1) Money Laundering Case: SC dismisses Rana Ayyub's plea, holds issue of territorial jurisdiction cannot be decided in writ petition
The Court while dismissing the plea of Rana Ayyub said that the issue of territorial jurisdiction cannot be decided in a writ petition especially when there is a serious dispute regarding the place of commission of the offence.
The Court was dealing with a matter in which the petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Special Court, Ghaziabad under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to take cognisance of a complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate against her for the violations in amounts collected through the crowdfunding for the COVID relief.
Cause Title- Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement through its Assistant Director
Date of Judgment- February 07, 2023
Coram- Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice J.B. Pardiwala
2) SC sets aside NCDRC's order awarding ₹2 crore compensation to a model for faulty hair cut at hotel salon in 2018
The Court set aside NCDRC's order awarding Rs. 2 Crore compensation to a model for a faulty haircut at a hotel salon in 2018.
The Court observed that while quantifying the amount of compensation no reference to or discussion on any material evidence was made by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) and had set aside the order of NCDRC wherein compensation of Rs. 2 crores was awarded to the respondent for loss of income, mental breakdown and trauma, due to deficiency in service and damage caused to her hair.
Cause Title- ITC Limited v. Aashna Roy
Date of Judgment- February 07, 2023
Coram- Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Vikram Nath
3) Writ jurisdiction is applicable if state acts arbitrarily in its contractual dealings- SC invalidates GAIL's terms imposed on IPCL
The Court held that writ jurisdiction could be exercised against the State, if the State in its contractual dealings had failed to exercise a degree of fairness or had practiced any discrimination.
In this case IPCL assailed the recovery of ‘loss of transportation charges’ as arbitrary and unfair and IPCL claimed refund of the same. The Single Judge of the High Court quashed the impugned clauses and directed GAIL to refund the charges levied. The appeal preferred by GAIL came to be dismissed by the High Court.
Cause Title- M/s Gas Authority of India Limited v. M/s Indian Petrochemicals Corp. Ltd. & Ors.
Date of Judgment- February 08, 2023
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Abhay S. Oka
4) Cause arising from sun stroke cannot be included within ‘scope of cover’ in insurance policy
The Court while allowing an appeal filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd. held that a cause arising from a sun stroke cannot be included within the parameters of the ‘Scope of Cover’ in the insurance policy defining when such insurance amount would become payable.
The Court was dealing with a matter in which the order passed by the Patna High Court was challenged by the appellant i.e., the insurance company.
Cause Title- National Insurance Company Ltd. v. The Chief Electoral Officer & Ors.
Date of Judgment- February 08, 2023
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Abhay S. Oka
5) Service Jurisprudence: For regularization of daily wager initial appointment must be done by competent authority
The Court upheld the decision of the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court and observed that a daily rated employee could seek regularisation only if he had been appointed by a competent authority and had been working for a sanctioned post.
In this case, the appeal was preferred against the order of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court wherein the single-judge decision was set aside. The Single Judge had allowed the writ petition preferred by the appellant and had directed for regularization of the appellant from the date on which the juniors were regularized.
Thereafter, Letters Patent Appeal was preferred before the division bench of the High Court by the State government wherein it was held that the appellant's employment could not be regularised because his initial employment did not satisfy the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the Uma Devi's case.
Cause Title- Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v. the State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Date of Judgment- February 08, 2023
Coram- Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
6) Land Acquisition: Sale deed after first notification not basis for determining compensation for subsequent acquisition
The Court recently while dealing with the appeals filed by Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIIDC) held that the sale deed after the first notification is not a basis for determining compensation for subsequent acquisition.
The appeals challenged the judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in which the compensation for the land acquisition was enhanced to Rs. 29,54,000/- and Rs. 45,00,000/- per acre for the villages.
Cause Title- Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited & Others v. Satpal & Others
Date of Judgment- February 09, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Hima Kohli
7) Once assessment of damage is done & is not disputed by insurer, then claim cannot be repudiated
The Court set aside the impugned order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) and directed the respondent-Insurance company to pay Rs, 21,76,524/- to the insured as assessed by the Surveyor.
