1) Idea behind developing and allotting industrial plots is to act as catalyst to promote economic growth
The Court upheld the decision of NCDRC and observed that the idea behind the development of industrial plots and allotting them to deserving applicants was to act as a catalyst to promote economic growth.
In this case, the appellant had applied for allotment of the industrial plot. The appellant took possession of the plot, but construction could not be completed within the time stipulated. Notice was issued to the appellant, to which he replied that he could not start the unit due to a lack of infrastructural facilities. He alleged that road and electricity facilities were not adequate, which had hindered his project.
Cause Title- Aman Semi Conductors (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr.
Date of Judgment- February 27, 2023
Coram-Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta
2) Merely because particular evidence was not adduced, appellate court cannot adopt soft course of remanding matter
The Court held that merely because a particular evidence that ought to have been adduced had not been adduced, the Appellate Court cannot adopt the soft course of remanding the matter as per Rule 24 of Order XLI of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
The Court was hearing an appeal preferred against the judgment passed by the Kerala High Court wherein the appeal filed by the respondent against the dismissal of her suit for cancellation of a sale deed and for prohibitory injunction was disposed of with directions to the Trial Court to decide the suit afresh after de novo trial.
Cause Title- Sirajudheen v. Zeenath & Ors.
Date of Judgment- February 27, 2023
Coram-Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
3) Extra-Judicial confession is weak piece of evidence especially when retracted during trial: SC acquits man in murder case
The Court while acquitting a man in a murder case held that the extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence especially when it has been retracted during the trial. The Court added that it requires strong evidence to corroborate it and also it must be established that it was completely voluntary and truthful.
The Court was hearing an appeal challenging the judgment of the Tripura High Court by which the conviction of the appellant was confirmed being recorded by the Trial Court under Section 302, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and he was awarded imprisonment for life.
Cause Title- Indrajit Das v. The State of Tripura
Date of Judgment- February 28, 2023
Coram-Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Vikram Nath
4) Powers U/S 24 CPC can be invoked by common HC for two or more states even for inter-state transfer of suits
The Court clarified that the powers under Section 24 of the CPC can be exercised by the High Court even for inter-State transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding, if it is the common High Court for two or more States under Article 231 of the Constitution and both the Civil Courts (transferor and transferee) are subordinate to it.
The Court has further clarified that Section 25 of the CPC applies to inter-State transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding where both States have a High Court in terms of Article 214 of the Constitution and not to a transfer where both States have a common High Court under Article 231.
Cause Title- Shah Newaz Khan vs State of Nagaland
Date of Judgment- February 28, 2023
Coram- Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Dipankar Datta
5) NDPS Act | Supreme Court refuses to allow plea by accused seeking transfer of investigation to CBI
The Court recently the appeal preferred by a man who was detained for indulging in the sale of psychotropic substances under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). The accused in this matter had earlier prayed before the High Court to direct for investigation under the supervision of the Court by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The Court asserted that the case of the appellant was clear and that there are matters which could be established through the evidence in the trial before the competent court in the judicial proceedings wherein all such matters would be appreciated and a conclusion would be reached.
Cause Title- Royden Harold Buthello & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Date of Judgment- February 28, 2023
Coram- Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
6) DGP was the best judge to consider the suitability for induction: SC upholds cancellation of man's appointment in police force
The Court upheld the cancellation of the selection of a man into the police force. The Court reiterated that the decision of the Director General of Police who was the highest functionary in the hierarchy of police department, could not be called into question to consider the suitability of a person, for induction into police force.
The issue dealt with was whether the Director General of Police who after examining the record of the petitioner had concluded that the petitioner was not a fit person to hold the post into the police force in view of his criminal background, could be compelled to reinstate the petitioner on his acquittal in the criminal case.
Cause Title- Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir And Ors.
