- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Weekly Roundup...
Supreme Court Weekly Roundup [January 31- February 6]
Shruti Kakkar
6 Feb 2022 12:41 PM GMT
![Supreme Court Weekly Roundup [January 31- February 6]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2021/05/09/750x450_393151-sc-weekly-roundup.jpg "Supreme Court Weekly Roundup [January 31- February 6]")
Judgements This Week 1. Rules Made To Exercise Powers And Privileges Of State Legislature Constitute Law Within The Meaning Of Article 13: Supreme CourtCase Title: Ashish Shelar And Ors. Versus The Maharashtra Legislative Assembly & Anr.| W.P.(C) No. 797/2021 & Connected CasesCitation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 91In its judgment quashing Maharashtra Assembly's Resolution to suspend 12 BJP...
Judgements This Week
Case Title: Ashish Shelar And Ors. Versus The Maharashtra Legislative Assembly & Anr.| W.P.(C) No. 797/2021 & Connected Cases
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 91
In its judgment quashing Maharashtra Assembly's Resolution to suspend 12 BJP MLAs, the Supreme Court held that the rules made to exercise the powers and privileges of State Legislature constitute law within the meaning of Article 13.
"The Rules framed by the Legislative Assembly under Article 208 of the Constitution is the procedure established by law for the purpose of Article 21 of the Constitution," the bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar observed.
Case Title: Amar Nath vs Gian Chand|CA 5797 OF 2009
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98
The Supreme Court observed that the production of the original power of attorney is not necessary, if the document is presented for registration by the power of attorney holder who executed the document on the strength of it.
"The inquiry contemplated under the Registration Act, cannot extend to question as to whether the person who executed the document in his capacity of the power of attorney holder of the principal, was indeed having a valid power of attorney or not to execute the document or not," the bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and PS Narasimha.
In this case, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he is the owner in possession of that property and the mutation showing the sale in favor of the first defendant, by the second defendant, was null and void, and that the second defendant was not having any authority to sell the land owned by the plaintiff, and hence the defendant be restrained from interfering with the ownership and possession of the plaintiff.
Case Title: The Director, Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. v. K. Sudheesh Kumar & Ors.| Civil Appeal No.442 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 99
The Supreme Court has observed that Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme has nothing to do with the next promotional post and what the employee would be entitled would be the immediate next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands.
The bench of Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna was considering a civil appeal assailing Kerala High Court's order dated October 23, 2019 in which the court while setting aside Central Administrative Tribunal's order declared that the respondents are entitled to grade pay of Rs 6600 on their third financial upgradation as per the MACP Scheme and thereby be paid the pension accordingly with effect from April, 2015.
Case name: Dayalu Kashyap Vs State Of Chhattisgarh|CrA 130 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 100
The Supreme Court, in an order passed, rejected an interpretation that if the personal search is vitiated by violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the recovery made otherwise also would stand vitiated.
"We cannot give such an extended view", the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh said while dismissing an appeal filed by an accused who was concurrently (by the Trial Court and Chhattisgarh High Court) convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act.
Case Title: Subhash Chander And Ors. v. M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.| Civil Appeal No. 7517 of 2012
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 101
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka has held that the jurisdiction of civil courts are excluded from landlord-tenant disputes when they are specifically covered by the provisions of the State Rent Acts, which are given an overriding effect over other laws.
The Court held this while explaining the interplay between the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings) Act, 1976 and the Haryana (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973.
Case Name: Ajaya Kumar Das Vs. Divisional Manager| CA 5797 OF 2009
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 102
The Supreme Court observed that interest on compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923, shall be paid from the date of the accident and not the date of adjudication of the claim.
In appeal, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Dinesh Maheshwari noted that Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act stipulates that the Commissioner shall direct the employer to pay interest of 12% or at a higher rate, not exceeding the lending rates of any scheduled banks specified, if the employer does not pay the compensation within one month from the date it fell due.
Case Title: The Chief Personnel Officer & Ors. v. A Nishanth George| Civil Appeal No. 294 of 2022 and The General Manager Vs. P. Balamurugan| Civil Appeal No. 295 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 103
The Supreme Court has reiterated that the Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff notified by the Railways ("LARSGESS Scheme") provides an avenue for backdoor entry into service and is contrary to the mandate of Article 16 which guarantees equal opportunity in matters of public employment.
The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna was considering civil appeals assailing Madras High Court's judgements dated March 21, 2018 and September 3, 2019.
While allowing the appeal(s) and setting aside the impugned judgment(s) the bench observed, "We have addressed in detail the history of the LARSGESS scheme and the doubt expressed on its validity by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kala Singh (supra) which eventually led to the decision of the Union government to terminate the scheme. While noticing the above backdrop, the three judge Bench of this Court in Manjit (supra) clearly noted that the Scheme provided an avenue for backdoor entry into service and was contrary to the mandate of Article 16 which guarantees equal opportunity in matters of public employment. In this backdrop, the impugned judgment of the High Court of Madras issuing a mandamus for the appointment of the respondent cannot be sustained."
