1) Subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge acquisition or lapsing of acquisition under Land Acquisition Act, 2013
The Court reiterated that the subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the Act).
In this case, the appeal was preferred by the Delhi Development Authority assailing the impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court wherein it had allowed the writ petition preferred by the respondent and had declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question was deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) the Act on the ground that the compensation with respect to the land in question was not paid.
Cause Title- Delhi Development Authority v. Beena Gupta (D) Through LRS. & Ors
Date of Judgment- January 16, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
2) Default bail granted can be cancelled if chargesheet reveals special reasons, commission of non-bailable crime
The Court held that when special reasons were made out from the chargesheet and the chargesheet revealed the commission of a non-bailable crime, default bail granted under proviso to Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 could be cancelled.
In this case the question before the Apex Court was- Whether after an accused was released on default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., under which circumstances, his bail can be cancelled and whether bail can be cancelled on merits having found committed non-bailable crime on conclusion of the investigation and filing the chargesheet?
The Court expressed that if the argument that once an accused was released on default bail, it cannot be cancelled on merits is accepted, it would lead to travesty of justice as the investigating officer might choose not to file the chargesheet within stipulated time and the accused would be released on bail.
Cause Title- State Through Central Bureau of Investigation v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gangi Reddy
Date of Judgment- January 16, 2023
Coram-Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar
3) Conditions for lapse of acquisition not satisfied: SC sets aside order declaring deemed lapse of land acquisition
The Court in an appeal preferred by Delhi Development Authority (DDA) set aside the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court by which it allowed the writ petition of a company in a land acquisition case. The High Court had declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question was deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
In this case, the possession of the land in question was taken in the year 2012 and the respondent was not the recorded owner, and the land was absolutely vested in the Gaon Sabha. Thereafter, the Delhi High Court declared the acquisition with respect to the land in question as deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that the compensation was not paid to the respondent.
Cause Title- Delhi Development Authority v. Eminent Marketing Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Date of Judgment- January 16, 2023
Coram- Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar
4) Committed gross misconduct right at threshold of entering disciplined force: SC upholds constable’s removal from service
The Court while dismissing a Special Leave Petition upheld the order of the division bench of Rajasthan High Court in which it allowed the appeal of the authorities removing a constable from service. The Court said that the CISF (Central Industrial Security Force) authorities had removed the petitioner from the service after following a due process of law.
The Bench noted that when an inquiry is conducted on the charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court or Tribunal would be concerned only to the extent of determining whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether the rules of natural justice and statutory rules were complied with.
Cause Title- Ex-Const/Dvr Mukesh Kumar Raigar v. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment- January 16, 2023
Coram- Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
5) Different educational qualification & experience can be a ground to have different pay scales
The Court while reiterating that different educational qualification and experience prescribed for appointment could be a ground to have different pay scales/pay structures, held that the Nursing Assistant in the BSF could not be treated at par with the Staff Nurses and be granted Nursing Allowance, as they neither had the relevant experience nor they had relevant educational qualification.
The question that arose in the case was whether in a case where the educational qualifications for the post of Nursing Assistant and Staff Nurse were different, still the Nursing Assistants should be entitled to the Nursing Allowance at par with the Staff Nurses.
Consequently, the Apex Court held that the High Court had committed a serious error in holding and directing that the Nursing Assistants serving in the Assam Rifles/BSF were entitled to Nursing Allowance at par with the Staff Nurses.
Cause Title- The Union of India & Ors. V. Rajib Khan & Ors.
Date of Judgment- January 16, 2023
Coram- Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar
6) SC sets aside order declaring lapse of land acquisition on account of non-satisfaction of relevant conditions
The Court while deciding two appeals together has set aside the order of the Delhi High Court in which it was held that the acquisition of the land was deemed to have lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Court disagreed with the High Court on the ground that the relevant conditions were not satisfied to declare the aforesaid Order.
