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 a legally enforceable debt will be raised. Upon such presumption being raised, it is incumbent upon the accused to rebut the same."..it 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 AwardTitle : M/s Laxmi Continental Construction Co v. State of UPCitation : LL 2021 SC 499Deciding 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 CourtCase name: Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. vs. State of BiharCitation: LL 2021 SC 495The 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 CourtCase name: National Highway Authority of India vs Madhukar KumarCitation: LL 2021 SC 493The 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 CourtCase: Jamia Masjid vs. K V Rudrappa (Since Dead)Citation: LL 2021 SC 491The 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 CourtCase name: Union of India vs Md. Nawaz KhanCitation: LL 2021 SC 489The 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 observed7. 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 CourtTitle : Director of Income Tax, New Delhi v. M/s Mitsubishi CorporationCitation : LL 2021 SC 471The 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 ...

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

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags