, but applies only to the subsequent suits. The bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and JB Pardiwala also observed that the principle of constructive res judicata has no application when there was no formal adjudication between the parties after full hearing.
The Supreme Court observed that mere delay would not be a ground for rejecting the application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure. The bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and JB Pardiwala also laid down guidelines for considering applications seeking amendment of plaint. It observed that liberal approach has to adopted while considering such amendment applications.
The Supreme Court observed that inter-departmental communications cannot be relied upon as a basis to claim any right. "Before something amounts to an order of the State Government, two things are necessary. First, the order has to be expressed in the name of the Governor as required by clause (1) of Article 166 and second, it has to be communicated.", the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath observed.
The Supreme Court observed that registration of multiple FIRs by same person against same accused based on the same set of facts and the same cause of action is impermissible. "The act of the registration of such successive FIRs on the same set of facts and allegations at the instance of the same informant will not stand the scrutiny of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India", the bench comprising of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka observed.
Murder Convict Cannot Be Sentenced To Punishment Less Than Life Imprisonment: Supreme Court
There cannot be any sentence/punishment less than imprisonment for life, if an accused is convicted for murder offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari observed in a judgment
The Supreme Court observed that the twin conditions of material irregularity or fraud and substantial injury has to be satisfied before an auction sale can be set aside under Order XXI Rule 90(3) of Code of Civil Procedure. No sale could be set aside unless the Court is satisfied that the applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of irregularity or fraud in completing or conducting the sale, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S. Ravindra Bhat and MM Sundresh observed.
Motor Accident Claims - Just Compensation Exceeding The Claimed Amount Can Be Awarded: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that Motor Accident Compensation exceeding the claimed amount can be awarded. In the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded despite the claimants having sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value, the bench comprising Justices AS Bopanna and PS Narasimha observed.
The Supreme Court observed that an employee who was dismissed from service pursuant to disciplinary enquiry cannot be reinstated merely because he is acquitted by giving benefit of doubt by a criminal court on the same set of charges and facts. Merely because a person has been acquitted in a criminal trial, he cannot be ipso facto reinstated in service., the bench comprising Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed.
The Supreme Court observed that once a Court set aside an order of punishment on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the Court should not preclude the employer from holding the inquiry in accordance with law. It must remit the case concerned to the disciplinary authority to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and to conclude the same in accordance with law, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed.
The Supreme Court observed that non-Âfiling of a statement by the Highways Department answering the objections of land owners shall not vitiate land acquisition proceedings under Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001. "It is not a mandatory requirement. Therefore, the Highways Department may or may not file a statement by way of answer to the objections.", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Surya Kant and Justice A S Bopanna allowed retroactive application of SEBI Circular on Standardisation of procedure to be followed by Debenture Trustee(s) in case of default by issuers of listed debt securities. Accordingly, the shareholders of Reliance Commercial Finance Ltd are required carry out a voting process based on the SEBI guidelines and not just the Debenture Trust Deeds signed by the shareholders in compliance with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) circular.
Scheme For Appointing Heirs Of Employees On Their Retirement Is Unconstitutional: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that appointment to the heirs of the employees on their retirement/ superannuation is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of Constitution of India. If such an appointment is permitted, in that case, outsiders shall never get an appointment and only the heirs of the employees on their superannuation and/or retirement shall get an appointment and those who are the outsiders shall never get an opportunity to get an appointment though they may be more meritorious and/or well-educated and/or more qualified, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
The Supreme Court observed that the value of the returned goods is to be considered for the purpose of determining the value for refund under Section 173ÂL of the Central Excise Act. The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari rejected the contention that the returned goods may be treated as a raw material and therefore the "value" of the raw material can be considered for the purpose of "value" while determining the refund.
In a judgment, the Supreme Court explained the ambit and scope of exercise of power to discharge an accused under Sections 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The court observed that the only consideration at the stage of Section 239/240 is as to whether the allegation/charge is groundless. The test which may be applied for determining whether the charge should be considered groundless is that where the materials are such that even if unrebutted, would make out no case whatsoever, the bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and JB Pardiwala observed.
The Supreme Court held that Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) can be initiated against the Corporate Guarantor without proceeding against the principal borrower. The liability of the guarantor is co-extensive with that of the Principal Borrower, the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari observed.
The Supreme Court held that a Resolution Plan which ignores the statutory demands payable to any State Government or a legal authority, altogether, is liable to be rejected. The court also held that the Section 48 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act is not contrary to or inconsistent with Section 53 or any other provisions of the IBC. Under Section 53(1)(b)(ii), the debts owed to a secured creditor, would include the State under the GVAT Act, the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and AS Bopanna observed.
The Supreme Court observed that a tenant continuing in possession after the expiry of the lease is liable to pay mesne profits. "While a tenant at sufferance cannot be forcibly dispossessed, that does not detract from the possession of the erstwhile tenant turning unlawful on the expiry of the lease.", the bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and PS Narasimha observed. The bench observed thus while dismissing an appeal filed by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. against the decree in a suit filed by Sudera Realty Private Limited seeking mesne profits.
The Supreme Court observed that the gravity of crime is the prime consideration for deciding what should be the appropriate punishment in a criminal case.
If undue sympathy is shown by reducing the sentence to the minimum, it may adversely affect the faith of people in efficacy of law, the bench of Justices Surya Kant and Abhay S. Oka observed.
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy observed that, for conviction under Section 411 IPC, it must be established that the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property. The prosecution case against Shiv Kumar and co-accused Shatrughan Prasad was that they had received the articles looted from the truck knowing fully well that those are stolen property. The Trial Court convicted the accused and the High Court confirmed the conviction.
The Supreme Court observed that an arbitration clause has to be given effect even if it does not expressly state that the decision of the arbitrator will be final and binding on the parties. The deficiency of words in agreement which otherwise fortifies the intention of the parties to arbitrate their disputes, cannot legitimise the annulment of arbitration clause, the bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Abhay S. Oka observed.
The Supreme Court observed that while challenging ex parte decree by filing an appeal, the defendant (who had not filed application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC) can argue that ex parte proceedings against him was unjustified. It is only when the application made by a defendant under Rule 13 of Order IX of CPC is dismissed that such a defendant cannot agitate in the appeal against ex parte decree that the order directing that the suit shall proceed ex parte was illegal or incorrect, the bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka observed.
The Supreme Court observed that the courts should be slow to excercise their jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings on the basis of settlement, when the offences are capable of having an impact not merely on the complainant and the accused but also on others.
Cases involving abuse of official position and adoption of corrupt practices cannot be treated like suits for specific performance, where the refund of the money paid may also satisfy the agreement holder, the bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and V. Ramasubramanian observed.
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justice M. R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari has held that delivering a defective and old model car against a booking for a new car made by a customer who has paid full sale consideration is an "unfair trade practice". The Court added that such a practice amounts to "dishonesty on the part of the dealer" and "against morality and ethics". Holding so, the Court affirmed the direction passed by a District Consumer Forum to replace the car model and imposed a cost of Rupees one lakh on the car dealer.
Nowadays, there is a tendency to make such allegations against the judicial Officers whenever the orders are passed against a litigant and the orders are not liked by the concerned litigant, remarked the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari in a recent order passed dismissing a transfer petition. One of the grounds taken in the Transfer Petition filed under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure was that the petitioners believe that they are not getting a fair trial as the respondents being local bigwigs are able to influence the local Court.
The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition seeking direction to amend the Hindu Succession Act 1956 as recommended by the Law Commission of India in its 204th report. The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli noted that the petitioner (S. Venkatesh) is not an aggreived person. A mandamus, it is well settled, cannot be issued to the legislature to enact or amend legislation, the bench observed. The court also clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the validity of any provision of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 which may arise in an appropriate case in the future.
Every Death In Hospital Does Not Amount To Medical Negligence: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently upheld an order passed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission observing that, "every death in an institutionalized environment of a hospital does not necessarily amount to medical negligence on a hypothetical assumption of lack of due medical care." The Supreme Court bench of Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, Justice A. S. Bopanna and Justice J. B. Pardiwala was hearing a civil appeal assailing a judgment and order passed by the NCDRC by which a complaint regarding alleged medical negligence and deficiency in service was dismissed on the ground that the case was not established conclusively.
In a recent order, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli stressed that the State must implement its policy for premature release of life convicts in an objective and transparent manner. Noting that several convicts languish in jail despite serving long sentences due to inability to access legal resources to apply for remission, the Court stated that the State must consider the cases of eligible prisoners for remission in a diligent manner.
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala observed that the offer of payment of ad interim compensation to the victim cannot be a ground to release the accused on bail. In this case, accused were arrested after an FIR was registered against them under Sections 341, 342 and 376(D) IPC and under Sections 4 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(4)(w)(i) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act. The allegation was that and the accused apprehended and forcefully picked two minor girls on their motorcycles and then gang raped them.
"Once Buried, A Body Should Not Be Disturbed": Supreme Court Suggests Enactment Of Law On Exhumation
The Supreme Court has suggested that the Union Government should consider enacting an appropriate legislation on exhumation. The right to dignity and fair treatment under Article 21 of the Constitution is not only available to a living man but also to his body after his death..His family members also have a right to perform the last rites in accordance with the religious traditions., the bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala observed.
Lodging Juveniles In Adult Prisons Amounts To Deprivation Of Their Personal Liberty: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that lodging juveniles in adult prisons amounts to deprivation of their personal liberty. Once a child is caught in the web of adult criminal justice system, it is difficult for the child to get out of it unscathed, the bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and JB Pardiwala observed while considering a writ petition filed by a murder accused undergoing life imprisonment seeking appropriate directions to the respondent State of Uttar Pradesh to verify the exact age of the convict on the date of the commission of the offence. According to the convict, on the date of the commission of the offence i.e. 10.09.1982 he was a juvenile aged around 15 years.
Revealing a rather unpleasant truth, the Supreme Court of India on Monday lamented that once children are caught in the web of adult criminal justice system, it is difficult for them to get out of it unscathed. A Bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and JB Pardiwala further observed that awareness about child rights and correlated duties remain low among the functionaries of the juvenile justice system.
The Supreme Court observed that the right to contest an election is not a fundamental right but only a right conferred by a statute. An individual cannot claim that he has a right to contest election and the said stipulation violates his fundamental right, so as to file his nomination without any proposer as is required under the Act, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed while dismissing a Special Leave Petition filed by Vishwanath Pratap Singh.
The Supreme Court upheld a Tamil Nadu Government Order fixing 50% marks in SSLC for eligibility to undergo Teachers' Training Certificate Course for appointment in the State. The State Government, in exercise of its Executive Power, can determine the minimum eligibility conditions of the marks for appointment, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed.
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian observed that a Court cannot grant the relief of specific performance against a person compelling him to enter into an agreement with a third party and seek specific relief against such a third party. In this case, the specific performance of the Agreement in question comprised of two parts namely, (i) the defendant entering into an agreement with his brother's wife for the purchase of a land for providing access to the land agreed to be sold under the suit Agreement of Sale; and (ii) the defendant thereafter executing a sale deed conveying the property covered by the suit Agreement of Sale. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court. Though the Appellate Court reversed it, the High Court allowed the second appeal and upheld the Decree.
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and PS Narasimha upheld conviction of a man accused of killing his own father following a fight under the influence of liquor. Chherturam @ Chainu and his father Goienda were drinking together and later a sudden fight followed. Chherturam allegedly picked up a Nagar Wood and inflicted injuries to his father, which resultantly caused his death. The Trial Court convicted him for murder under Sections 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for life. The appeal filed by him was dismissed by the Chhattisgarh High Court.
The Supreme Court observed that second appeal jurisdiction under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act 1918, cannot be exercised for reÂappreciation of evidence. "Though it is not necessary to formulate a substantial question of law, the jurisdiction under Section 41 of the Punjab Act would permit only such decisions to be considered in second appeal which are contrary to law or to some custom or usage having the force of law, or when the courts below have failed to determine some material issue of law or custom or usage having the force of law", the bench of Justices BR Gavai and CT Ravikumar observed.
The Supreme Court observed that a simple and necessary inquiry can be conducted while considering discharge plea to find out whether a prima facie case is made out. The threshold of scrutiny required to adjudicate an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is to consider the broad probabilities of the case and the total effect of the material on record, including examination of any infirmities appearing in the case, the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha observed.
The Supreme Court reiterated that bail applications must be decided as expeditiously as possible and not to be posted in due course of time. The bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and BV Nagarathna observed thus while considering a Special Leave Petition against an order passed by Chhattisgarh High Court dismissing an interim relief prayed in an anticipatory bail application. The High Court had admitted the bail petition posted the matter for final hearing 'in due course'.
The Supreme Court observed that a court exercising power under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not strictly bound by provisions of CPC and should not withhold relief on the mere technicality. Proof of actual attempts to deal with, remove or dispose of the property with a view to defeat or delay the realisation of an impending Arbitral Award is not imperative for grant of relief under Section 9, the bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and AS Bopanna observed.
The Supreme Court observed that a false declaration with regard to the assets of a candidate, his/her spouse or dependents, constitutes corrupt practice irrespective of the impact of such a false declaration on the election of the candidate. The bench of CJI Uday Umesh Lalit, Justices Indira Banerjee and Ajay Rastogi also upheld the power of State Election Commissions to issue directions requiring disclosure of assets of the candidate, his/her spouse and dependent associates by way of affidavit.
The Supreme Court observed that there is only one domicile i.e. domicile of the country and there is no separate domicile for a State. The bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian observed that State Reorganization laws cannot take away from citizens, the right to reside and settle in any part of the country.
The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a batch of appeals filed by the Pharmacy Council of India against the judgments of certain High Courts which set aside the moratorium imposed on starting new Pharmacy colleges for 5 years. A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha expressed agreement with the High Court that the ban cannot be imposed through executive instructions.
The Supreme Court bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and P.S. Narasimha held that the right to establish an educational institution is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and reasonable restrictions on such a right can be imposed only by a law and not by an execution instruction. "The right to establish an educational institution is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and reasonable restrictions on such a right can be imposed only by a law and not by an execution instruction..."
MSMED Act- Facilitation Council Cannot Review Its Own Decisions: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act does not empower the Facilitation Council to review its own decisions. Every decision of the Facilitation Council is an award, the bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian said.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli allowed the amendments proposed to the Constitution of the Board of Cricket Control of India (BCCI) to relax the mandatory cooling off period requirement. Now, the cooling off period of 3 years will apply only if a person serves two consecutive terms at the BCCI or the State Association. Also, the cooling off period requirement will apply at that particular level, i.e., either at the State Association or BCCI. In other words, the cooling off period requirement will not bar one from seeking election to the BCCI immediately after serving two consecutive terms at the State level.
The Supreme Court bench of Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha imposed 10 Lakhs costs on applicants for attempting to seek review of a judgment under the garb of miscellaneous applications. In this case, a Miscellanious Application was filed seeking clarification of a judgment. The applicant contended that the court had not dealt with the aspect of security of pledge of shares with EARC having been arbitrarily and illegally wiped out in the Resolution Plan and invocation/non invocation of pledge of shares by EARC.
The Supreme Court observed that a High Court can quash a cheque case only if it comes across some unimpeachable and incontrovertible evidence to indicate that the Director/partner of a firm could not have been concerned with the issuance of cheques. "Vicarious criminal liability can be inferred against the partners of a firm when it is specifically averred in the complaint about the status of the partners 'qua' the firm.", the bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala observed.
The Supreme Court reiterated that the plaintiffs are the dominus litis and unless the court suo motu directs, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs. The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari observed that non-impleading the subsequent purchasers as defendants on the objection raised by the plaintiffs shall be at the risk of the plaintiffs.
Disputes Related To Tax Concessions Are Not Arbitrable: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that disputes related to tax concessions are not arbitrable. The division bench of Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli has observed that the High Court was in error in holding that the terms of e-auction provided that any dispute was arbitrable. Undoubtedly, a contractual dispute would be amenable to being resolved by arbitration. However, in the present case, the relief related to tax concessions was not of an arbitrable nature.
Supreme Court Reinstates Judicial Officer Who Was Terminated Citing 'Dheeraj Mor' Judgment
The Supreme Court directed reinstation a judicial officer of Bihar who was terminated from service citing the judgment in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi (2020) 7 SCC 401. The bench of Justices BR Gavai and CT Ravikumar observed that the Dheeraj Mor (supra) case is not applicable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.
The Supreme Court observed that it is not necessary to give an opportunity of hearing to a would- be accused before a complaint is made under Section 195/340 CrPC. The Three Judges Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul , Abhay S. Oka and Vikram Nath were answering the reference made to it by a two judges bench. The issues referred were i) Whether Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 mandates a preliminary inquiry and an opportunity of hearing to the would-be accused before a complaint is made under Section 195 of the Code by a Court? (ii) what is the scope and ambit of such preliminary inquiry?
Is Same Day Sentencing In Death Penalty Cases Proper? Supreme Court Refers Issue To Larger Bench
The Supreme Court on Monday referred to a 5-judge bench the issue relating to hearing the accused before imposing the death penalty on him. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia noted that there were conflicting judgments regarding the grant of hearing to an accused before imposing death sentence on him.
Larger Bench Judgment Will Prevail Regardless Of Number Of Judges In Majority: Supreme Court
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that a judgment delivered by a larger bench will prevail irrespective of the number of judges constituting the majority. To illustrate, the judgment of a 7-judge bench delivered with 4:3 majority will prevail over a unanimous 5-judge bench. A 5-judge bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee, Hemant Gupta, Surya Kant, M. M. Sundresh and Sudhanshu Dhulia gave this ruling while answering the second issue in the case Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Ltd versus Govt of NCT of Delhi.
Supreme Court Asks Centre To Frame Policy For Employment Of Transgender Persons
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli by way of an interim order, asked the Central Goverment in consultation with the National Council for Transgender Persons to devise appropriate policy framework in terms of which reasonable accommodation can be provided to transgender persons in seeking recourse to avenues of employment in all establishment covered by the provisions of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 (2019 Act), within a period of 3 months.
The Supreme Court observed that fixed term sentences exceeding 14 years can be awared in appropriate cases to strike a delicate balance between the victims' plea for justice and rehabilitative justice for the convicts. This fixed term sentence can only be by the High Court or this Court and not by the trial Court, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka and Vikram Nath observed.
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia set aside an NCDRC order that directed a hospital to pay compensation to a woman who delivered a child despite undergoing tubectomy procedure. In this case, a woman underwent tubectomy procedure twice, though both the procedures remained unsuccessful. She gave birth to a male child in the year 2003. She filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum alleging medical negligence on account of failed tubectomy surgery. The same was dismissed on the ground that the hospital is not a consumer. The State Consumer Commission (SCDRC) affirmed this order. Later, National Consumer Commission (NCDRC) allowed revision petition and directed to pay compensation as per the guidelines and the policy of the State.
Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of Haryana Sikh Gurudwara (Management) Act 2014
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Haryana Sikh Gurudwara (Management) Act 2014 and dismissed the petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Act. A bench comprising Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Vikram Nath delivered the judgment in a writ petition filed in 2014 by a man named Harbhajan Singh, a member of Shiromani Gurudwara Prabhandak Committee (SGPC). In 2019, Shiromani Gurudwara Prabhandak Committee also filed a writ petition challenging the Act.
The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. The bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath observed that any State enactment relating to Agricultural land tenures is a special law. The court noted that the 1954 Act deals with fragmentation, ceiling, and devolution of tenancy rights over agricultural holdings only.
The Supreme Court observed that High Courts should refrain from excercising writ jurisdiction there is an alternate remedy available. When there is an alternate remedy available, judicial prudence demands that the court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under constitutional provisions, the bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed. The bench observed thus while allowing an appeal filed against a judgment of High Court which allowed a writ petition filed against an order passed by Assessing Officer determining the tax liability along with interest and penalty under Maharashtra Value Added Tax, 2002 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
When Pension Rules are capable of more interpretations than one, the Courts should lean towards that interpretation which goes in favour of the employee, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari observed in a recent Judgment. In this case, the issue raised in the writ petition filed before the Rajasthan High Court was whether service rendered by the Writ Petitioner prior to resignation from the Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation, should be counted for the purpose of pension. The Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to count the earlier period of service rendered by the writ petitioner with the Rajasthan Agriculture Engineering Board and the Rajasthan State Agro Industry Corporation to compute his total pensionable service and release his pension and retiral benefits including arrears of pension with interest @ 9% p.a. within a period of three months. Writ appeal filed by the State was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
The Supreme Court observed that, for attracting the provision of Section 16 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, the prosecution must establish that an accused has forced and compelled the victim to render bonded labour. This force and compulsion must be at the instance of the accused and the prosecution must establish the same beyond reasonable doubt, the bench of Justices AS Bopanna and PS Narasimha said.
