Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up(July 24-30)

Judgments'Bail Orders Must Be Backed By Reasons Considering Vital Aspects': Supreme Court Sets Aside 'Casual & Cryptical' HC OrderCase title: Rohit Bishnoi v State of RajasthanCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 560The Supreme Court recently held that vital aspects of the case must be considered while deciding bail applications. The nature of the crime, criminal history of the accused and the nature of punishment involved must also be weighed in by the courts. The court pressed for reasoned orders to be passed while exercising discretion in granting bail.The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagrathna and Justice Prashant Mishra was hearing an appeal against Rajasthan HC which had granted bail to the respondents involved in a case of honour killing.Settting the "cryptic" and "casual" orders passed by the High Court granting bail to the accused, the Supreme Court observed: “While considering an application for grant of bail, a prima-facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis à vis the offence/s alleged against an accused.”Special Effects & 3D Conversion Services Are Not ‘Video-Tape Production’ Services Under S. 65(120) Of Finance Act, 1994: Supreme CourtCase Title: Commissioner of Service Tax-IV vs Prime Focus Ltd.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 561The Supreme Court has upheld the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) that the 3D conversion services provided by the assessee, including services such as ‘imparting special effects’, ‘post production service’, ‘digital asset management and content service’ and ‘digital restoration service’, will not fall under the ambit of ‘video-tape production’ under Section 65(120) of the Finance Act, 1994.Upholding the order of the CESTAT, and after referring to the definitions of ‘Video Production Agency’ and ‘Video-Tape Production’ under the Finance Act, 1994, the bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan remarked that services such as editing, cutting, colouring, etc. can be said to be done only after recording is done of any programme, event or function on a magnetic tape or any other media or device.Substantial Questions Of Law Not Required To Be Formulated In Second Appeals Arising Out Of States Of Punjab & Haryana: Supreme CourtCase details: Gurbachan Singh (D) vs Gurcharan Singh(D)Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 562The Supreme Court observed, that in second appeals arising out of the state of Punjab or the State of Haryana, courts are not required to frame substantial questions of law as per section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol observed that the restraint in interfering with questions of fact under the jurisdiction of second appeal, is not an absolute rule.In this case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, while allowing a second appeal had set aside the concurrent findings of the courts below it.the court said: "Therefore, the rigors of section 100 do not apply. It has been held by this court that in appeals arising out of the state of Punjab or the State of Haryana, courts are not required to frame substantial questions of law as per section 100 of CPC".The court added that ordinarily, in second appeal, the court must not disturb facts established by the lower court or the first appellate court."However, it is also equally well recognized that this rule is not an absolute one or in other words, it is not a rule set in stone...Where the court is of the view that the conclusions drawn by the court below do not have a basis in the evidence led or it is of the view that the appreciation of evidence “suffers from material irregularity” the court will be justified in interfering with such finding..", the bench observed while dismissing the appeal.Voter Has Right To Know Full Background Of Candidate; Right To Vote Based On Informed Choice Crucial To Democracy: Supreme CourtCase Title: Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil V. K. Madan Mohan Rao & OrsCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 563A division bench of Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar was considering a challenge to the order of the Telangana High Court that dismissed an application seeking rejection of the election petition filed against Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil, the appellant.The election petition had been filed for nondisclosure of certain pending cases against him. The appellant had contended that the election petition did not disclose any cause of action and was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.While dismissing the appeal and affirming the High Court order, the Top Court observed:“The right to vote, based on an informed choice, is a crucial component of the essence of democracy. This...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up(July 24-30)

Suraj Kumar

Tags