In this case, an appeal was filed against the order of NCDRC whereby appeal against the order of the State Commission was allowed without the material on record was examined and further reiterated that theory of Diwali fire being the cause of the factory fire appears to be suspicious as the factory was at the edge of the village and there was no residential area around.
The appellant took standard fire and special perils policy from the respondent-The New India Assurance Company Limited in the year 2001.
After its renewal, in October 2006, a devastating fire took place in the premises and the appellant suffered a huge loss. M/s. A.M. Patel Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. was appointed by the respondent, who had examined in extenso the loss/damage suffered by the appellant.
Cause Title- Karnavati Veneers Pvt. Ltd. V. New India Assurance Company Limited & Ors.
Date of Judgment- February 09, 2023
Coram- Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
8) Long delay in passing order has its own effect: SC directs NCDRC to decide consumer complaint within one year
The Supreme Court said that a long delay in passing an order has its own effect and hence, directed the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) to decide on a consumer complaint preferably within one year.
The Court was dealing with an appeal filed under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the aggrieved flat owners against an order passed by the NCDRC wherein the appellants’ complaint was dismissed.
Cause Title- Debashis Sinha & Ors. v. M/s R.N.R. Enterprise Rep. By Its Proprietor/Chairman, Kolkata & Ors.
Date of Judgment- February 09, 2023
Coram- Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta
9) SC imposes cost of ₹50k on state of UP for denying benefit of death-cum-retirement gratuity to heirs of deceased
The Court deprecated the State for filing cases and denying the benefit of benevolent schemes such as death-cum-retirement gratuity to the heirs of the deceased and further imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the State to be paid to the heirs of the deceased.
In this case, the deceased employee was working as a Lecturer in 2001 and died while in service in 2009. The original writ petitioner-wife of the deceased applied for the payment of gratuity due to her husband, but the same was rejected on the ground that the husband of the petitioner, while in service, had not opted for retirement at the age of 60 years.
Cause Title- State of U.P. & Ors. v. Priyanka
Date of Judgment- February 09, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna
10) SC upholds constitutional validity of Sec 9-D Of Excise Act 1944, imposes ₹5 Lakh cost on company
The Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 9-D of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, and imposed a cost of Rs. 5 lakhs on the company challenging the same.
The appellants in this matter preferred appeals against the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court wherein the aforesaid Section of the Excise Act was held intra vires and the writ petitions got dismissed.
Cause Title- G.T.C. Industries Ltd (Now Known As Golden Tobacco Limited) Thr. Manager Legal and Anr. v. Collector of Central Excise and Ors.
Date of Judgment- February 09, 2023
Coram- Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta
11) Non-Compliance of Order XXI rule 84 & rule 85 has effect of vitiating auction sale
The Court reiterated that non- compliance of the mandatory period provided under Order 21 Rule 84 and Order 21 Rule 85 had the effect of vitiating the auction sale.
The Court was hearing an Appeal filed against the impugned judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court wherein the Writ Petition filed against the order of Lower Appellate Court was allowed on the ground that the appellant had failed to plead and establish the nature of irregularity or fraud committed in sale and therefore, no fault could be found in the order of the Executing Court.
Cause Title- Gas Point Petroleum India Limited v. Rajendra Marothi & Ors
Date of Judgment- February 10, 2023
Coram- Justice MR Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
12) Divorce petition cannot be transferred when both the parties to divorce petition are residing at one place
The Court refused to transfer the Divorce petition from Jaipur to a remote place like Kurukshetra in Haryana as it was inconvenient to both parties.
The Court observed that when both the parties to the marriage/divorce petition are residing in Jaipur, it is not just and proper to transfer the case outside Rajasthan to a remote place like Kurukshetra in Haryana.
The Court added that it will not be inconvenient to both of them as, while on duty they will have to go to attend the proceedings to such a long distance and return.
Cause Title- Seema Kaushal v. Dheeraj Kumar
Date of Judgment- February 10, 2023
Coram- Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal
13) Whether a person is fit to be appointed as judge involves suitability aspect which is excluded from purview of judicial review
While dismissing the pleas challenging the appointment of Justice Lekshmana Chandra Victoria Gowri as Additional Judge of the Madras High Court, the Supreme Court held that the question whether a person is fit to be appointed as a judge involves suitability aspect and stands excluded from the purview of judicial review.