In this case, the respondents being the subsequent purchaser acquired the right, title, or interest in the land in the year 2018. They were not the recorded owner at the time when the award with respect to the land in question under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. The respondents claimed the right, title, or interest based on the Assignment Deed of 2015. The High Court allowed the petition of the respondents holding that the acquisition of land was deemed to have lapsed.
Cause Title- Delhi Development Authority v. Manpreet Singh & Ors.
Date of Judgment- January 16, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
7) Process of criminal law not for arm-twisting & money recovery when prayer for bail is opposed
The Court reiterated that the process of criminal law could not be utilized for arm-twisting and money recovery, particularly when the prayer for bail was being opposed. In this case, the respondents were accused of committing offences under Section 406 and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Patna High Court recorded the offer made by one of the accused of making payment of Rs. 75000/- to the informant (petitioner) and allowed the pre-arrest bail to the respondents.
The Court observed that there is no justification in adopting such a course that for the purpose of being given the concession of pre-arrest bail, the person apprehending arrest ought to make payment. The Court added that recovery of money is essentially within the realm of civil proceedings.
Cause Title- Bimla Tiwari v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Date of Judgment- January 16, 2023
Coram- Justice Dinesh Maheswari and Justice Hrishikesh Roy
8) CCS (Pension) Rules 1972- Child adopted by widow of govt servant after his death not entitled to receive family pension
The Court held that a child adopted by a widow of a government servant, after the death of the government servant would not be included under the definition of ‘family’ under Rule 54 (14) (b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, and thus will not be entitled to receive family pension.
In this case, the Court was dealing with the issue- Whether a child adopted by a widow of a government servant, subsequent to the death of the government servant would be included within the scope of the definition of ‘family’ under Rule 54 (14) (b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, and would therefore be entitled to receive family pension payable under the said Rules.
The Court observed that the definition of the word “family” in relation to a government servant means various categories of persons coming within the nomenclature of the word “family” and all persons who would have had a familial relationship with the government servant during his lifetime. Any other interpretation would lead to abuse of the provision in the matter of grant of family pension.
Cause Title- Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India & Anr.
Date of Judgment- January 17, 2023
Coram- Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice B.V. Nagarathna
9) Since customs authorities wanted to classify goods differently, burden of proof was on them: SC while allowing appeal of HP, Lenovo
The Court recently allowed two appeals filed by HP India Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd. respectively against the Commissioner of Customs (Import) relating to the classification of Automatic Data Processing Machines (ADP) popularly known as ‘All-in-One Integrated Desktop Computer’ (goods) under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
The Court held that since the customs authorities wanted to classify the goods differently, the burden of proof to showcase the same was on them, which they failed to discharge. The Bench also observed that scientific progress has greatly reduced the weight associated with high performance in the context of ADPs.
Cause Title- Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (Now HP India Sales Pvt. Ltd.) v. Commissioner of Customs (Import)
Date of Judgment- January 17, 2023
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice Vikram Nath
10) 'Last seen' cannot be sole basis for conviction, each circumstance to be proved beyond reasonable doubt
The Court while setting aside the conviction of the murder accused observed that the ‘last seen’ theory cannot be the sole basis for conviction as it had limited application, where the time lag between the time the deceased was last seen with the accused, and the time of the murder was narrow.
In this case, on October 10, 1999, a dead body of a 7-year-old boy Haseen was found in the sugarcane field in Village Naryanpur. The appellants were accused of committing the murder of the boy and were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Trial Court. Their conviction and sentence were upheld by the High Court. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the appellants approached the Apex Court.
Cause Title- Jabir & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand
Date of Judgment- January 17, 2023
Coram- Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
11) Section 138 NI Act: Standard of proof for rebutting presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities
The Court while reversing the order of the Madras High Court of convicting the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NIA) has reiterated that the standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of the preponderance of probabilities. The Court while hearing two appeals together confirmed the order of the Trial Court in which the appellants were acquitted of the charges under the NIA.
