Mere Error In Framing Substantial Question Of Law Would Not Render A Judgment In Second Appeal To Be Set Aside [Illoth Valappil Ambunhi (D) vs. Kunhambu Karanavan]
The Supreme Court observed that mere error in framing a question of law would not render a judgment in Second Appeal liable to be set aside, if it is found that a substantial question of law existed and such question has in fact been answered by the High Court. The bench comprising Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Sanjiv Khanna also observed that perversity in arriving at a factual finding by Courts below can give rise to a substantial question of law, attracting intervention of the High Court in a Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Augusta Westland: SC Quashes Delhi HC Order Staying Proceedings Against Gautam Khitan, Asks HC To Decide Afresh [Union of India V. Gautam Khaitan]
The Supreme Court quashed a Delhi High Court order which stayed the proceedings against Gautam Khaitan under the Black Money Act in the Agusta Westland Case. The Bench comprising of Justices Arun Mishra, MR Shah, and BR Gavai also asked Delhi High Court to consider the plea of Khaitan afresh allowing the Centre's plea against the order.
SC Upholds U'khand Rule Of Accelerated Promotion Quota On The Basis Of Higher Edu Qualifications [State of Uttarakhand vs. SK Singh]
The Supreme Court upheld a service rule of providing accelerated promotion on the basis of higher educational qualifications. The court was concerned with the promotion quota pertaining to the Irrigation Department cadre of the Uttarakhand State, for promotion from the post of Junior Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer. It carved out a provision for accelerated promotion to the extent of 7.33% for the JEs holding a more advanced qualification, of a Degree in Civil Engineering.
Section 33(2)(b) ID Act- SC Explains Scope Of Enquiry By Labour Court While Granting/Refusing Approval For Discharge/Dismissal Of Workman [John D'Souza vs. Karnataka SRTC]
The Supreme Court observed that a Labour Court or Tribunal while holding enquiry under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot invoke the adjudicatory powers vested in them under Section 10(i)(c) and (d) of the Act. They also cannot dwell upon the proportionality of punishment in the process of formation of their prima facie view under Section 33(2)(b), the bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Surya Kant observed .
State Legislature Cannot Enact Law Providing Direct Appeal To Supreme Court [H. S. Yadav V. Shakuntala Devi Parakh]
The Supreme Court held that a State Legislature cannot enact a law providing an appeal directly to the Supreme Court of India. The bench comprising Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose struck down Section 13(2) of Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, in so far as it provides an appeal directly to the Supreme Court, holding that the same is totally illegal, ultra vires the Constitution and beyond the scope of the powers of the State Legislature.
Section 24 RFCTLARR Act- Subsequent Purchasers Cannot Seek Declaration That Land Acquisition Proceedings Have Lapsed [Shiv Kumar vs. Union of India]
The Supreme Court, held that a subsequent purchaser of the property after issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot invoke the provisions contained in section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The three judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra, observed that the judgment in GNCTD vs Manav Dharam Trust is per incuriam and contrary to several binding precedents.
Execution Of Power Of Attorney Cannot Transfer Title To The Grantee [Shiv Kumar vs. Union of India]
The Supreme Court reiterated that GPA sales and SA/GPA/WILL transfers are not legally valid modes of transfer and they do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized or valid mode of transfer of immoveable property. The bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra, Justice MR Shah and Justice BR Gavai made this observation in Shiv Kumar vs. UoI in which it held that a subsequent purchaser of the property after issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot invoke the provisions contained in section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Article 226- HC Cannot Relax Terms & Conditions Of A Tender Notice [Durgawati Devi vs. Union of India]
The Supreme Court observed that, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a High Court has no power to relax the terms and conditions of a tender notice. While upholding the Allahabad High Court order that dismissed a challenge against rejection of a candidature of a person who had applied for dealership of Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin Liquid Petroleum Gas Vitrak Yozana (RGGLPGVY).
TADA Offences- FIR Cannot Be Registered Without Sanction Of Competent Authority [Ebha Arjun Jadeja vs. State Of Gujarat]
The Supreme Court held that an FIR with respect to commission of an offence under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act cannot be recorded by the police under Section 154 CrPC without sanction of the competent authority. The bar under Section 20-A(1) of TADA Act applies to information recorded under Section 154 of CrPC, the bench comprising Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose held while discharging an accused.
Magistrate Has Power To Order Further Investigation Even In Post Cognizance Stage Until Trial Commences [Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs. State of Gujarat]
The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate has power to order further investigation into an offence, even at a post cognizance stage, untill the trial commences. The bench comprising Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice Surya Kant and Justice V. Ramasubramanian set aside a Gujarat High Court order which had held that post-cognizance a Magistrate would have no power to order further investigation into an offence.
Inherent Powers U/s 482 CrPC To Quash Interlocutory Orders Can Be Invoked Only In Exceptional Cases [Hooghly Mills Company Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal]
The Supreme Court observed that High Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside an interlocutory order, notwithstanding the bar under Section 397(2). This can only be done in exceptional cases, for example, where a criminal proceeding has been initiated illegally, vexatiously or without jurisdiction, the bench comprising Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Ajay Rastogi said.
Revenue Record Entries Do Not Confer Title To A Property [Prahlad Pradhan vs. Sonu Kumhar]
The Supreme Court reiterated that the entries in the revenue records do not confer title to a property, nor do they have any presumptive value on the title. The bench comprising Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Krishna Murari noted that such entries only enable the person in whose favour mutation is recorded, to pay the land revenue in respect of the land in question.
NDPS: Non-Compliance Of Section 50 During 'Personal Search' Cannot Invalidate Recovery From Vehicle [State Of Punjab vs. Baljinder Singh]
The Supreme Court observed that merely because there was non-compliance of Section 50 of the Narcotic and Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act as far as "personal search" of the accused was concerned, no benefit can be extended so as to invalidate the effect of recovery from the search of the vehicle. The bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Krishna Murari observed that the mandate of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is confined to "personal search" and not to search of a vehicle or a container or premises.
Partnership Deed Cannot Automatically Bind Legal Heirs Of Deceased Partner [S.P. Misra vs. Mohd. Laiquddin Khan]
The Supreme Court observed that a partnership deed cannot automatically bind the legal heirs of the deceased partner without acceptance and agreement by them. The bench comprising Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice R. Subhash Reddy noted that, as per Section 42(c), subject to contract between the partners, a firm is dissolved when: (a) if constituted for a fixed term, by the expiry of that term; (b) if constituted to carry out one or more adventures or undertakings, by the completion thereof; (c) by the death of a partner; and (d) by the adjudication of a partner as an insolvent.
Arbitral Award Can Be Interfered With Only If Finding Is Perverse/Contrary To Evidence/Against Public Policy [State of Jharkhand V. HSS Integrated SDN & Anr.]
The Supreme Court reiterated that the the award passed by an Arbitral Tribunal can be interfered with in the proceedings under Sections 34 and 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act only in a case where the finding is perverse and/or contrary to the evidence and/or the same is against the public policy.
Section 306 IPC [Abetment Of Suicide] Not Attracted Merely Because The Deceased Was Called A 'Call Girl' [State of West Bengal V. Indrajit Kundu]
The Supreme Court upheld a High Court order discharging accused who were accused of abetting suicide of a girl. On appeal, the Apex Court agreed with this view of the High Court and observed that, in this case, there was no goading or solicitation or insinuation by any of the respondents to the victim to commit suicide.
Appeal Cannot Be Disposed Of Without Trial Court Record [Savita vs. State of Delhi]
The Supreme Court set aside a judgment of Delhi High Court which disposed of a criminal appeal without the record of the trial court before it. The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana, Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Krishna Murari was considering an appeal against a Delhi High Court order which upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on a man under Sections 498A and 304 IPC by the trial court without the record of the trial court, which was lost during the pendency of the appeal before it.
Statutory Authorities Can Review Orders Only If Concerned Statute Provides Such Power [Naresh Kumar vs. GNCT Delhi]
The Supreme Court reiterated that the power of review can be exercised by a statutory authority only when the statute provides for the same. The bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Vineet Saran and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat observed thus while setting aside the order of a collector who reviewed a land acquisition Award.
Domestic Violence Complaint Not Maintainable If The Parties Are Not Living Together In A Shared House Hold [Kamlesh Devi vs. Jaipal]
Upheld a dismissal of domestic violence complaint filed by a woman against persons not living with her in a shared household. The woman had filed a complaint against certain persons, claiming that they are her relatives living in the same premises, alleging that they were harassing and abusing her daughters. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while considering the revision petition, observed that no evidence is in record to prove that they have been living in a shared household.
Other Significant Orders and Proceedings