Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: March 27 To April 3, 2022

Supreme Court Judgements 1. Section 188 CrPC - Sanction Not Required If A Part Of Offence Is Committed In India: Supreme Court Case Title: Sartaj Khan vs State of Uttarakhand | CrA 852 of 2018 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 321 The Supreme Court observed that Section 188 of the Criminal Procedure Code will not be attracted if a part of the offence was committed in India. The Section gets attracted when the entirety of the offence is committed outside India; and the grant of sanction would enable such offence to be enquired into or tried in India, the bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha observed. 2. Article 226 - High Court Has To Deal With Grounds/Issues Raised In A Writ Petition And Pass Reasoned Order : Supreme Court Case Title: Vishal Ashwin Patel vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 25(3) | CA 2200 of 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 322 The Supreme Court observed that it is the duty of a court to deal with issues/grounds raised in a writ petitions and thereafter to pass a reasoned order. "When the Constitution confers on the High Courts the power to give relief it becomes the duty of the Courts to give such relief in appropriate cases and the Courts would be failing to perform their duty if relief is refused without adequate reasons.", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed. 3. Immunity Under Income Declaration Scheme Available Only To The Declarant; Can't Be Extended To Another Assessee : Supreme Court Case Title : Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Circle 1(2) versus M/s MR Shah Logistics Private Ltd Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 323 The Supreme Court bench of Justices UU Lalit and SR Bhat has found fault with a Gujarat High Court judgment for extending the immunity under the "Income Declaration Scheme" (IDS) to an assessee who was not the declarant under the scheme. The High Court had quashed the reassessment notice issued under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against a company M/s MR Shah Logistics Private Ltd. One of the grounds for the re-opening of the assessment was contended to have been a declaration by another company, Garg Logistics Private Ltd, regarding an investment of Rs 6.3 crores in the shares of the assessee. 4. No One Can Be Permitted To Take The Benefit Of A Wrong Order Passed By A Court: Supreme Court Case Title: Mekha Ram vs State of Rajasthan | CA 2229-2234 of 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 324 The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna had observed that no one can be permitted to take the benefit of the wrong order passed by the court which has been subsequently set aside by the higher forum/court. 5. Workmen Must Be Heard Before Their Wages Are Deducted For "Go Slow" Approach : Supreme Court Directs Bata To Pay Full Wages Case Title : Bata India Ltd vs Workmen of Bata India Ltd and another Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 325 The Supreme Court bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna has affirmed a Karnataka High Court judgment of 2008 which held that an employer must give proper opportunity of hearing to the workmen before deducting their wages for "go slow" approach by which they had failed to produce the agreed output. 6. NCLAT Order Vitiated If It Fails To Look Into A Vital Aspect On Which NCLT Had Recorded A Specific Finding : Supreme Court Case Name: S.V. Fashions Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As SVG Fashions Ltd). v. Ritu Murli Manohar Goyal And Anr.| Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2020 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 326 The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian held that the failure of NCLAT as the first appellate authority to look into a vital aspect of the matter regarding which NCLT had already recorded a specific finding of fact, would vitiate its order. 7. Doctrine Of Necessity Will Apply When President Of Disciplinary Enquiry Committee Was Replaced Due To Ill Health : Supreme Court Case Title: Jai Bhavani Shikshan Prasarak Mandal v Ramesh & Ors| CIVIL APPEAL NO.7937 of 2011 Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 327 The Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian has applied the "Doctrine of Necessity" to sustain the findings of a Disciplinary Enquiry Committee against a School Principal, after noting that the President of the Committee had to be replaced due to ill health. 8. Article 14 Not Applicable To A Will; Will's Genuineness Not Based On Whether Distribution Was Fair & Equitable : Supreme Court Case Title: Swarnalatha vs Kalavathy | CA 1565 of 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 328 The Supreme Court observed that the exclusion of one of the natural heirs from the bequest in a Will, cannot by itself be a ground to hold that there...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: March 27 To April 3, 2022

Shruti Kakkar

Tags