Date of Judgment- February 28, 2023
Coram-Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
7) Complaint cannot be dismissed for non-appearance if the complainant has led his evidence
The Court reiterated that where the complainant’s evidence has been recorded and the case is to be decided on merits, the complainant’s presence is not necessary under Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
In this case, the appeals were preferred against the impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court filed by the appellant against the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate whereby eight Criminal Complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 were dismissed for non-appearance of the appellant (complainant).
Cause Title- M/s. BLS Infrastructure Limited v. M/s. Rajwant Singh & Ors.
Date of Judgment- March 1, 2023
Coram-Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Manoj Misra
8) Punishment of death or life imprisonment needs higher evidentiary value- SC while reducing charges in kidnapping case
The Court reduced the charge and punishment in a kidnapping case from charges under Section 364A of the IPC to charges under Section 363 of the IPC. The Court observed that if the sentence carrying a maximum sentence of death and a minimum sentence of life sentence has such a low evidentiary threshold, the difference between punishments for kidnapping under 363, 364 and 364A shall become meaningless.
In this case, an appeal was filed by five accused persons whose convictions were confirmed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The appellants were accused of kidnapping a 14-year-old boy and demanding ransom from his parents.
Cause Title- Ravi Dhingra v. The State of Haryana
Date of Judgment- March 1, 2023
Coram-Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice BV Nagarathna
9) Prevention Of Corruption Act: HCs must maintain a "hands-off" approach & not quash FIRs at investigation stage
The Court observed that it would be eminently desirable if the high courts maintain a hands-off approach and not quash a first information report pertaining to “corruption” cases, specially at the stage of investigation, even though certain elements of strong-arm tactics of the ruling dispensation might be discernible.
In this case, an appeal was preferred against a Judgment passed by the Chhattisgarh High Court, which had quashed a disproportionate assets case registered against the former Principal Secretary of the former Chief Minister and the wife of the Principal Secretary. There were complaints against the IRS officer and his wife for corruption and money laundering, and that the couple held assets disproportionate to their declared sources of income. An FIR was launched against them, which was quashed by the High Court. Consequently, petitions were moved before the Supreme Court.
Cause Title- The State of Chattisgarh & Anr v. Aman Kumar Singh & Ors. Etc.
Date of Judgment- March 1, 2023
Coram-Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta
10) Clause 17(7)(Iii) Of certified standing orders does not entitle employee to seek continuation after 58 years of age as matter of right
The Court observed that clause 17(7)(iii) of the Certified Standing Orders (the Standing Orders) under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 does not entitle any employee to seek continuation after completion of 58 years of age as a matter of right. However, discretionary power has been conferred to continue an employee who had attained 58 years of age, till completion of the age of 60 years provided he or she was medically fit.
In this case the appellant-company had reduced the age of retirement to 58 years to cut down of manpower cost. Which was challenged by the respondents before the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. The High Court in the impugned judgment held that the decision of the appellant to roll back the age of retirement from 60 to 58 years could not be faulted.
Cause Title- Chairman-cum-M.D. ITI Limited v. K. Muniswamy & Ors
Date of Judgment- March 2, 2023
Coram-Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal
11) Propensity for electoral process to be afflicted with vice of wholly unfair means being overlooked would spell disastrous consequences
The Court observed that with the accumulation of wealth and emergence of near monopolies or duopolies and the rise of certain sections in the Media, the propensity for the electoral process to be afflicted with the vice of wholly unfair means being overlooked would spell disastrous consequences.
The Court made this observation while ruling that the appointment of Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners shall be made by the President on the advice of a committee comprising the Prime Minister, leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha (or leader of largest opposition party in Lok Sabha) and the Chief Justice of India.
Cause Title- Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India
Date of Judgment- March 2, 2023
Coram- Justice KM Joseph and comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar
12) Order VII Rule 11 CPC| Plaint didn’t show particulars of registrar's office- SC allows LLP to represent before jurisdictional court
The Court while dealing with the appeals relating to Order VII Rule 10 and Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC (Civil Procedure Code) allowed the appellant LLP (Limited Liability Partnership) to represent its plaint before the jurisdictional Court at Bengaluru within a period of four weeks. The Court noted that the plaint did not show the particulars of the Office of the Registrar where the deeds of confirmation were registered and the deeds of power of attorney were registered and subsequently cancelled.
The Court was hearing the appeals that arose out of a common order passed by the Bombay High Court allowing two revision applications that were directed against two separate orders passed on the same day by the 9th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, respectively in the applications filed under Order VII Rule 10 and Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Cause Title- Future Sector Land Developers LLP & Anr. v. Bagmane Developers P. Ltd. & Ors. Etc.
Date of Judgment- March 2, 2023
Coram-Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal
13) When orders of govt authorities are arbitrary and facts are not in dispute, adjudication in civil court is not required
The Court directed the Directorate of Mining, Industries and Commerce Department, Chandigarh, Punjab (Directorate of Mining) to refund the earnest money deposited by the appellant as the facts on record were crystal clear and did not require a detailed review for the purpose of recovery of amount forfeited.
The Court observed that when disputed questions of fact arise, adjudication in a civil court is more appropriate, just and fair. The Court added that nevertheless, this is not an absolute rule; more so in cases when the orders passed by the government authorities are arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable and where the facts are not in dispute and are easily ascertainable.
Cause Title- M/s Hornbill Consultants v. State of Punjab & Ors.
Date of Judgment- March 2, 2023
Coram-Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice M.M. Sundresh
14) Present & future of country cannot remain prisoner of past: SC dismisses plea seeking renaming of places named after 'barbaric foreign invaders'
The Court dismissed a plea filed by the petitioner Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeking the renaming of the ancient, historical, cultural, and religious places that are named after ‘barbaric foreign invaders’. The Court said that the present and future of a country cannot remain a prisoner of the past and that the history of any nation cannot haunt the future generations of a nation to the point that succeeding generations become prisoners of the past.
The petitioner earlier in February, this year, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court to constitute a "Renaming Commission" for finding out the original names of Ancient Historical, Cultural, and Religious Places named after "Barbaric Foreign Invaders" in order to maintain sovereignty and to secure the right to dignity, right to religion, and right to culture.
Cause Title- Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment- February 27, 2023
Coram-Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice B.V. Nagarathna
15) Courts should be slow in interfering with decisions taken by experts- SC while dismissing petitions against Adani power
The Court observed that Courts should be slow in interfering with the decisions taken by the experts in the field. The Bench further clarified that unless it is found that the expert bodies have failed to take into consideration the mandatory statutory provisions or the decisions taken are based on extraneous considerations, or they are ex facie arbitrary and illegal, it will not be appropriate for Courts to substitute their views with that of the expert bodies.
In this case, the Court observed that various expert bodies, including the CERC (Central Electricity Regulatory Commission) and the APTEL (Appellate Tribunal for Electricity), considered various relevant factors before deciding the issue.
Cause Title- Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited v. Adani Power Maharashtra Limited & Ors.
Date of Judgment- March 3, 2023
Coram-Justice BR Gavai and Justice Vikram Nath
16) Acquisition of Reliance Home Finance Ltd.: Dissenting debenture holders be provided option to accept terms of resolution professional
The Court while hearing a batch of appeals with respect to the acquisition of Reliance Home Finance Limited (RHFL) by Authum Investment and Infrastructure Limited (AIIL) held that the dissenting debenture holders should be provided an option to accept the terms of the Resolution Plan (RP) who proposed such acquisition.
The appeals were preferred against the order passed by the Bombay High Court by which it dismissed the interim application filed by RHFL under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking approval of the RP pertaining to its dissolution.
Cause Title- Authum Investment and Infrastructure Limited v. R.K. Mohatta Family Trust and Others
Date of Judgment- March 3, 2023
Coram-Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Aravind Kumar
17) SC acquits man convicted for murdering 25-year-old wife on account of extra-judicial confession as weak piece of evidence
The Court recently acquitted a man who was convicted of murdering his 25-year-old wife on the ground of extra-judicial confession being a weak piece of evidence. The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the accused challenging the judgment passed by the Calcutta High Court wherein he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.
The accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and at the conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court acquitted him from the charges levelled against him. On an appeal preferred by the State, the High Court allowed the same and convicted the appellant.
Cause Title- Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal
Date of Judgment- March 3, 2023
Coram-Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sanjay Karol
18) SC directs state & central authorities to report seizure of wild animals or abandonment of captive ones to high-powered committee
The Court directed the State and Central Authorities to report the seizure of wild animals or abandonment of captive wild animals to the High Powered Committee. The Court held that the said Committee shall be at liberty to recommend the transfer of ownership of captive animals or of seized wild animals to any willing rescue centre or zoo for their immediate welfare, care, and rehabilitation.
In this case, the petitioner filed an application seeking clarification of the order passed by the Apex Court dismissing his Special Leave Petition filed against order passed by the Karnataka High Court wherein he sought directions from the State to restrict transfer/sale/gift/entrustment of wild and captive elephants to private individuals and particularly the Radha Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust.
The main ground of challenge was that it is the responsibility of the State to take care of such abandoned or rescued elephants and other animals, which should not be abdicated in favour of the said Trust. Such a challenge via PILs made by the petitioner was dismissed.
Cause Title- Muruly M.S. v. The State of Karnataka & Ors.
Date of Judgment- March 3, 2023
Coram- Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
19) License holder doing business in a shop cannot claim allotment of auction platform at particular place as matter of right
The Court observed that any license holder doing business in a respective shop cannot as a matter of right claim allotment of the auction platform at a particular place. In this case, the appeal had been preferred against the impugned judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby the order passed by the Single judge dismissing the writ petition was upheld on the ground that in the absence of any specific right in favour of the appellant, the respondent No. 5 was entitled to use the platform in front of shop owned by the appellant.
The appellant was owner of a shop situated in the Agricultural Produce Market, Chandigarh. Respondent no. 5 was the tenant of the said shop. The respondent no. 5 was ejected of the said shop and therefore, was allotted some other shop on rent. Thereafter, the Licence Committee constituted under Licensing of Auction Platform Rules, 1981 decided that the site in the platform would be allotted based on “One Site One Shop” and the name of respondent No. 5 was shown as co-allottee along with the appellant. Aggrieved with this, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court.
Cause Title- Gurjit Singh (D) Through LRs v. Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors.
Date of Judgment- March 3, 2023
Coram-Justice MR Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna
20) Unauthorised occupation and possession of land cannot be legalised on payment of market price by illegal occupants
The Court observed that the unauthorized occupation and possession of land, which was earmarked for school premises/playground, could not be legalized on payment of the market price by such illegal occupants and had set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court as being unsustainable.
The Apex Court said that the direction issued by the High Court to segregate the vacant land from the residential house and use such land as school premises, could not be implemented as the unauthorized construction is in such a manner and even some areas are not used for residential purpose and some of the area is covered by vegetation and therefore, it is not possible to segregate and separate the same, which can be used for school premises
Cause Title- The State of Haryana & Ors. v. Satpal & Ors.
Date of Judgment- March 3, 2023
Coram- Justice MR Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna
21) Lawyers with at least 10 years of experience to be eligible for consumer commission appointments
The Court upheld a Judgment passed by the Bombay High Court and confirmed that persons possessing a bachelor's degree and professional experience of at least ten years in consumer affairs, public affairs, law, administration, etc. shall be qualified for appointment as President and members of State Consumer Commissions and District Forums. This Supreme Court decision has paved the way for lawyers with at least 10 years of experience to be eligible for appointments to the consumer commissions.
