Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: November 14 To November 20, 2022

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK Section 439(2) CrPC - Bail Cannot Be Cancelled Merely For Any Perceived Indiscipline By Accused Before Granting Bail : Supreme Court Bhuri Bai vs State of Madhya Pradesh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 956 | CrA 1972 of 2022 The Supreme Court observed that cancellation of bail cannot be ordered merely for any perceived indiscipline on the part of the accused before granting bail. "The powers of cancellation of bail cannot be approached as if of disciplinary proceedings against the accused", the bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed. It added that Section 439(2) CrPC is envisaged only in such cases where the liberty of the accused is going to be counteracting the requirements of a proper trial of the criminal case. 'There's No Bar For Someone Who Is Pursuing Higher Studies, To Start Business' : SC Upholds Eviction Of Tenant For 'Bonafide Requirement' Of LandlordMohammed Sadiq vs Deepak Manglani | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 957 | CA 8028 of 2022 There is no bar for someone who is pursuing higher studies, to start a business, the Supreme Court observed while upholding an eviction order passed on the ground of bonafide requirement/need. In this case, the landlord sought eviction of the tenant on two grounds: One, wilful default in payment of rent and two, bona fide requirement of the premises for the own use of the landlord. The applicable law was Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. Sec.194H Income Tax Act Attracted For 'Supplementary Commission' Earned By Travel Agents ; Airlines Liable To Deduct TDS : Supreme Court Singapore Airlines Ltd. vs C.I.T., Delhi | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 959 | CA 6964-6965 OF 2015 The Supreme Court held that Section 194H of the Income Tax Act is attracted in the case of Supplementary Commission amounts earned by the travel agent and therefore Airlines are liable to deduct TDS in this regard. The bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and MM Sundresh upheld the Delhi High Court judgment and overruled the Bombay High Court judgment in CIT v. Qatar Airways [2009 SCC OnLine Bom 2179] that had held otherwise. 'Anticipatory Bail Condition Directing Panchayat Teacher To Return Her Salary Not Legally Sustainable': SC Sets Aside Patna HC Direction Divya Bharti vs State of Bihar | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 961 | SLP(Crl) 8498/2022 The Supreme Court set aside an anticipatory bail condition imposed by Patna High Court directing a Panchayat Teacher to return her salary. The bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar observed that such conditions are neither justified nor required to be imposed while granting anticipatory bail. Time Period Excluded U/Section 14 Limitation Act Cannot Be Counted For Computing The Period For Which Delay Can Be Condoned : Supreme Court Laxmi Srinivasa R And P Boiled Rice Mill vs State Of Andhra Pradesh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 964 | SLP(C) 11225/2022 The Supreme Court observed that time period excluded under Section 14 of Limitation Act cannot be counted for the purpose of computing the period for which delay can be condoned. Exclusion of time is different, and cannot be equated with condonation of delay, the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and J K Maheshwari observed. 'Wife Wants To Revive Matrimonial Life': SC Upholds Conviction Of A Husband U/S 498A IPC ; But Reduces Sentence To Period Already Undergone Randeep Singh vs State of U T Chandigarh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 962 | SLP(Crl) 8206/2019 The Supreme Court reduced the sentence imposed on a husband convicted under Section 498A IPC after his wife submitted before it that she wants to join her husband and revive their matrimonial life. In this case, the husband was concurrently convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court had imposed punishment of two years and the same was upheld by the Appellate Court. The High Court, in its Revisional jurisdiction did not interfere with the judgment of conviction but reduced the substantive sentence to six months. Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Plaint Cannot Be Rejected Merely On The Ground That 'Plaintiff Is Not Entitled To Any Reliefs In The Suit': Supreme Court Gurdev Singh vs Harvinder Singh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 963 | SLP(C) 19018/2022 The Supreme Court observed that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC merely on the ground that 'the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in the suit'. In this case, the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant. The defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint and the same was dismissed by the Trial Court holding that reading of the plaint prima facie disclosed cause of action to the plaintiff. Kathua Rape-Murder Case : Supreme Court Sets Aside Order Which Declared One Accused As Juvenile; Directs To Prosecute Him As...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: November 14 To November 20, 2022

Deepankar Malviya

Tags