Case Title: Shiv Developers Through Its Partner Sunilbhai Somabhai Ajmeri Vs Aksharay Developers| CA 785 OF 2022
Citiation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 104
The Supreme Court held that to attract the bar of Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932, the contract in question must be the one entered into by partnership firm with the third-party defendant and must also be the one entered into by the plaintiff firm in the course of its business dealings.
The bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath observed that Section 69(2) is not a bar to a suit filed by an unregistered firm, if the same is for enforcement of a statutory right or a common law right.
Case Title: Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Resoursys Telecom| CA 786 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 105
The author of the tender document is the best person to interpret its documents and requirements, the Supreme Court reiterated in a judgment delivered on Monday (31 Jan 2022)
The bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath observed that the interference by the Court would arise only if the questioned decision suffers from illegality, irrationality, mala fide, perversity, or procedural impropriety. The court added that a decision of the administrative authority cannot be called arbitrary or whimsical merely because it does not appear plausible to the Court.
Case Title: Jayahari & Anr v. State of Kerala and Anr| Criminal Appeal No.128 Of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 106
The Supreme Court recently quashed a cheating FIR lodged by a businessman based in Gulf, stating that he being a man well versed in commerce should have checked the valuation of the property before entering into the transaction.
The bench of Justices UU Lalit and Bela M Trivedi was considering a criminal appeal assailing Kerala High Court's judgment dated September 29, 2020 by which the High Court had rejected the application filed u/s 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings initiated pursuant to the FIR.
While allowing the appeal the bench in Jayahari & Anr v. State of Kerala and Anr said,
"As the facts on record show the complainant is a businessman working in Gulf. A man, well versed in commerce, would certainly be expected to check the valuation of the property before entering into any transaction. The dispute in question being purely civil in nature, the adoption of remedy in a criminal court would amount to abuse of the process of Court."
11. Burden Of Proof To Establish Plea Of Alibi On Accused Is Heavy: Supreme Court
Case Title: Pappu Tiwary vs State of Jharkhand| CrA 1492 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 107
The Supreme Court bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh observed that the burden of establishing the plea of alibi on accused is heavy. The plea of alibi in fact is required to be proved with certainty so as to completely exclude the possibility of the presence of the accused at the place of occurrence, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh noted.
Case Name: National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited v. Montecarlo Limited And Anr. | Civil Appeal No. 6466 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 108
On Monday, the Supreme Court held that while entertaining writ petitions challenging the tender process or the award of contract with respect to Mega projects funded by foreign countries, the High Courts ought to bear in mind the principles of judicial restraint laid down by the Apex Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, 1994 6 SCC 651.
A Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna allowed an appeal assailing the order of Delhi High Court, inter alia, on the ground that the High Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to have interfere with the ongoing tender process of a Foreign funded project in the absence of specific allegations of mala fide and/or favoritism.
Case Title: United Bank Of India V. Biswanath Bhattacharjee| Civil Appeal No. 8258 Of 2009
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 109
The Supreme Court on Monday observed that remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution are available and intervention is warranted when disciplinary authority's findings are malafide or perverse, not based on evidence or are based on consideration of irrelevant material or by ignoring relevant material, or are such that they could not have been rendered by any reasonable person placed in like circumstances.
While dismissing the appeal the bench Justices KM Joseph and S Ravindra Bhat said,
"The bank is correct, when it contends that an appellate review of the materials and findings cannot ordinarily be undertaken, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Yet, from H.C. Goel onwards, this court has consistently ruled that where the findings of the disciplinary authority are not based on evidence, or based on a consideration of irrelevant material, or ignoring relevant material, are mala fide, or where the findings are perverse or such that they could not have been rendered by any reasonable person placed in like circumstances, the remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution are available, and intervention, warranted. For any court to ascertain if any findings were beyond the record (i.e., no evidence) or based on any irrelevant or extraneous factors, or by ignoring material evidence, necessarily some amount of scrutiny is necessary. A finding of "no evidence" or perversity, cannot be rendered sans such basic scrutiny of the materials, and the findings of the disciplinary authority. However, the margin of appreciation of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution would be different; it is not appellate in character."
Case name: Veena Mittal vs State of Uttar Pradesh|CrA 122 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 110
The Supreme Court bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Dinesh Maheshwari has reiterated that the jurisdiction to quash under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised only if no offense is made out on reading the allegations in the FIR as they stand.
The allegation of the complainant in this case, was that at the time of the marriage, the mother in law and brother in law of her daughter had induced her to hand over stridhan in the nature of silver utensils weighing about 5 kg, gold jewelry weighing about 400 gms, utensils of the value of Rs 1,00,000 and other items.
15. Conviction Can be Solely Based Upon Dying Declaration Without Corroboration: Supreme Court
Case name: State of U.P. vs Veerpal| CrA 34 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 111
The Supreme Court observed that there can be a conviction solely based upon the dying declaration without corroboration. "If the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base its conviction on it, without corroboration", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed. The court observed this while restoring the conviction of the murder accused recorded by the Trial Court.
Case Title: State of Manipur vs Surjakumar Okram| CA 823-827 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 112
The Supreme Court observed that a law passed by the legislature is good law till it is declared as unconstitutional by a competent Court or till it is repealed.
The very declaration by a Court that a statute is unconstitutional obliterates the statute entirely as though it had never been passed, the bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna observed.
The court observed thus in a judgment in which it upheld the law passed by the Manipur assembly repealing the Manipur Parliamentary Secretary (Appointment, Salary and Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2012. The court also struck down the saving clause in the Repealing Act.
Case Title: State of Manipur vs Surjakumar Okram| CA 823-827 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 113
The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that legislature cannot infuse life into a legislation, which it itself recognised as unconstitutional, by enacting a saving clause.
The bench of Justices LN Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna was considering special leave petitions challenging the Manipur High Court's order of striking down the Manipur Parliamentary Secretary (Appointment, Salary and Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2012 ("Act, 2012) and the Manipur Parliamentary Secretary (Appointment, Salary And Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Repealing Act, 2018 ("Repealing Act, 2018") as unconstitutional.
While striking down the saving clause the bench in The State of Manipur & Ors. v. Surjakumar Okram & Ors. observed,
"As is evident from the preamble of the Repealing Act, 2018, the repeal of the 2012 Act is a procedural formality by the Manipur Legislature to give the statute a logical conclusion, in light of the pending public interest litigations challenging its constitutional validity before the High Court. Bearing in mind these exceptional facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that by means of the saving clause in the Repealing Act, 2018, the Manipur Legislature could not have infused life into a legislation, which was recognised by the Legislature itself as unconstitutional and thereby, a nullity, prompting its repeal. In light of the above, the Manipur Legislature cannot be said to have the competence to enact the saving clause in the Repealing Act, 2018."
Case Titles: Future Retail Ltd v Amazon.com Investment Holdings & Ors, Future Coupons Pvt Ltd & Ors vs Amazon.com Investment Holdings & Ors| Civil Appeal Nos. 859860 Of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 114
While setting aside the order of the Delhi High Court which initiated coercive steps against the Future Group companies and its promoters, the Supreme Court of India bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli on Tuesday observed that contempt of a civil nature can be made out under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure only when there has been "wilful disobedience" and not on mere "disobedience".
According to the Court, the allegation of wilful disobedience being in the nature of criminal liability, the same has to be proved to the satisfaction of the court that the disobedience was not mere "disobedience" but "wilful" and "conscious".
Case name: Jogi Ram vs Suresh Kumar| CA 1543-1544 OF 2019
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 115
The Supreme Court has held that Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act does not bar the bequeathing of a limited estate to a female by way of a Will; but if the limited estate is given to the wife for her maintenance, then it would mature into an absolute estate under Section 14(1) of the Act.
"The objective of Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 cannot be that a Hindu male who owned self-acquired property is unable to execute a Will giving a limited estate to a female if all other aspects including maintenance are taken care of", the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh observed.
Case Title : State of Sikkim vs Jasbir Singh| CrA 85 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 116
The Supreme Court observed that the intent of the Army Act is not to protect army personnel by awarding them lesser punishment even for serious offenses.
"If that was the intent of the legislature- that is to protect persons subject to the Army Act by awarding them lesser punishment even for serious offenses - then the Act would not have provided for concurrent jurisdiction of court-martial and ordinary criminal courts at all", the bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Surya Kant observed while allowing an appeal filed by the State of Sikkim against an order passed by the Sikkim High Court which directed that a criminal case against an army officer be handed over to court-martial.
Case Name: Southern Power Distribution Power Company Limited of Andhra Pradesh (APSPDCL) And Anr. v. M/s. Hinduja National Power Corporation Limited And Anr. | Civil Appeal No. 1844 of 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC)117
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court held that the instrumentalities of the State cannot change a consistent stand taken by them, all of a sudden, at their whims and fancies, especially when it is arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable and against public interest.
A Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai rejected an appeal filed by power distribution companies assailing the order of Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi which had directed the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission to dispose of two applications filed by the parties before it. Displeased with the conduct of the appellants in the dispute the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 5,00,000 (five lakhs) on them.
Case name: Mata Prasad vs State of UP| WP(Crl) 256 of 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 118
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh has asked the Uttar Pradesh Government to re-examine its policy for premature release prescribing a minimum age of 60 years. As per the prevailing policy, convicts "who have completed age of 60 years" and have undergone custody of 20 years without remission and 25 years with remission, are eligible to be considered for premature release. The court said this policy does not seem to be sustainable since it implies that a young offender of 20 years will have to serve 40 years before his case for remission can be considered.
Case name: RK Singh vs General Manager| SLP(C) 23924/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 119
The Special Leave Petition against a review order alone is not maintainable, the Supreme Court reiterated in a recent order. The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh observed thus while dismissing a special leave petition filed against an order passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court. The bench noted that the petitioner had earlier withdrawn the Special Leave Petition. At the stage of withdrawal, no liberty was granted.
Case name: Mohammed Masroor Shaikh v. Bharat Bhushan Gupta| CA 874 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 120
The Supreme Court observed that while dealing with petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Court by default would refer the matter when contentions relating to non-arbitrability are plainly arguable.