In this case, appeals were preferred by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Union of India and State of Maharashtra against an order of the Division Bench of the High Court, by which the High Court struck down and declared Rule 3(2)(b), Rule 4(2)(c) and Rule 6(9) of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of President and Members of State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 as arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Cause Title- The Secretary Ministry of Consumer Affairs v. Dr Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye & Ors.
Date of Judgment- March 3, 2023
Coram- Justice MR Shah and Justice MM Sundresh
22) Whether HC can exercise jurisdiction over a tribunal situated outside its territorial limits- SC refers matter to larger bench
The Court referred to a larger bench the issue regarding the jurisdiction of a High Court to entertain a challenge against an order passed by a Tribunal which was situated outside its territorial jurisdiction. The reference was made in a case related to whistleblower Indian Forest Service Officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi.
The Apex Court noted the submissions made by the counsels and said that the issue involved in the matter was of great public importance as it affected a large number of people and further asked the registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders at the earliest so that the issue was resolved at the earliest.
Cause Title- Union of India v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi & Ors
Date of Judgment- March 3, 2023
Coram- Justice MR Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna
23) Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rules- Rule 51(7) doesn’t apply where an invalid solvency certificate was produced during bid submission
The Court observed that the Rule 51 (7) of the Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rules (OMMCR) shall be applicable in case of breach of any condition of the lease deed and not in a case of producing invalid solvency certificate at the time of submission of the bid.
In this case, the High Court had set aside the Order cancelling the lease on the grounds that the order passed by the Collector cancelling the lease deed was without authority under the law as under Rule 51(7) of the OMMCR, 2016 and that the original solvency certificate produced by the original writ petitioner, produced along with the bid was issued in his favour by mistake.
Cause Title- Debidutta Mohanty v. Ranjan Kumar Pattnaik & Ors.
Date of Judgment- March 3, 2023
Coram- Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna
24) Section 313(5) CrPC: Written statement of accused marked as exhibit has to be considered in light of evidence led by prosecution
The Court while setting aside conviction in a murder case has observed that once a written statement is filed by the accused under sub-section (5) of section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and the Court marks it as an exhibit, such statement should be treated as part of the accused’s statement under sub-section (1) read with sub-section (4).
The Court also held that the same has to be considered in the light of the evidence led by the prosecution to appreciate the truthfulness or otherwise of such a case and the contents of such statement weighed with the probabilities of the case either in favor of the accused or against him.
Cause Title- Premchand v. The State of Maharashtra
Date of Judgment- March 3, 2023
Coram- Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta
25) Rape & Murder- SC upholds conviction but sets aside death sentence of man who was juvenile when offence was committed
The Court upheld the conviction of a man but set aside his death sentence in a rape and murder case on the ground that he was found to be a juvenile when the offence was committed by him. The Court said that there would be no requirement of sending the appellant i.e., the convict to the Juvenile Justice Board or any other childcare facility or institution as he was at present more than 20 years old.
The appellant was charged for the offences under Sections 363 and 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5(m)/6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. The Trial Court vide judgment convicted the appellant for all the offences. The appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court and the death reference forwarded by the Trial Court was affirmed.
Cause Title- Karan @ Fatiya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Date of Judgment- March 3, 2023
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Karol
26) "When a statute provides for a time period to do something, the authority should be given such time"- SC while upholding LA proceedings
The Court in a land acquisition case stressed that when a statute provides certain things to be done within the stipulated time mentioned in the Act, the Authority is to be given such time, more particularly while dealing with the scheme which has been framed for the entire area and for the public purpose.