While explaining the difference between the eligibility and suitability, the Court observed that when eligibility is put in question, the question would fall within the scope of judicial review. However, the question whether a person is fit to be appointed as a judge essentially involves the aspect of suitability and stands excluded from the purview of judicial review.
Cause Title- Anna Mathews & Others v. Supreme Court of India & Others
Date of Judgment- February 10, 2023
Coram- Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice BR Gavai
14) BCI has power to prescribe All India Bar Examination: Constitution Bench of SC overrules V. Sudeer Judgment
The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the Bar Council of India (BCI) has the power to prescribe the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) for law graduates. The Court overruled the case of V. Sudeer v. Bar Council of India, (1999) 3 SCC 176 in which the Bar Council of India (Training) Rules, 1995 were struck down by the Apex Court.
The Bench said that it must be left to the BCI as to at what stage the AIBE has to be held – pre or post and that the result of the AIBE would be subject to the person passing all the components required under the course of study of the University/College which would be subject to the AIBE results being valid for a specified period of time.
Cause Title- Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College & Ors.
Date of Judgment- February 10, 2023
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Vikram Nath, and Justice J.K. Maheshwari
15) Cumulative increase of 8 to 15 percent per year in market value of land can be accepted: SC modifies compensation in LA case
The Court reiterated that an enhancement given between 8% to 15 % is permissible as per its catena of decisions and in the case has modified the order of the High Court from a 12% enhancement to a 10%.
In 2010, a large chunk of land came to be acquired by the State of Haryana for public purpose under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, of 1894. The land acquisition officer declared the award at a rate of Rs. 60 lakhs per acre. Later, the reference court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,56,24,000/ per acre from Rs. 60 lakhs per acre when a reference under section 18 was made at the instance of the original land owners.
The state preferred appeals against the award passed by the reference court were dismissed by the High Court. Also, the High Court partly allowed the appeals preferred by the land owners and awarded the compensation at Rs. 2,98,54,720/ per acre.
Cause Title- State of Haryana & Anr. v. Subhash Chander & Ors.
Date of Judgment- February 10, 2023
Coram- Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar
16) Practice of excommunication to be tested on constitutional morality: SC refers issue of excommunication in Dawoodi Bohra community to nine-judge bench
The Constitution Bench referred an issue relating to the practice of ex-communication in the Dawoodi Bohra community to a larger nine-Judge Bench holding that such a practice is to be tested on the touchstone of the concept of Constitutional morality. The Court was considering the 1962 judgment in the case of Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay (1962) wherein the right of the Dawoodi Bohra community to ex-communicate its members was upheld.
Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb, who was the 51st Dai-al-Mutlaq and the head of the Dawoodi Bohra community, challenged the Ex-communication Act on the ground that the same infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution and a petition was placed before a Constitution Bench. The Constitution Bench, by a majority, held that ex-communication amongst the Dawoodi Bohras forms an integral part of the management of the community.
Cause Title- Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community & Anr v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Date of Judgment- February 10, 2023
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Vikram Nath, and Justice J.K. Maheshwari
17) SC refuses to entertain Rapido's plea against Maharashtra government's refusal to grant bike-taxi aggregator license
The Court refused to entertain Rapido’s plea against the Maharashtra Government, whereby the government had refused to grant two-wheeler bike taxi aggregator license to the company. The Court granted liberty to the company to approach the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, against the notification dated January 19, 2023 of the State Government whereby they had prohibited the use of non-transport vehicles as transport vehicles for aggregation and ride pooling.
In this case, the first petitioner was an aggregator within the amended provisions of the statute and had claimed to provide the services of an aggregator for two-wheeler vehicles across the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner had made an application for the grant of a license, which was rejected by the Road Transport Office at Pune (RTO) on the ground that it did not comply with the various terms and conditions of the Guidelines of 2020. Against the decision of RTO, the petitioner had approached the High Court which rejected the same.
Cause Title- Roppen Transportation Services Pvt Ltd v. Union of India & Ors
Date of Judgment- February 07, 2023
Coram- Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice JB Pardiwala