In such case, the issue of non-arbitrability is left open to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal, the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and Abhay S. Oka observed.
The bench observed thus while disposing the appeals against orders passed by a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court on the petitions under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Case name: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar| CA 837-838 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 121
The role of the Arbitrator is to arbitrate within the terms of the contract, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment passed on Tuesday (1 Feb 2022)
The bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and Abhay S. Oka observed that an award can be said to be patently illegal where the Arbitral Tribunal has failed to act in terms of the contract or has ignored the specific terms of a contract.
Case name: Devesh Chourasia vs District Magistrate, Jabalpur| CrA 125 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 122
The Supreme Court reiterated that the failure of the government to communicate the rejection of the representation in a time bound manner would vitiate the order of detention.
The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Dinesh Maheshwari allowed an appeal filed against a judgment passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court which had upheld an order of detention passed against a person named Devesh Chourasia under Section 3 of the National Security Act 1980.
27. Award Passed By Lok Adalat Is Not A Compromise Decree: Supreme Court
Case name: New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) vs Yunus|CA 901 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 123
The Supreme Court observed that an Award passed by the Lok Adalat is not a compromise decree.
This observation was made by the bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and PS Narasimha in its judgment holding that an Award passed by a Lok Adalat under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 cannot be the basis for redetermination of compensation as contemplated under Section 28A of the the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
28. NGT's Adjudicatory Functions Cannot Be Delegated To 'Expert Committees': Supreme Court
Case name: Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Trust vs State of Gujarat|CA 1046/2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 124
The Supreme Court observed that adjudicatory functions of National Green Tribunal (NGT) cannot be delegated to administrative expert committees.
"An expert committee may be able to assist the NGT, for instance, by carrying out a fact-finding exercise, but the adjudication has to be by the NGT. This is not a delegable function," the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Bela M. Trivedi observed.
Case Title : Anamika Varun Rathore versus Varun Pratap Singh Rathore
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 125
The issue whether a single judge of the Supreme Court can exercise powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to pass a decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent has been referred to a larger bench.
On February 1, a single bench of Justice Krishna Murari noted that the issue has been referred to a larger bench. "The issue as to whether a Judge sitting singly can pass an order granting decree of divorce to the parties on the basis of the Settlement Agreement in exercise of powers conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution of India has been referred for adjudication by a larger Bench", Justice Murari noted.
30. Court Can't Impose Time-Bar On Convict To Seek Sentence Suspension: Supreme Court
Case Title: Krishan Kumar v. State of Haryana SLP (Crl) No. 612 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 126
On Monday, the Supreme Court held that seeking relief of suspension of execution of sentence and to be released on bail being statutory right of the accused, time-specific debarment on the same cannot be created by judicial orders.
"…such kind of time-specific debarment is not envisaged by the law."
A Bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath was dealing with an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had denied the prayer of the petitioner for suspension of execution of sentence at the given point in time.
31. Consent Decree Cannot Be Modified/Altered Unless The Mistake Is A Patent Or Obvious One: Supreme Court
Case name: Ajanta LLP vs Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha d/b/a Casio Computer Co. Ltd| CA 1052 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 127
The Supreme Court has held that a consent decree cannot be modified/ altered unless the mistake is a patent or obvious mistake.
Or else, there is a danger of every consent decree being sought to be altered on the ground of mistake/ misunderstanding by a party to the consent decree, the bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai observed.
Case name: Central Industrial Security Force Vs HC (GD) Om Prakash| CA 5428 OF 2012
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 128
The Supreme Court has held that an order of premature retirement is required to be passed on the basis of entire service records. The recent reports would carry their own weight, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian added. The court also noted that such an order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by the Court merely for the reason that uncommunicated adverse remarks were taken into consideration.
Case name: Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited vs Hitro Energy Solutions Private Limited| CA 2839 of 2020
Citation. : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 129
The Supreme Court has held that limitation does not commence when the debt becomes due but only when a default occurs. The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath that the debt is defined in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code as the non-payment of the debt by the corporate debtor when it has become due. In this case, the appellant placed orders with the Proprietary Concern, which was the supplier of Thorn Lighting India Private Limited through three purchase orders dated 24 June 2013. The contention raised in this case was that the date of default mentioned is 7 November 2013, when the cheque was issued by CMRL to the Proprietary Concern and therefore the limitation of three years under Article 137 of the Limitation Act would expire on 7 November 2016, while the application under Section 9 was only filed on 1 November 2017.
Case name: Bombay Chemical Industries vs Deputy Labor Commissioner| CA 813 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 130
The Supreme Court observed that, in an application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction and cannot adjudicate dispute of entitlement or the basis of the claim of workmen.
It can only interpret the award or settlement on which the claim is based, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
In this case the workman filed an application before the Labor Court under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, demanding a difference of wages from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2012. This application was contested by the M/s Bombay Chemical Industries denying any relationship of employee-employer. The Labor Court allowed the said application and directed the M/s Bombay Chemical Industries to pay the difference of wages from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2012 as claimed in the application. The writ petition filed challenging this order passed by the labor court was dismissed by the High Court and therefore M/s Bombay Chemical Industries approached the Apex Court.
Case Title: The State of Uttarakhand vs Sachendra Singh Rawat| Crl Appeal No 143 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 131
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court discussed the circumstances which can be used to infer if there was an intention to cause death in a murder case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
A Bench of Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna was considering the State of Uttarakhand's appeal challenging High Court's order setting aside the conviction of the accused for the offense under Section 302 IPC and seeking restoration of the order passed by the trial Court convicting the accused for the offense under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment.
The Supreme Court bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh recently set aside the High Court's order which gave an effect to the reasoning that fabrication of documents was permissible if it did not cause loss to the revenue.
While setting aside the order, the bench said, ""We find the aforesaid reasoning totally unsustainable. The effect of this reasoning is that fabrication of documents is permissible if it does not cause loss to the revenue! We have thus no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the impugned order must go and is consequently set aside."
Case Title: Centrum Financial Services Limited vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
The Supreme Court of India has observed that where a Court while considering an application for bail fails to consider the relevant factors, an Appellate Court may justifiably set aside the order granting bail.
According to the Bench, the Appellate Court is required to consider whether the order granting bail suffers from a non-application of mind or a prima facie view from the evidence available on record.
A Bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice Sanjiv Khanna made the observation while considering an appeal challenging the Delhi High Court's order granting bail to a person accused of engaging in the business of multicommodity trading of agricultural and non- commodities agricultural and for the offenses under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.
Case Title: Madhukar S/O Govindrao Kamble & Ors vs Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation & Ors.| Civil Appeal Nos. 368-369 Of 2022
The Supreme Court of India has observed that the market value of a land must be determined keeping in view the various factors including proximity to the developed area and the road etc. and it is not the nature of land alone which is determinative of the market value of the land.
A Bench comprising Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V Ramasubramanian has delivered its order in an appeal filed by some landowners against the Bombay High Court's order whereby the compensation for the land acquired was assessed as Rs. 56,500/- per hectare.
Important Apex Court Updates
1. Approach High Courts Against Vaccine Mandates Of States : Supreme Court Suggests To Petitioner
On Monday, the Supreme Court bench of Justices LN Rao and BR Gavai expressed concern that it might not be able to decide specific cases of vaccine mandates imposed by the State Governments and other authorities and the same can be taken up by the respective High Courts.
"Let us tell you something, after going through all the papers, all the instances which you are bringing to notice, it might not be possible for us to decide those. Because there are numerous situations that can be brought to this Court, we cannot even envisage so many situations pertaining to vaccine mandates. You are talking about employment, but there are so many other situations, not only pertaining to employment. People will come complaining about various things that we cannot handle. We will decide your main case and specific cases can be dealt with by the High Courts," the bench said.
The Supreme Court bench of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud and Surya Kant on Monday posted before a three-judge bench the plea challenging the constitutional validity of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 on the ground that there is discrimination in the devolution in case of a woman dying intestate, in comparison with the rules for devolution where a male has died intestate.
On Monday, the Supreme Court bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh granted four weeks as last opportunity to the Union Government to file its counter affidavit in a PIL challenging validity of Section 2(f) of the National Commission for Minority Education Institution Act 2004, for failing to recognise minorities at state level subject to deposit of cost amounting to Rs. 7,500 to the Supreme Court Bar Advocates' Welfare Fund.
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere in the SLP assailing Gujarat High Court's order of suspending the Life-imprisonment sentence of Ex-BJP MP Dinu Bogha Solanki who was convicted by a special CBI court in 2019 for killing RTI activist Amit Jethwa in 2010 pursuant to the activist trying to expose illegal mining activities in the Gir forest region. The bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar while rejecting the SLP said that the same was not an affirmation of the opinion made by the High Court.
5. Clarify If Removal Of Upper Age Limit For NEET-UG Is Under Consideration: Supreme Court To NMC
The Supreme Court, on Monday, asked the National Medical Council to clarify if they are considering to remove the upper age limit of 25 years and 30 years for candidates eligible for reservation, for NEET-UG, as was inserted by way of amendment to the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997 vide notification dated 22.01.2018.
Petition was filed before the Delhi High Court challenging certain provisions of the amendment of the Regulation, including the insertion of the age limit. The Delhi High Court held the age cap to be valid. A plea assailing the same was filed before the Apex Court. Pursuant to an interim order of the Supreme Court, there is no upper age limit for appearing in the NEET-UG examination, until it decides the issue.
The Supreme Court on January 28, has directed the State of Karnataka to adhere to the extended timeliness permitted by the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, to complete the process of counseling for admission to PG courses in MDS for the academic year 2021-22 session.
A division bench of Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice Sanjiv Khanna took on record the communication dated 27 January 2022 of the Government of India in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to the Principal Secretary (H&FW), Health and Family Welfare Department of the Government of Karnataka.
The Supreme Court bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar on Monday refused to entertain an application seeking waiver of 25 lakhs cost imposed on an applicant who had made allegations against the Uttarakhand High Court and High Officials of the State Government in a case related to sale of assets of Khasgi (Devi Ahilyabai Holkar Charities) Trust of Indore, Madhya Pradesh.
Supreme Court judge Justice UU Lalit on Monday recused from hearing the special leave petition filed by journalist Tarun Tejpal challenging the order passed by Bombay High Court(Goa Bench) rejecting his application moved under Section 327 CrPC for conducting hearings in-camera in the appeal proceedings against his acquittal in a 2013 rape case.
9. Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea To Ban "Why I killed Gandhi" Movie Streaming
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a writ petition seeking a stay on the streaming of the movie "Why I killed Gandhi" which was set to release on the OTT platform 'Limelight' on 30th January, Mahatma Gandhi's death anniversary.
The bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari while granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court in their order said, "Writ petition under Art 32 may only be filed when there is a question of violation of Fundamental Right. No Fundamental Right of the petitioner appears to have been violated. However it appears that the petitioner is a citizen and may have a serious cause of concern. Petitioner is at liberty to approach the High Court under Art 226. This petition is not entertained."
The Supreme Court on Monday protected Shiromani Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia from arrest in a drug case till February 23, taking note of the fact that the Punjab assembly elections are going to take place on February 20. The Court granted this relief to allow Majithia to do election campaigning.
A Bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli directed Majithia to surrender before the concerned Court on February 23 seeking regular bail.
In a writ petition filed by Class XIIth passed out students aggrieved by the alleged failure of the CBSE and Sidana International School's failure to implement the evaluation procedure prescribed in the Evaluation Policy dated February 17, 2021 the Supreme Court bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar on Monday directed the School Result Committee to decide the student's representation within 2 weeks.
12. [Recording Of Testimonies Of Child Witnesses Through VC] NALSA To Pay Rs. 1500 Per Day As Honorarium To Remote Point Co-ordinators : Supreme Court
While hearing the matter pertaining to the virtual recording of testimonies of child victims/witnesses of human trafficking who are required to travel across states or districts to give evidence in Trial Courts, the Supreme Court bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai on Tuesday asked NALSA to pay Rs 1500 per day as honorarium to remote point coordinators.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Union Government to file an affidavit regarding compliance with the Central Administrative Tribunal's order of directing to undertake the exercise of determining as to how many differently abled candidates who participated in CSE 2008 and other examinations deserved to be selected on the basis of their own merit without the PWD quota
The bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and AS Oka was considering civil appeal preferred by Center assailing Delhi High Court's order of affirming Central Administrative Tribunal's order.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved judgements in plea filed by a woman Additional District Judge (ADJ) of Madhya Pradesh - who raised sexual harassment complaint against a then sitting MP HC judge - seeking reinstatement into service on the ground that her resignation was due to coercive circumstnaces.
Solicitor General of India, Mr. Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Madhya Pradesh High Court also urged a Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai to not allow the petition in exercise of Article 32 as otherwise it would have an effect of stigmatizing a prestigious institution and the personnels manning it.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned the petition filed by MK Naser, a member of the Popular Front of India(PFI), seeking bail in the case related to the chopping of the hand of Kerala Professor TJ Joseph in 2010.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli listed the petition after four weeks, after the National Investigation Agency submitted that the trial is likely to be completed within 6-8 months
16. "Medical Condition Relevant": Supreme Court Stays Execution Of Death Row Convict Ex Cop BA Umesh
The Supreme Court bench of Justices UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha on Monday (January 31) stayed the execution of ex-cop BA Umesh alias Umesh Reddy, who was sentenced to death in a rape and murder case.
Reddy was sentenced to death by a Sessions Court in Bengaluru upon being convicted in the year 2006 for offenses under sections 376, 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code, committed in the year 1998. He was found guilty of rape and murder of a house wife. Later, the Supreme Court upheld the death sentence awarded to him in 2011. Later his review petition was also dismissed.
In a major relief to Future group companies, the Supreme Court on Monday set aside the orders of the Delhi High Court which initiated coercive steps against the companies and its promoters Biyanis for alleged violation of the Emergency Award passed by the Singapore Tribunal on the application filed by e-commerce giant Amazon.
The Supreme Court has set aside the orders dated 02.02.2021 and 18.03.2021 passed by a single judge of the Delhi High Court ordering coercive steps against Future group and the order dated 29.10.2021 which refused to stay the Singapore Arbitration Tribunal's refusal to vacate the Emergency Award which restrained Future's deal with Reliance.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the suspension of BJP's Somya Gurjar from the post of Mayor of the Jaipur Municipal Corporation- Greater, till the conclusion of the judicial enquiry set up to look into the allegations of assault of the JMC Commissioner, over which the Rajasthan government had suspended her and 3 other councilors in June, 2021.
The bench of Justices S. K. Kaul and M. M. Sundresh observed, "We had vide our order dated 16.07.2021 (where notice was issued) itself noticed that the allegation against the petitioner as a Mayor was of using improper language. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the position of the petitioner was stated to be different from other Corporators present where the allegation was of scuffle and scramble and pushing of the officer by those Corporators. We are also informed that while recording of the evidence is complete in the case of the petitioner, in respect of others, evidence of eight more witnesses has to be recorded…"
Noting that a person accused of evading GST to the tune of Rs. 64 crore has undergone a period of almost 50% of the sentence, the Supreme Court on Tuesday granted him bail while observing that detention cannot be indefinite. The bail was granted by the bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh while considering a SLP assailing Gujarat High Court's order dated April 26, 2021.
The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday granted parole for 15 days to Rupam Pathak who is serving life sentence in the case of murder of the then Purnia BJP MLA, Raj Kishore Kesri.
She was awarded life sentence after she was convicted of stabbing the MLA to death at an open assembly at his residence in 2011.
A Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli was hearing a special leave petition filed by Pathak challenging the Patna High Court's order refusing to grant her interim bail on the ground that her appeal against conviction is already pending before the High Court.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday continued hearing a batch of petitions concerned with interpretation of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ("PMLA Act"). Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, while referring to Section 19 of PMLA Act which deals with the Powers of Arrest before the bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar, submitted that there had to be a procedure through which the accused is informed so that he/she is entitled to seek constitutional remedies.
Senior Counsel said, "It's not only lawless paradise but Bureaucrat's paradise. We've created Frankenstine monster. It's like "Be Lagam Ghoda" because there is no restraint. Laws of this nature should be dealt with as quickly as possible. I'd say we need to control this Frankenstein Monster that we've created."
Expansive Powers Of Arrest & Attachment Under PMLA Creating Havoc: Sidharth Luthra To Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought the response of the Central Government to 1993 Bombay blast convict Abu Salem's argument that his imprisonment cannot extend beyond 25 years in view of the assurance of the government of India to Portugal at the time of his extradition.
A bench of Justices S. K. Kaul and M. M. Sundresh sought the response of the Center on Salem's plea that the 2017 judgment of a Mumbai TADA Court sentencing him to life imprisonment violated the terms of the extradition.
23. Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Postpone GATE-2022; Says 'Can't Play With Students' Careers'
The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed petitions seeking postponement of the Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering Exam, 2022 (GATE 2022) which is scheduled to be held on 5th, 6th, 12th and 13th of February, 2022. A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath said that entertaining the petition 48 hours before the exam will lead to uncertainty and chaos.
On a plea to ensure that the vaccination programme includes beggars and vagabonds/homeless like all other citizens, the Center on Thursday told the Supreme Court bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath that it shall file an updated affidavit as regards the number of persons without any ID cards who have been administered either the first or both doses of vaccination.
While hearing Lok Insaf Party MLA Simarjeet Singh Bains' plea against the non-bailable warrants issued against him in an alleged rape case of a 44-year-old woman, the Supreme Court on Thursday sought the State of Punjab's response to allegations of false and frivolous cases being filed against the complainant- lady by the MLA.
A Bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli made strong remarks against the 'misuse of police machinery' by a public representative.
26. Review Against Reduction Of Navjot Singh Sidhu's Sentence : Supreme Court Adjourns To Feb 25
The Supreme Court bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and SK Kaul on Wednesday adjourned to February 25 the review petition preferred against the 2018 verdict of the Top Court that had reduced the sentence of Navjot Singh Sidhu to Rs 1000 from 3 years imprisonment in a 1987 road rage accident in which Gurnam Singh had died.
In connection with the issue of discharge of untreated waste into the sea, creek and river bodies in the city, the Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Municipal Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to appear in person via VC on February 15 to answer the queries of the Court and be answerable to the directions that may be issued.
The bench of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath was hearing the appeal against the April, 2019 order passed by the NGT in proceedings which arose out of a challenge to a Notification dated 13 October 2017, which was issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change for providing for standards for effluent discharge.
The Director-General of Police of Tamil Nadu has approached the Supreme Court against the order of the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) which transferred the investigation in the case relating to the suicide of a girl in Thanjavur to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
In the Amazon-Future case, the Future Group on Thursday submitted before the Supreme Court that if Future Retail Ltd's deal with the Reliance goes through, 35000 jobs will be saved, no shops will be closed, Banks will be paid out as well, and FRL's debt will be paid to the last rupee.
Senior Advocate Harish Salve appearing for Future Retail was arguing in favor of NCLT proceedings with regard to Future- Reliance deal being permitted to continue. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli orally asked Senior Advocate Harish Salve to file his submissions on this aspect through an affidavit.
The Supreme Court of India on Thursday refused to pass any interim order to restrain coercive steps by the consortium of banks against Future Retail Ltd(FRL) over loan defaults.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli adjourned the writ petition filed by FRL without passing any interim order against the banks.
In view of the agreement between Surat Parsi Panchayat Board and the Centre over the SOP for disposal of bodies of individuals of Zoroastrian faith who succumbed to COVID, the Supreme Court bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant on Friday gave it imprimatur to the protocol of placing iron rods and grills above the towers of silence across India so that no bird can feed on the bodies and carry COVID strains and the bodies are disposed off only by sun rays.
32. Supreme Court Grants Protection From Arrest To Sherlyn Chopra In Porn Videos Case
On Friday, the Supreme Court granted protection from arrest to actress Sherlyn Chopra in the porn films racket case. Advocate, Mr. Sunil Fernandes appearing on behalf of the actress apprised the Bench comprising Justices Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose that Ms. Poonam Pandey, who was a co-accused and was alleged to have committed the same offences, has been granted protection from arrest by the Apex Court vide its order dated January 18, 2022. He submitted that he was seeking similar relief for Ms. Chopra. The Bench issued notice and granted the protection that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.
33. NEET PG 2022: Supreme Court To Hear Plea To Extend Internship Deadline On February 8, 2022
The Supreme Court bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant on Friday adjourned for Tuesday, February 8, 2022 a writ petition filed by six MBBS seeking deferment of NEET PG 2022 which is scheduled to be conducted on March 12, 2022 so as to accommodate candidates who are currently undergoing NEET-PG 2021-22 counseling and would want to appear in NEET-PG 2022-23, subject to the seat allocation in NEET PG 2021-2022.
In a petition filed by NEET-UG aspirants who had passed their 10+ 2 as private students seeking admission in MBBS course as per the allotted institution without insisting for submitting or uploading class XIth marksheet, the Supreme Court on Friday asked National Medical Council ("NMC") to file its counter to clarify the position as to whether such students could appear in counselling or not. The bench of Justices LN Rao and AS Oka while directing NMC to file its counter adjourned the matter for Tuesday (February 8, 2022).
The Supreme Court of India on Friday refused to entertain a writ petition filed by two advocates challenging the notification issued by the Bar Council of India for holding the elections of its Office-Bearers on 06.02.2022 and seeking reservation of at least 30% seats for the women in the State Bar Councils.
In response to petitioners' request for permission to approach BCI for redressal of their grievances particularly with regard to the reservation for the women lawyers, a Bench comprising Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice Abhay Oka granted them liberty to approach the Bar Council of India.
The Supreme Court on Friday orally said that it cannot give a mandamus direction to a High Court Chief Justice that all courts should operate in the virtual platform only. A bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Surya Kant suggested that the better course would be to place such suggestions before the High Court on its administrative side.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by lawyer Ghansham Upadhyay challenging the Bombay High Court's January circular reducing its working hours in Mumbai to 3 hours on account of the COVID third wave. The petitioner had also sought an additional direction that the Courts in Maharashtra should function in a virtual platform as well.
37. Supertech Twin Tower Demolition: Supreme Court Directs Refund To Homebuyers By Feb 28
In the Supertech Emerald Court twin tower demolition matter, the Supreme Court bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant on Friday directed that payment of the amounts of refund as computed by the Amicus Curiae shall be made to the home buyers on or before February 28. Where home loans are outstanding, the developer shall clear the home loans on or before March 31 and furnish NOCs from the concerned financial institutions to the home buyers no later than April 10; and in respect of those home buyers who have entered into settlement with the developer, the settlement shall govern the rights and obligations of the respective parties.
The State of Haryana has filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court against the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court yesterday to stay the Haryana law which provided 75% reservation for local people in the private sector.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta mentioned the petition on Friday before the Chief Justice of India for urgent listing.
"After hearing me for 90 seconds they admitted the petition & stayed statutory enactment. The order hasn't come out. Kindly list on Monday subject to me placing the order", Solicitor General submitted. The CJI agreed to list the petition next Monday(February 7) subject to the placing of the order.
The Supreme Court bench of Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna on Friday, directed all the State Governments to appoint a dedicated officer, not below the rank of Deputy Secretary in the Chief Minister's Secretariat, as a nodal officer to coordinate with the Member Secretary of the State Legal Services Authority to reach out to kins/family members of persons who have succumbed to COVID-19 and ensure all eligible claimants apply for ex-gratia compensation.
On Friday the Supreme Court bench of Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna directed the State Governments to accept all applications, irrespective of whether they have been filed online or not. The Apex Court categorically observed that no application can be rejected on the ground that they were filed offline. The Court has granted the State Governments a week's time to review the decision of rejecting claims filed offline.
The Amicus Curie has informed the Supreme Court that the number of cases pending against MPs/MLAs has increased from 4122 to 4984 in two years, which shows that more and more persons with criminal antecedents are occupying the seats in the Parliament and the State Legislative Assemblies.
The State of Tamil Nadu has told the Supreme Court that there is no ground or necessity to have a fresh review on the safety of the Dam for storing water upto +142 ft.
This has come in response to the Status Report filed by the CW, in which the authority had said that "a fresh review of the safety of the Mullaperiyar Dam is now due and is required to be undertaken". It has been stated in the response that Mullaperiyar Dam is behaving well in all respects and dam's seepage rate which is being observed on a daily basis, is found to be well within the permissible limits.
43. Plea In Supreme Court For Loan Moratorium Amid COVID 3rd Wave
A lawyer has moved the Supreme Court of India seeking directions to the Union of India and RBI to consider his representation urging them to adopt measures like loan moratorium which could sufficiently redress the financial stress faced by the borrowers during Covid19.
The relief has been sought by Advocate Vishal Tiwari through an interlocutory application filed in the earlier writ petition that had sought financial relief in the form of fresh loan moratorium, extension of time period under the restructuring scheme and temporary cease on the declaration of NPA by the financial banks in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.