In this case, the Indore Development Authority approached the Supreme Court aggrieved by a Judgment passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court which the High Court had ordered against the finalization of Scheme No. 97 under Section 50 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 and the subsequent land acquisition proceedings undertaken by the State of Madhya Pradesh under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Cause Title- Indore Development Authority v. Burhani Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Sneh Nagar and Others
Date of Judgment- March 3, 2023
Coram-Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna
27) SC sets aside order communicating decision of president to compulsorily retire permanent commissioned officer in Indian Army
The Court set aside the order passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India communicating the decision of the President of India to compulsorily retire the appellant. The appellant in this matter was a Permanent Commissioned Officer in the Indian Army and due to a physical disability in the course of Army operations was demobilized and released from service.
The Court reiterated that any exercise of power that exceeds the parameters prescribed by law or is motivated on account of extraneous or irrelevant factors or is driven by malicious intent or is on the face of it, so patently arbitrary that it cannot withstand judicial scrutiny, must be struck down.
Cause Title- Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj v. Union Of India and Another
Date of Judgment- March 3, 2023
Coram-Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli
28) Additional accused can be summoned u/s. 319 CrPC when there is strong & cogent evidence available against him
The Court reiterated that the power under Section 319 of the Criminal procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) cannot be exercised in a casual manner. Additional accused can be summoned, not based on mere suspicion but when there was strong and cogent evidence available against a person from the evidence produced before the Court, which could lead to his conviction.
The Court referred to the law laid down by the Constitution bench in the case of Hardeep Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 92 and said that on perusal of the evidence on record, the case does not go beyond suspicion as there was no eyewitness to the occurrence and the servant who was claimed to be the eyewitness, retracted from his statements under Section 164 of the Cr.PC.
Cause Title- Vikas Rathi v. The State of U.P. & Anr.
Date of Judgment- March 1, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal
29) Most conservative price is considered while determining goods value: SC affirms CESTAT's order challenged by Excise Commissioner
The Court while deciding an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad challenging the order passed by the CESTAT (Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) held that the most conservative price is to be taken into account while determining the value of goods.
In this case, the respondent i.e., the assessee company was involved in manufacturing organic chemicals for the purposes of which it sourced Specially Denatured Spirits (SDS) produced from its unit. To manufacture SDS, one of the essential raw materials required was molasses and the assessee was issued three show-cause notices. The Commissioner had for the purposes of determining the value of SDS, determined the highest rate of the product of SDS prevalent in another unit. Aggrieved, the assessee approached CESTAT which, by its order allowed the appeal holding that the method adopted by the Commissioner was incorrect. The matter was remanded back for fresh consideration by the Apex Court.
Cause Title- Commissioner Of Central Excise, Allahabad v. M/s J.R. Organics Ltd.
Date of Judgment- March 1, 2023
Coram- Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta
30) Claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after considerable lapse of time
The Court held that a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the government employee. The Bench further clarified that it would be of no avail to grant compassionate appointment to the dependants of the deceased employee, after the crisis which arose on account of death of a bread-winner, has been overcome.
In this case, the Respondent-Writ Petitioners were the heirs of the employees of municipalities who had died in harness, and the heirs were claiming compassionate appointment to posts in the concerned municipalities. The question in these appeals was to the entitlement of such persons to be considered for compassionate appointment.
Cause Title- State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. Etc.
Date of Judgment- March 3, 2023
Coram- Justice Justice Krishna Murari and Justice BV Nagarathna
31) Once an issue has attained finality, it is not open for the State to pass successive orders
The Supreme Court has observed that despite the issue pertaining to the resignation of the appellant attained finality and was legally settled, it was not open for the State to continue passing successive orders.
It was the case of the appellant that she was appointed as an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife in the year 1980 and had submitted her resignation in April 1993 but withdrew it in November 1993. The order accepting the resignation was passed much thereafter in December 1994. This order was set aside by the High Court and directed that the appellant was entitled to all consequential benefits. However, the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal modified the order of Single Judge to the extent that the appellant was held not to be entitled to any benefits for the period for which the resignation was in force.
Cause Title- Bhartiben Chandrakantbhai Thakor v. State of Gujarat and Others
Date of Judgment- February 27, 2023
Coram- Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala