Supreme Court Weekly Round Up, October 11 To October 17, 2021

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS1. Income Tax Act - Date Of Receipt Of Order Irrelevant For Computing Limitation Under Section 263(2) : Supreme CourtCase Title : Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs Mohammed Meeran Shahul HameedCitation : LL 2021 SC 572The Supreme Court has held that the date of the receipt of the assessment order has no relevance in computing the limitation period for the Revision by the Principal Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.A Bench of Justices M.R.Shah and A.S.Bopanna made the above observation in Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed- a case dealing with the calculation of limitation period under S.263 of the Income Tax Act.The Bench held that S.263 (2) of the Act requires that no revision order be made after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which order sought to be revised was passed. Since S.263 uses the word made and not received, the Bench holds, the receipt of the order has no relevance for the purpose of determining limitation.2. Mere Failure To Avoid Collision By Taking Some Extraordinary Precaution Does Not In Itself Constitute Contributory Negligence: Supreme CourtCase name: K. Anusha Vs Regional Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd. Citation: LL 2021 SC 571The Supreme Court observed that mere failure to avoid the collision by taking some extraordinary precaution, does not in itself constitute negligence.To establish contributory negligence, some act or omission, which materially contributed to the accident or the damage, should be attributed to the person against whom it is alleged, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed.In this case, the High Court while upholding a finding of contributory negligence in a motor accident compensation claim, observed that if the deceased driver of the car had been vigilant and driving the vehicle carefully following the traffic rules, the accident would not have happened.3. Judgment Debtor Can't Raise Objections In Instalments; Res Judicata Applicable To Execution Proceedings : Supreme CourtCase Title : Dipali Biswas and others versus Nirmalendu Mukherjee and others | C.A 4557/2012Citation : LL 2021 SC 538The Supreme Court has observed that the principle of res judicata will apply to execution proceedings as well. The Court added that a judgment debtor cannot raise objections to executions in installments.A bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasburmanian made this observation while rejecting a new objection raised by a judgment-debtor against the auction-sale proceedings in the fifth round."A judgment-debtor cannot be allowed to raise objections as to the method of execution in instalments. After having failed to raise the issue in four earlier rounds of litigation, the appellants cannot be permitted to raise it now", the judgment authored by Justice Ramasubramanian observed.The judgment explained the the principle of res judicata will apply to Execution Proceedings as well.4. No Limitation Period In Case Of A Usufructuary Mortgage : Supreme CourtCase Title : Ram Dattan (Dead) by LRs versus Devi Ram and othersCitation : LL 2021 SC 562The Supreme Court has observed that there is no limitation period in case of a usufructuary mortgage.A bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian was dealing with an appeal filed by a mortgagee, who claimed ownership of the mortgaged property on the ground that 45 years had elapsed after the mortgage.The Supreme Court noted that the Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court, in "Ram Kishan & Ors. Vs. Sheo Ram & Ors.", has held that there is no limitation period in case of usufructuary mortgage. "Once a mortgage always a mortgage" was the principle applied5. Consumer Complaint Not Maintainable Against Power Distributor For Raising Additional Bill Due To Short Assessment : Supreme CourtCase Title: M/S Prem Cottex v Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd & Ors| Civil Appeal Number 7235 of 2009Citation : LL 2021 SC 541The Supreme Court has held that a consumer complaint is not maintainable against a power distributor for raising an additional bill on account of short-assessment.A bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian agreed with the finding of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that the raising of additional bill did not amount to "deficiency in service" as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.The Court held that raising additional demand by itself will not amount to a "deficiency in service"."The raising of an additional demand in the form of "short assessment notice", on the ground that in the bills raised during a particular period of time, the multiply factor was wrongly mentioned, cannot tantamount to deficiency in service. If a licensee discovers in the course of audit or otherwise that a consumer has been short billed, the licensee is certainly entitled to raise a demand. So long as the consumer does not dispute the...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up, October 11 To October 17, 2021

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags