- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Weekly Round Up (17th...
Supreme Court Weekly Round Up (17th April to 23rd April 2023)
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
30 April 2023 4:47 AM GMT
With another week gone at the Supreme Court of India, Live Law is back with its Supreme Court Weekly Digest to keep our readers up to date with the latest legal developments in the Apex court of the country.Judgments/OrdersOrder VII Rule 11 CPC - Inconsistencies In Plaint Averments Not A Sufficient Reason To Reject Plaint : Supreme Court[Case Title: G. Nagaraj v. BP Mruthunjayanna| Citation:...
With another week gone at the Supreme Court of India, Live Law is back with its Supreme Court Weekly Digest to keep our readers up to date with the latest legal developments in the Apex court of the country.
Judgments/Orders
[Case Title: G. Nagaraj v. BP Mruthunjayanna| Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 311]
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices AS Oka and Rajesh Bindal observed that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC merely because there are some inconsistent averments in the plaint.
[Case Title: Shivappa v. Chief Engineer | Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 312]
The State or its instrumentalities cannot be permitted to adopt an attitude of pick and choose, the Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Aravind Kumar remarked while allowing an appeal in a land acquisition matter
[Case Title: National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors And Ors.| Citation: 2023 LiveLaw SC 313]
In a notable verdict, the Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar held that an enterprise is not excluded from the definition of "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 merely because it is a consumer enterprise. A commercial enterprise can raise consumer disputes under the Act in relation to any goods purchased or services availed which are not for commercial purposes. To decide whether it is for "commercial purpose" it has to be seen if the goods or the services had a close and direct nexus with the profit generating activity.
[Case Title: Soundarajan v. State | Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 314]
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices AS Oka and Rajesh Bindal observed that Trial Courts and the Public Prosecutors should be vigilant in the matter of framing of charges.
[Case Title: Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam And Ors. v. Renew Wind Energy (Rajkot) Private Limited And Ors.| Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 315]
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, and MM Sundresh pulled up the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) for ‘casually’ rendering findings of coercion, or fraud, without proper pleadings or proof, or without probing into evidence.
[Case Title: State of Rajasthan v. Asharam @ Ashumal| Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 316]
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and MM Sundresh allowed the Special Leave Appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan challenging the Rajasthan High Court’s order to summon IPS Officer Ajay Pal Lamba for recording his evidence as a court witness in connection with Asaram's appeal challenging his conviction by lower Court in a minor's rape case.
[Case Title:Yedala Subba Rao And Anr. v. Union of India| Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 317]
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices AS Oka and Rajesh Bindal granted bail to two accused persons allegedly belonging to CPI (Maoist) in the 2018 murder case of two leaders of Telugu Desam Party (TDP) on the ground that they were in custody for more than four years and charges have not been framed yet.
[Case Title: Surendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan And Anr.| Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 318]
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar observed that the Section 149 (Unlawful assembly) of the Indian Penal Code will be attracted even if the specifically named five or more persons are facing trial separately.
[Case Title: State of Gujarat And Anr. v. M/s Saw Pipes Ltd.| Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 319]
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna ruled that the penalty and interest leviable under Sections 45(6) and 47(4A) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, respectively, are statutory and mandatory in nature and there is no discretion vested in the Commissioner/Assessing Officer to levy or not to levy the penalty and interest other than as prescribed.
Supreme Court Deprecates High Courts Entertaining Writ Petitions In SARFAESI Matters; Frowns Upon Borrowers Approaching HCs To Consider Offers To Banks
[Case Title: M/s. South Indian Bank Ltd. And Ors. v. Naveen Mathew Philip And Anr.| 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320]
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and MM Sundresh deprecated the interference of the High Courts in commercial matters, more particularly pertaining to the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act, 2002”).
[Case Title: Security Printing And Minting Corporation of India Ltd. And Ors. Etc v. Vijay D. Kasbe And Ors. Etc.| Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 321]
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal held that government employees cannot claim double overtime allowance as per the Factories Act, if the service rules do not provide for it.
[Case Title: Fedrick Cutinha v. State of Karnataka| Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 326]
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal set aside the conviction and order of sentence imposed on two accused persons, passed by Karnataka High Court in a murder case, on the ground that the accused persons were not given an opportunity to be heard on the quantum of sentence as prescribed under Section 235(2) of CrPC.
[Case Title: Gaddipati Divija And Anr. v. Pathuri Samrajyam And Ors.| Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 327]
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Krishna Murari and Sanjay Karol held that when specific performance of the terms of the contract has not been done, the question of time being the essence of contract does not arise.
Transfer Pricing | High Courts Not Precluded From Scrutinising ITAT’s Determination Of Arm’s Length Price : Supreme Court
[Case Title: SAP Labs India Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer, Circle 6, Bangalore| Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 328]
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices MR Shah and M.M. Sundresh ruled that the High Court is not precluded from considering the determination of the arm’s length price determined by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), in exercise of its powers under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
DISCOMS To Pay ‘Change In Law’ Compensation For All Additional Charges Levied By State Instrumentalities To Power Generating Companies: Supreme Court
[Case Title: GMR Warora Energy Limited v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) And Ors.| Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 329]
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Vikram Nath lamented the practice of Distribution Companies (DISCOMS) and power generating companies pursuing endless litigation challenging the concurrent findings arrived at by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL).
[Case Title: Isolators and Isolators Through Its Proprietor Mrs. Sandhya Mishra v. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. & Anr.| Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 330]
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjay Kumar reiterated the requirement of a specific show-cause notice while quashing and setting aside the debarment and penalty order issued by the Madhya Pradesh Power Distribution Company (DISCOM) against a tenderee who was awarded a contract for supply of transformers by the DISCOM.
[Case Title: State of Uttarakhand v. Umesh Kumar Sharma And Ors.| Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 335]
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar observed that police need not file closure reports in cases where criminal proceedings or FIR have been quashed by the High Court.
[Case Title: The Rajasthan Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. v M/s. Arfat Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.| Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 337]
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Vikram Nath held that when the Cabinet constitutes a committee and the latter’s actions are validated by the Minister and the rest of the Council, then it cannot be claimed that Rules of Business have not been followed by the State Government in the course of its decision-making process.
[Case Title : Siju Kurian v State of Karnataka| Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 338]
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Aravind Kumar held that a confessional statement, which is otherwise admissible in evidence as per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, will not become solely because it was recorded not in the mother tongue of the accused.
[Case Title: Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Adani Power (Mundra) Ltd.| Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 339]
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath pronounced Judgment in the matter between Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited & Anr. (“Haryana Discoms”) and Adani Power (Mundra) Ltd. (“Adani Power”) wherein it has been held that “Inter Plant Transfer” (“IPT”) of coal qualifies as a Change in Law Event in terms of the Power Purchase Agreements (“PPA”) executed between the parties.
New Updates
The Union of India, in a second counter affidavit filed before a Constitituon Bench of the Supreme Court comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha, has again opposed the petitions which seek legal recognition for same-sex marriage in India, stating those seeking marriage equality merely represent "urban elitist views for the purpose of social acceptance" and that the popular will of people is that marriage be recognised solely amongst heterosexual individuals.
A PIL plea has been moved before the Supreme Court seeking constitution of an independent expert committee under the chairmanship of a retired SC Judge to inquire into the killing of Atique Ahmed and his brother Ashraf by 3 assailants while they were in police custody.
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala dismissed the petition filed by the Kerala Government against the directions issued by the Kerala High Court to relocate the rogue elephant named 'Arikomban' from Munnar-Chinnakanal area to Parambikulam tiger reserve area.
The Supreme Court judge Justice KM Joseph recused from hearing a plea filed by Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) challenging the appointment of Arun Goel as a member of the Election Commission of India. The matter was listed before a bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna.
