Supreme Court Weekly Round Up, September 20 To September 26, 2021

Nupur Thapliyal

26 Sep 2021 3:50 PM GMT

  • Supreme Court Weekly Round Up, September 20 To September 26, 2021

    JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Section 138 NI Act - If Signature On Cheque Is Admitted, Presumption Under Section 139 Will Be Raised : Supreme CourtCase name: Triyambak S. Hegde vs. SripadCitation: LL 2021 SC 492The Supreme Court has observed that if the signature on the cheque is admitted, then presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque was issued in discharge of...


    1. Section 138 NI Act - If Signature On Cheque Is Admitted, Presumption Under Section 139 Will Be Raised : Supreme Court

    Case name: Triyambak S. Hegde vs. Sripad
    Citation: LL 2021 SC 492

    The Supreme Court has observed that if the signature on the cheque is admitted, then presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt will be raised. Upon such presumption being raised, it is incumbent upon the accused to rebut the same.

    " is clear that signature on the cheque having been admitted, a presumption shall be raised under Section 139 that the cheque was issued in discharge of debt or liability", a bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and AS Bopanna observed.

    2. Retirement Will Not Terminate Mandate Of Dept Officer Appointed As Sole Arbitrator : Supreme Court Restores 1998 Award

    Title : M/s Laxmi Continental Construction Co v. State of UP
    Citation : LL 2021 SC 499

    Deciding an appeal arising out of the Arbitration Act 1940, the Supreme Court has held that a department officer, who was appointed as the arbitrator, can continue to preside over the arbitration proceedings even after his retirement.

    A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna, referring to the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1940 and the Arbitration Agreement, held that there was legal infirmity in the arbitrator continuing with the arbitration after his retirement.

    3. Existence Of Alternate Remedy Does Not Bar Exercise Of Writ Jurisdiction If Order Is Challenged For Want Of Jurisdiction: Supreme Court

    Case name: Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. vs. State of Bihar
    Citation: LL 2021 SC 495

    The Supreme Court observed that even if an alternate remedy exists, a High Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction if the order of the authority is challenged for want of authority and jurisdiction, which is a pure question of law.

    "While a High Court would normally not exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective and efficacious alternate remedy is available, the existence of an alternate remedy does not by itself bar the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction in certain contingencies.", the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna observed.

    4. Administrative Action Of Public Authority Cannot Be Invalidated Merely For Not Recording Reasons When It Had No Duty To Do So: Supreme Court

    Case name: National Highway Authority of India vs Madhukar Kumar
    Citation: LL 2021 SC 493

    The Supreme Court observed that an administrative action of a public authority cannot be struck down merely for not 'recording' reasons when there was no duty on its part to do so.

    The court may, when there is no duty to record reasons, support an administrative decision, with reference to the pleadings aided by materials, the bench of Justices KM Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat observed. The bench said that, reasons may, in certain situations, have to be recorded in the order. But in other contexts, it would suffice that the reasons are to be found in the files.

    5. Section 92 CPC- Judgment In Representative Suit Binds All Parties Interested In The Trust: Supreme Court

    Case: Jamia Masjid vs. K V Rudrappa (Since Dead)
    Citation: LL 2021 SC 491

    The Supreme Court observed that a suit under section 92 CPC is of a representative character and all persons interested in the Trust would be bound by the judgment in the suit.

    Such persons interested would be barred by the principle of res judicata from instituting a subsequent suit on the same or substantially the same issue, the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and Hima Kohli observed.

    6. NDPS: Absence Of Recovery Of Contraband From Possession Of Accused By Itself Not A Ground To Grant Bail: Supreme Court

    Case name: Union of India vs Md. Nawaz Khan
    Citation: LL 2021 SC 489

    The Supreme Court observed that bail cannot be granted to an accused under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, merely on a finding of the absence of possession of the contraband on the person of the accused.

    Such a finding does not absolve the court of the level of scrutiny required under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna observed

    7. Assessee Not Liable To Pay Interest On Short Payment Of Advance Tax Due To Default Of Payer In Deducting TDS Before 2012-2013 FY : Supreme Court

    Title : Director of Income Tax, New Delhi v. M/s Mitsubishi Corporation
    Citation : LL 2021 SC 471

    The Supreme Court has held that the amount of income tax which is deductible or collectible at source can be reduced by the assessee while calculating advance tax before 2012-2013 Financial Year.

    Therefore, the assessee cannot be held liable for interest under Section 234B of Income Tax for short-fall of advance tax which arises due to reducing the income tax deductible or collectible at source from the advance tax. In other words, the assessee cannot be held liable to pay interest on the short-payment of advance tax due to the default of the payer in deducting TDS.


    1. Supreme Court Stays Kerala High Court Proceedings In Plea Challenging EWS Quota

    The Supreme Court issued notice in a petition filed by the Central Government seeking to transfer to the SC a petition filed in the Kerala High Court challenging the grant of 10 per cent reservation in jobs and admissions to candidates of the economically weaker sections (EWS).

    While issuing notice, a bench led by the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana also stayed the proceedings in the writ petition before the High Court, titled "Nujaim PK v Union of India and others".

    2. Supreme Court Recalls Suo Motu Extension Of Limitation With Effect From October 2; Period From 15.03.2020 To 02.10.2021 Stands Excluded From Computing

    The Supreme Court has recalled the suo motu order of April 27, 2021, which had extended with effect from March 14, 2021 the limitation period for filing of cases in view of the COVID second wave.

    The Court said that the suo motu extension of limitation period will stand withdrawn with effect from October 2, 2021.

    A bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices L Nageswara Rao and Surya Kant made these observations in the suo motu case In Re Cognizance For Extension of Limitation.

    3. Rohini Court Firing: Lawyer Moves Supreme Court Seeking Directions To Enhance Security In Courts

    In the backdrop of recent gun firing and killing of jailed gangster Jitender Gogi inside Delhi's Rohini Court hall, a lawyer has moved Supreme Court seeking directions to the Union of India and State Governments to take immediate steps and measures for security of the Subordinate Courts.

    An application filed by Advocate Vishal Tiwari has sought directions for production of Hardcore Criminals and Dreaded gangsters before the trial courts through video conferencing, instead of producing them physically.

    The present application has been filed in a PIL filed seeking issuance of specific directions, policies and regulations for the protection of the judicial officers, Advocates and legal fraternity as a whole, which is already pending before the Supreme Court. (Vishal Tiwari vs Union of India).

    4. Supreme Court Asks NIC To Remove Centre's Banner With Prime Minister's Image In Footer Of Official Emails From Court

    Pursuant to Supreme Court's direction, the National Informatics Centre has dropped Central Government's banner with image of Prime Minister Narendra Modi from the footer of the emails originating from the Supreme Court.

    After it was brought to the Supreme Court Registry's notice that the official emails of the Supreme Court of India were carrying an image as footer which has no connection whatsoever with the functioning of the Judiciary, the top Court directed NIC to drop the image.

    The Apex Court has further directed the National Informatics Centre, which provides the email services to the Supreme Court, to use the picture of the Supreme Court of India in footer of the emails originating from the Supreme Court.

    5. Collection Of OBC Information In Census 2021 Not Feasible : Centre Tells Supreme Court Opposing Maharashtra's Plea

    In response to Maharashtra Government's petition for sharing of census data of OBCs collected by Centre in 2011-2013, the Centre has informed the Supreme Court that the exclusion of any caste other than Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe from purview of Census is a conscious policy decision taken by Central Government.

    In an affidavit filed through Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Centre has argued that in such a situation any direction from Court to Census Department to include enumeration of Socio Economic data to extent relating to Backward Class Of Citizens (BCCs) of Rural India in Upcoming Census 2021 as prayed by the State of Maharashtra would tantamount to interfering with a policy decision.

    6. COVID Deaths : Supreme Court Expresses Concerns About Difficulties In Getting Medical Certificates From Hospitals

    The Supreme Court shared with the Central Government its concerns with regards to the difficulties which persons may face to obtain medical certificates from hospitals with respect to COVID deaths.

    "At the time of second wave, hospitals were acting like monarchs. Some were directly disposing off the bodies without even giving papers also," Justice MR Shah, presiding judge of the bench orally remarked.

    A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna was hearing an application seeking compliance of the directions in the June 30 regarding compensation for COVID deaths and for simplified process to issue death certificates in COVID cases. 

    7. 'We Are Very Happy' : Supreme Court Expresses Satisfaction With Centre's Decision On Rs 50,000 Ex-Gratia For COVID Deaths

    The Supreme Court  expressed happiness with the Centre's decision on providing ex gratia compensation to the kin of those who died due to COVID-19.

    According to the guidelines framed by the National Disaster Management Authority, the ex-gratia compensation for COVID-19 deaths is fixed as Rs 50,000, which will be paid by the States from the State Disaster Response Fund.

    A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Justice AS Bopanna orally observed that the Government's decision would bring some solace to the persons who have suffered.

    "Today we are very happy. There will be some solace to the persons who have suffered. Everything the Govt is performing... We're happy that something is being done to wipe out tears of the person who suffered", Justice Shah orally said

    8. Pegasus Case : Supreme Court Likely To Set Up A Technical Committee To Probe Snooping Allegations; To Pass Orders Next Week

    The Supreme Court is likely to set up a technical committee to probe the allegations of snooping of journalists, activists etc., using the Pegasus spyware. The Chief Justice of India NV Ramana said that the Court will pass the orders in the case next week.

    The CJI told this orally to Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh, who is appearing in one of the Pegasus petitions, while the latter was making a mention in another matter.

    9. UAPA Case Against Allan-Thwaha : Can Intention To Further Terrorist Activities Be Inferred From Books, Banners & Slogans? Supreme Court Asks NIA

    The Supreme Court asked the National Investigation Agency if based on the recovery of certain books, pamphlets, banners, notices etc and the shouting of slogans, the membership of a banned organisation and the intent to further its activities can be inferred so as to attract the draconian anti-terror law the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act(UAPA).

    The bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay Sreeniwas Oka was hearing the SLP filed by the NIA challenging the Kerala High Court judgment affirming the trial court's order granting bail to law student Allan Shuhaib in a UAPA case registered over alleged Maoist links. Also listed was the petition filed by Allan Shuhaib's co-accused Thwaha Fasal, a journalism student, challenging the very same judgment of the Kerala High Court which set aside the bail granted to him by the Special NIA Court.

    10. 'Let's Make A Small Beginning': Supreme Court Directs Centre To Address The Issue Of Inducting Girls In Military Schools

    While noting that the defence forces have charted a course forward for induction of women in the National Defence Academy, Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that the issue of admission to girls in Rashtriya Indian Military College has to be addressed and cannot be postponed.

    A Division Bench comprising Justice SK Kaul and Justice BR Gavai has directed the Union of India to address the issue of induction of women to RIMC and Rashtriya Military School at par with issue of induction of women to NDA and file an affidavit before the Court within 2 weeks.

    11. Congress 'Toolkit' Case : Supreme Court Dismisses Chhattisgarh Govt's Appeals Against HC Stay On FIR Against BJP Leaders Raman Singh, Sambit Patra

    The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions filed by the State of Chhattisgarh challenging Chhattisgarh High Court's order staying investigation in the FIR lodged against Dr. Raman Singh, BJP National Vice President and former Chief Minister and BJP Spokesperson Sambit Patra for their tweets claiming that the Congress party has prepared a toolkit to tarnish the image of the country in the foreign media.

    A Bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant, and Justice Hima Kohli was not inclined to interfere in the two special leave petitions filed by by State of Chhattisgarh against Chhattisgarh High Court's order dated 11 June 2021.

    Next Story