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian has held that merely because a person was in possession of unpublished price sensitive information at the time go trading in securities, it cannot be held that the transaction becomes the mischief of "insider trading", unless it is established that there was an intention to take advantage of the information. A distress sale of shares will not become "insider trading" merely because the person was in possession of unpublished price sensitive information.
The Supreme Court of India opined that all persons who have completed 10 years of sentence, and whose appeals will not be heard in the near future, should be enlarged on bail, unless there are other reasons to deny them bail. A division Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay Shreeniwas Oka was considering a batch of petitions of life convicts in jail whose appeals are pending before various High Courts.
The Supreme Court observed that approval of a resolution in respect of one borrower cannot discharge a co-borrower. If there are two borrowers or if two corporate bodies fall within the ambit of corporate debtors, there is no reason why proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC cannot be initiated against both the Corporate Debtors, the bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari observed.
The Supreme Court observed that there is no bar to withdrawal of an admitted CIRP application before constitution of Committee of Creditors. The settlement cannot be stifled before the constitution of the Committee of Creditors in anticipation of claims against the Corporate Debtor from third persons, the bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari said. The court observed thus while dismissing appeal against NCLAT order which gave the parties the opportunity to settle their disputes before the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) in terms of Section 12A of the IBC read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 (NCLT Rules).
The Supreme Court reiterated that the grant of ex post facto environmental clearance in exceptional cases is not impermissible. Ex post facto clearances and/or approvals cannot be declined with pedantic rigidity, regardless of the consequences of stopping the operations, the bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari observed.
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and BV Nagarathna observed that administrative/executive orders or circular cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect in the absence of any legislative competence. The dispute in this case pertains to charges for infrastructure facilities which are being provided by the BSNL to the batch of telecom service providers, which were increased by a circular dated 12th June, 2012, w.e.f. 1st April, 2009. The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, while upholding the right of the BSNL to revise the rates of the infrastructure facilities in question held that the circular dated 12th June, 2012 shall be applicable prospectively w.e.f. 1st April, 2013, instead of 1st April, 2009 and upto 31st March, 2013.
Admirality Suit| Intra-Court Appeal Does Not Lie Against All Interim Orders: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that an intra-court appeal does not lie against an order of addition of a party in an admiralty suit. "An appeal does not lie to the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court from an order of the Commercial Division (Single Bench) of the same High Court for addition of a party in an admiralty suit governed by the Admiralty Act", the bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and AS Bopanna observed. The court observed that all interim orders are not appealable.
The Supreme Court observed that the failure to produce the accused before the Court at the time of consideration of the application for extension of time for investigation amounts to a violation of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. "The failure to procure the presence of the accused either physically or virtually before the Court and the failure to inform him that the application made by the Public Prosecutor for the extension of time is being considered, is not a mere procedural irregularity. It is gross illegality that violates the rights of the accused under Article 21.", the bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka observed.
A Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprised of Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that an heir's right to participate in licitation and claim a specific item of property, "at the appropriate stage – when owelty was to be demanded", was not merely a personal right which would extinguish upon the heir's death under the Portuguese Civil Procedure Code. Since a bid is offered by the heir in their capacity as a member of the family, an item of property for which they had bid successfully, but for which no owelty was demanded by the other heirs, would be heritable, the apex court clarified.
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari directed that the FIRs registered Times Now anchor, Navika Kumar, over the remarks made by Nupur Sharma about Prophet Muhammed on a channel debate, be transferred to the IFSO unit of the Delhi Police. The FIR registered by the Delhi Police IFSO Unit shall be taken as the lead case. The direction will be applicable to future FIRs which may be registered with respect to the same telecast. Investigation of any subsequent complaint on the same News hour debate shall be transferred to IFSO Unit.
Supreme Court Orders Reinstatement Of Watchman Who Was Illegally Dismissed 20 Years Ago
The Supreme Court recently granted relief to a watchman who was wrongfully terminated from service in 2002, by ordering his reinstatement within 6 weeks. The Court further directed that the man should be paid backwages for the period from January 1, 2020 to January 1, 2022. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India UU Lalit and Justice S Ravindra Bhat passed the judgment in a petition filed by one Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja, who was appointed in 1992 as a watchman by the Kutch district panchayat. He was terminated from the services on 30.12.2002 for no cause, without notice and without following the procedure prescribed by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Employee Can Be Terminated For Suppression Or False Information Regarding Suitability: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that an employee can be terminated from service if it is found that he had suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters having a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post. The suppression of material information and making a false statement in the verification Form relating to arrest, prosecution, conviction etc., has a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee, the bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala observed.
The Supreme Court observed that, while considering an application under Section 14 SARFAESI Act, the CMM/DM is not required to adjudicate the dispute between the borrower and the secured creditor and/or between any other third party and the secured creditor with respect to the secured assets. Once all the requirements under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are complied with/satisfied by the secured creditor, it is the duty cast upon the CMM/DM to assist the secured creditor in obtaining the possession as well as the documents related to the secured assets, the bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari observed.
The Supreme Court observed that a relief of permanent injunction cannot be sought on the basis of such an unregistered document/agreement to sell. A plaintiff cannot get the relief indirectly which otherwise he/she cannot get in a suit for for specific performance, the bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari observed.
Leave Encashment Benefit Is Part Of Salary: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court bench of CJI Uday Umesh Lalit and S. Ravindra Bhat has held that leave encashment is part of salary. The Court held that the condition in Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service Rules, 2010 that barred carry forward of balance privilege leave is an arbitrary and unconscionable condition, which cannot be enforced.
In this case, the appellants were appointed against sanctioned posts by a senior secondary school in 1993. The Rajasthan High Court had dismissed their plea by holding that neither gratuity nor leave encashment was covered by the expression "salary", under Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Service Rules, 2010 or under the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition Grant-In-Aid and Service Conditions, Etc.) Rules, 1993.
Suit Is Liable To Be Dismissed If A "Necessary Party" Is Not Impleaded: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court bench of Justices BR Gavai and CT Ravikumar observed that a suit is liable to be dismissed if a "necessary party" is not impleaded. For being a necessary party, according to the court, the twin test has to be satisfied (1) there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings (2) that no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such a party.
Order I Rule 9 provides that no suit shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties, and the Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it. However, the proviso to this Rule clarifies that nothing in this rule shall apply to non-joinder of a necessary party.
The Supreme Court has once again stressed on the need to immediately deliver judgments by observing that a litigant cannot be expected to wait indefinitely for availability of the reasons for a Court Order.
In this case, the bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M. Trivedi were hearing a matter where a party to election petition filed an an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the High Court for Telangana. An order was pronounced on 15.06.2022, purportedly allowing the application and and rejecting the election petition.
The Supreme Court acquitted a man who was sentenced to death for alleged rape and murder of a six year old girl. The Court noted that there are seriously inherent contradictions in the statements made by prosecution witnesses and both the Trial Court and the High Court have overlooked it completely. "Court cannot make someone, a victim of injustice, to compensate for the injustice to the victim of a crime", the bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer, AS Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian remarked.
The Supreme Court observed that an able-bodied husband is obliged to earn by legitimate means and maintain his wife and the minor child. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute, the bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M. Trivedi observed.
Judgment Or Decree Obtained By Fraud Is To Be Treated As A Nullity: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that a judgment or decree obtained by fraud is to be treated as a nullity. Non-disclosure of the relevant and material documents with a view to obtain an undue advantage would amount to fraud, the bench of Justices BR Gavai and CT Ravikumar observed.
In this case, the Allahabad High Court had set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Rasoolabad cancelling the fair price shop licence of the writ petitioner. It was found that the cancellation was done without following the full-fledged inquiry process.
The Supreme Court bench of Justices BR Gavai and CT Ravikumar observed that time limit(s) specified in the agreement cannot be ignored altogether by the Court while excercising its discretition to grant specific performance.
In this case, the defendant executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff for sale of the suit property. The agreement of sale provided that in the event the permission from the ULC Authorities was not obtained within 75 days, the purchaser shall be entitled to get back his advance money paid after 75 days but not later than 90 days under any circumstances. The defendant terminated the agreement on 12th April 1982 stating that since the permission could not be obtained, she had cancelled the agreement of sale. After ULC permission was granted on 7th February 1984, the plaintiff had issued a legal notice to the defendant on 19th February 1984 and thereafter filed a suit for specific performance. The Trial Court decreed the suit. Later, the Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the decree by allowing defendant's appeal.
The Supreme Court of India held that under the Xth Schedule of the Constitution, the Speaker of a Legislative Assembly does not have power to deny pension and other benefits available to a former MLA while deciding a disqualification plea against him.
The Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, Justices Ravindra Bhat and JB Pardiwala was considering a set of appeals by then four JD(U) MLAs – Gyanendra Kumar Singh, Rabindra Rai, Neeraj Kumar Singh and Rahul Kumar, who were not only disqualified but also denied pensionary benefits on November 11, 2014 by the 15th Bihar Legislative Assembly Speaker.
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, A.S. Bopanna and J.B. Pardiwala declared that unmarried women are also entitled to seek abortion of pregnancy in the term of 20-24 weeks arising out of a consensual relationship. The Court ruled that exclusion of unmarried women who conceive out of live-in relationship from the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules is unconstitutional. "All women are entitled to safe and legal abortion", the Court said noting that the 2021 amendment to the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act does not make a distinction between married and unmarried women.
The Supreme Court bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud, on Thursday, held that the meaning of rape must be held to include "marital rape" for the purpose of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and Rules. The Court held that wives, who conceived out of forced sex by their husbands, will also come within the ambit of "survivors of sexual assault or rape or incest" mentioned in Rule 3B(a) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules. For context, Rule 3B(a) mentions the categories of women who can seek termination of pregnancy in the term of 20-24 weeks.
The Supreme Court observed that a woman who seeks legal abortion cannot be required to seek consent from her family. It is only the woman's consent (or her guardian's consent if she is a minor or mentally ill) which is material, the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, A.S. Bopanna and J.B. Pardiwala observed.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday read down the mandatory police reporting requirement under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act to hold that a doctor need not disclose the name and identity of the minor girl in the information given to police.
A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna and JB Pardiwala called for a harmonious reading of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act and the POCSO Act and held that a registered medical practitioner was exempt from disclosing the identity and other personal details of a minor in the information provided under Section 19 of the POCSO Act.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, A.S. Bopanna and J.B. Pardiwala, on Thursday, pronounced a significant judgement on abortion rights in India, holding that unmarried women were entitled to seek abortion of pregnancy in the term of 20-24 weeks arising out of a consensual relationship. The judgement also held that the meaning of rape must be held to include "marital rape" for the purpose of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and Rules and doctors need not disclose the identity of any minor girl seeking abortion in the information given to police.
The Supreme Court observed that an issue of limitation can be framed and determined as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2(2)(b) CPC in a case where it can be decided on admitted facts.
Though, limitation is a mixed question of law and facts it will shed the said character and would get confined to one of question of law when the foundational fact(s), determining the starting point of limitation is vividly and specifically made in the plaint averments, the bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar observed.
The Supreme Court on Friday expressed prima facie doubts about its 2015 judgment in the case Reserve Bank of India v Jayantilal N. Mistry which had held that the Reserve Bank of India was obliged to disclose defaulters list, inspection reports, annual statements etc., related to banks under the Right to Information Act.
A two-judge bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and CT Ravikumar prima facie observed that the Jayantilal Mistry case did not take into consideration the aspect of balancing the right to information and the right to privacy. The bench also noted that privacy has been declared to be a fundamental right under Article 21 in a subsequent judgment delivered by a 9-judge bench in 2017 in the Puttaswamy case.