Supreme Court Stays Order Of Calcutta HC Directing CBI & ED To Question TMC's Abhishek Banerjee
The Supreme Court Bench CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha, and JB Pardiwala directed a stay on all actions against TMC national general secretary Abhishek Banerjee in pursuance of the directions passed by Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay of the Calcutta High Court through an order which had directed the CBI and the ED to question Banerjee for the Primary Teachers' Recruitment Scam case.
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna issued notice on a petition filed by Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Brinda Karat seeking registration of FIR against BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma for allegedly delivering hate speeches in 2020.
The Supreme Court Bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha, and JB Pardiwala took suo motu cognisance of a letter written to Chief Justice DY Chandrachud by former employees of the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court concerning the lack of pensionary benefits provided to them despite the lapse of 3-7 years of retirement.
Supreme Court Issues Notice On Delhi Govt's Challenge Against LG Changing Proposal Concerning Teachers’ Training in Finland
The Supreme Court Bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha, and JB Pardiwala issued notice in Delhi Government's plea challenging the changes made by the Lieutenant Governor (LG) in the Delhi Government's proposal to send school teachers to Finland for training.
Advocates’ Strikes: Supreme Court Proposes To Constitute Grievance Redressal Committees Consisting Of CJ Of Every HC With 4 Senior Judges
Regarding the constitution of grievances redressal committees to avert the situation of lawyers having to resort to strikes to raise their problems, the Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Ahsanuddin Amanullah proposed to constitute such committees consisting of the Chief Justice of every High Court along with four senior judges.
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices SK Kaul and Aravind Kumar asked the Centre to place on record its stand regarding whether the constitutional scheme of one-third reservation for women in municipal and town council elections can be violated by the Nagaland Government by repealing the Nagaland Municipal Act 2001. It asked the Union Government to file its stand within a period of two weeks.
In contempt proceedings against lawyers who had indulged in vandalism in court premises during their strike demanding formation of new benches of the Orissa High Court, the Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices SK Kaul and Aravind Kumar granted last opportunity to the lawyers who have not filed their affidavits to do so within a period of three weeks.
In a matter seeking to streamline integration of all stages in government revenue litigation through technology, the Supreme Court Bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha, and JB Pardiwala directed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to ensure that appeals were filed only in e-filing mode and not the physical mode.
‘Same-Sex Marriage Against Indian Concept Of Marriage’: Akhil Bharatiya Sant Samiti Opposes Marriage Equality Pleas In Supreme Court
Ahead of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha starting to hear a batch of petitions seeking the recognition of same-sex marriage, the Akhil Bharatiya Sant Samiti opposed the pleas before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal confirmed "in all aspects" the Gauhati High Court’s decision to set aside trial court's order discharging activist-turned-politician Akhil Gogoi in connection with offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
On the first day of the hearings in the batch of petitions seeking legal recognition for same-sex marriage in India, the primary arguments raised before the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha, pertained to marriage being a way to help assimilate queer individuals in the society better and end stigma against them.
The Central government filed a fresh affidavit before the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha, urging it to make all the State governments and Union Territories party to the petitions seeking recognition of same-sex marriage.
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Ahsanuddin Amanullah required the UoI to file its response on the 2021 plea contending that the pending wages of workers under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (MNREGA) are piling up along with negative balances in funds of most of the states.
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar set aside an order of the Bombay High Court acquitting former Delhi University professor and activist GN Saibaba as well as others over their alleged Maoist links and remanded the matter back to the high court to be considered afresh by a different bench.
While hearing the batch of petitions seeking legal recognition for same sex marriages in India, the Supreme Court Constitution Bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha faced with a conundrum as to which partner would be aged 18 years and who would be 21 years old as per the provisions of the Special Marriage Act.
The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha remarked that Central Government cannot dub homosexuality and the idea of same-sex marriage as an "urban elitist" concept, especially in the absence of any data to back this claim.
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Examination Notified To Be Conducted In June
The Supreme Court has announced that the next Advocates-on-Record examination will be held in New Delhi on June 12, 13, 14, and 15.
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and Sanjay Karol referred the issue of constitutional validity of GST on lease/rent payments to be decided after the disposal of the matter already pending before the Constitution Bench of 9 Judges.
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Ahsanuddin Amanullah directed state governments to grant ration cards to migrant or unorganized workers who do not have them but are registered on the Centre's e-Shram portal, within three months.
In A Historic First, Lawyer With Visual Impairment Clears Supreme Court's Advocate-on-Record Exam
In a historic first, N Visakamurthy, an advocate and a person with a visual impairment, has successfully cleared the December 2022 Advocates-on-Record (AoR) Examination conducted by the Supreme Court.
In the marriage equality case before the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha some petitioners have challenged the provisions of the Special Marriage Act 1954 which require parties intending marriage to give advance notice of 30 days, which will be published in the Registrar's office inviting public objections as violative of fundamental rights to privacy and decisional autonomy.
While hearing the marriage equality petitions Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, responded to a commonly raised concern over the suitability of same-sex couples to adopt and raise children.
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices KM Joseph, BV Nagarathna and Aravind Kumar ruled in favour of the ex IPS officer Amod Kumar Kanth in connection with a case pertaining to the Uphaar fire tragedy which happened in 1996. The Court has set aside the Magistrate’s order taking cognisance of a complaint against Kanth, who allegedly did not take action against “extra seats” in the Uphaar theatre hall which had blocked the emergency exit at the right-hand side of the balcony, resultantly killing over 50 people.
'We Are Not Here To Generate Revenue For Lawyers' : CJI DY Chandrachud
"We are not here to generate revenue for lawyers", Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said while rejecting the request of a lawyer to add the name of a senior counsel in the appearances in a case.
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha refused to entertain a writ petition filed by Nupur Sharma and Rahul Roushan, the editor and founder of online portal "OpIndia", challenging the FIR registered by the Tamil Nadu Police for allegedly spreading fake news about attacks on Biharis in the southern state.
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Chief Justice of DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha issued notice to the State of Tamil Nadu on a plea by YouTuber Manish Kashyap seeking to quash his detention under the National Security Act over allegations of spreading fake news about the attacks on Biharis in the southern state.
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha granted bail to eight life convicts in the 2002 Godhra train carnage case in Gujarat, while refusing to consider the application of four others in view of their roles in the violence.
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices SK Kaul and Ahsanuddin Amanullah was irked by a petition, inter alia, seeking directions to declare that the Bombay Public Security Measures (Delhi Amendment) Act, 1948 is ultra vires to the Constitution of India and its application in the Mahatma Gandhi Assassination case ( Rex v. Nathuram Godse And Ors), resulted in a mistrial.
In a notable judgment, the Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and S, Ravindra Bhat held that in cases where the offences are so heinous that death sentence is warranted, the prosecution must produce before the trial court all materials which are relevant to assess the mitigating circumstances favouring the accused. The Court clarified that this exercise must be carried out even in cases where the accused might eventually not be imposed the death sentence.
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Vikram Nath expressed concerns over the vacancies in super speciality medical in India, and the failure of the concerned authorities to fill the vacancies.
The Bar Council of India has resolved to request the Supreme Court to leave the issue of same-sex marriage to legislative process for wide spread consultation, saying that the matter is "highly sensitive" and having "social, religious and cultural connotations" and hence required wide spread consultations.
Days After Firing in Delhi’s Saket Court, Bar Council of India Requests Union Govt for Effective Law for Lawyers’ Protection
Amid rising concerns over the safety of lawyers, the Bar Council of India has passed a resolution requesting the Union Government to frame an effective law for “the protection of lives, interests, and privilege of advocates and their families”. This development comes days after yet another shooting inside a court complex, this time in Delhi’s Saket district court.