The appellants in this case had challenged the judgments passed by the High Court whereby the suits filed by the respondents for the recovery of money based on the promissory notes were decreed. The appellants were convicted and were sentenced to a fine of Rs. 7 lakhs in respect of two cheques for an amount of Rs. 3.5 lakhs.
Cause Title- Rajaram v. Muruthachalam
Date of Judgment- January 18, 2023
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice M.M. Sundresh
12) Section 302 IPC: SC upholds murder conviction of a man who was accused of killing a taxi driver
The Court upheld the murder conviction of a man who was accused of killing a taxi driver. The Court while dismissing an appeal filed by the accused held that the prosecution had established and proved that the deceased was killed after his car was stolen by the accused. The accused was convicted under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code by the Madras High Court.
The accused was involved in murdering the driver of a taxi through a conspiracy by taking him to an isolated place, killing him, and stealing the car and other personal belongings owned by the deceased, and burying his dead body. It was the case on behalf of the accused that he was convicted on the confessional statement and therefore, in case of circumstantial evidence and unless and until the complete chain of events were proved and established, he could not have been convicted on a confessional statement.
Cause Title- John Anthonisamy @ John v. State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Date of Judgment- January 19, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
13) Punishment awarded to CRPF jawan should be 'strikingly disproportionate' to warrant judicial review under article 226
The Court has observed that punishment awarded should to a CRPF jawan cannot be merely disproportionate but should be strikingly disproportionate to warrant interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there was perversity or irrationality, judicial review under Articles 226 or 227 or under Article 32 of the Constitution could be there.
In this case, the Court said that High Court was not justified in observing that the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate as the misconduct of misbehaving with the superior/senior officer and of insubordination was a very serious misconduct, which could not be tolerated in a disciplined force like CRPF and the penalty awarded to the respondent was not strikingly disproportionate.
Cause Title- Union of India and Ors. V. Const Sunil Kumar
Date of Judgment- January 19, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
14) Section 34 Arbitration Act- Arbitral award in conflict with public policy of India is ground to set aside award
The Court in an appeal held that the arbitral award in conflict with the public policy of India can be ground to set aside the award under Section 34(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appeal was filed against the judgment of the High Court by which it set aside the order passed by the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge permitting the respondents to adduce evidence in an application under Section 34 of the Act.
The question for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether the applicant can be permitted to adduce evidence to support the ground relating to Public Policy in an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Cause Title- M/s Alpine Housing Development Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashok S. Dhariwal and Others
Date of Judgment- January 19, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
15) Prior approval of director of education is mandatory while dismissal of employee of recognised institution
The Court held that prior approval of the Director of Education was mandatory in case of dismissal/removal of an employee of a recognized institution and the contrary view which the Larger Bench of the Rajasthan High Court took in the case of Central Academy Society Vs. Rajasthan Non-Govt. Educational Institutional Tribunal; (2010) 3 WLC 21 to that extent was not a good law.
In this case, the appellant was an employee of the respondent and disciplinary enquiry was initiated against him under provisions of the Rajasthan Non-Governmental Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (the Act). The services of the appellant were terminated after charges of misconduct were proved.
Cause Title- Gajanand Sharma v. Adarsh Siksha Parisad Samiti & Ors.
Date of Judgment- January 19, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
16) Chargesheets aren’t public documents: SC dismisses plea to put copies of chargesheets & challans on govt websites
The Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the petitioner praying for directions to the respondents/States to enable free public access to chargesheets or challans by putting the same on the government websites. The Court held that the chargesheets cannot be said to be public documents under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The Supreme Court in the above regard noted that if the relief as prayed in the present petition is allowed and all the chargesheets and relevant documents produced along with the chargesheets are put on the public domain or on the websites of the State Governments it will be contrary to the Scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code and it may as such violate the rights of the accused as well as the victim and/or even the investigating agency.
Cause Title- Saurav Das v. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment- January 20, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
17) Land acquisition proceedings shall not lapse if award not made as on commencement of LA Act 2013
The Court reiterated that the land acquisition proceedings shall not lapse if the award is not made as on the commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
The Supreme Court has disposed of thirteen separate matters related to land acquisition. In the majority of the appeals, the Bench comprised Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar while in one matter the Bench comprised Justice MR Shah and Justice Hima Kohli.
The High Court had allowed the Writ Petitions filed by the original landowners and had held that the land acquisition proceedings lapsed solely on the ground that the amount of compensation was not paid to the landowners. The Court thus held the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is unsustainable.
Date of Judgment- January 20, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
Coram- Justice MR Shah and Justice Hima Kohli
18) Temporary acquisition cannot be continued for 20-25 years- SC holds in an appeal against ONGC
The Court observed that temporary acquisition of land cannot be continued for 20 to 25 years and if such acquisition continued for a number of years, the meaning and purpose of temporary acquisition would lose its significance.
The Court observed that to continue with the temporary acquisition for number of years would be arbitrary and can be said to be infringing the right to use the property guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It further added that even to continue with the temporary acquisition for a longer period can be said to be unreasonable, infringing the rights of the landowners to deal with and/or use the land.
Cause Title- Manubhai Sendhabhai Bharwad and Another v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & Others
Date of Judgment- January 20, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice M.M. Sundresh
19) State govt being original owner is 'deemed lessor', ‘person interested’ entitled to compensation from company acquiring mining lease
The Court observed that the State Government being the original owner was a deemed lessor and was the ‘person interested’ entitled to the compensation and surface land rent from the Government Company in whom the rights under the mining lease were vested by the Central Government.
In this case, the lands in question were owned by the State Government of Odisha and were acquired by the Central Government of India under Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957. The Central Government directed that the said lands and rights should be vested in the Government Company.
Notice was issued by the respondent-State demanding a sum of Rs. 70 lakhs towards premium for Government land and Rs. 40 lakhs towards compensation. These demand notices were challenged by the appellant by way of writ petition before the High Court. The High Court observed that the State Government was a person interested in land and therefore, entitled to the compensation over and above in lieu of losing the rights over the land.
Cause Title- Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Ors
Date of Judgment- January 20, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
20) Principle of service jurisprudence can’t operate where appointments made on different dates are in breach of rules
The Court in an appeal has held that the principle of service of jurisprudence cannot operate where the appointments were made on different dates in breach of the applicable rules. The appeal questioned the legality of the selection list for posts of Assistant Radio Officers in the Uttar Pradesh Police Radio Department.
In this case, the subject of controversy in the appeal was the legality of a selection list for the posts of Assistant Radio Officers in the Uttar Pradesh Police Radio Department. The list was made on October 25, 2013, and as per the UP Police Radio Service Rules, 1979, the vacancies in the said posts were required to be filled up 50% through direct recruitment and 50% by promotion from the feeder cadre (in this case Radio Inspectors).
Cause Title- Sushil Pandey & Anr. v. State Of U.P. Thr. Principal Secretary (Home) & Ors.
Date of Judgment- January 16, 2023
Coram- Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Aniruddha Bose
21) ESI Act applicable to establishments irrespective of number of employees
The Court held that as per Section 1(6) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI Act) an establishment would be governed by the Act even if the number of employees fell below the specified limit at any time and the provision would be applicable to establishments established prior to the provision coming into existence.
In this case, the respondent- Radhika Theatre paid ESI contributions up to September 1989. Since the number of employees went below the prescribed number i.e., 20, it stopped making contributions. Demand notices were issued by the ESI Corporation. The demand notices were challenged before the EI Court, which was dismissed.
Cause Title- The ESI Corporation v. M/s. Radhika Theatre
Date of Judgment- January 20, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar