1) Once buried, a body should not be disturbed – Supreme Court declines exhumation of militant killed in J&K: While declining the exhumation of a militant killed in Jammu and Kashmir, the Court observed, "Once buried, a body should not be disturbed."
The Bench heard a plea of a father of the deceased, a militant who was killed in an encounter in Jammu and Kashmir. The Appellant – Father of the deceased had prayed before the Court to hand over the body of his son who was buried at the J&K graveyard by the Auqaf Committee in order to bury their son as per their own religious traditions.
Cause Title – Mohammad Latief Magrey v. The Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.
Date of Judgment – September 12, 2022
Coram – Justice Surya Kant & Justice J.B. Pardiwala
2) There is a distinction between mistake and trickery- SC quashes HC's judgment passed on factually erroneous premises: The Court while quashing the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that the same was passed on factually erroneous premises.
The Plaintiff in the case had sough specific performance of the agreement to sell to which the Court held, "there is an essential distinction between mistake and trickery. In the present case, it is sought to be argued on behalf of the respondents-plaintiffs that the averment in paragraph (15) of the plaint was with regard to a lis on the basis of the agreement. It is submitted that the earlier suit was not based on the agreement and as such, there was no suppression. We find the argument to be unsustainable. We are of the view that such a statement was made as a trickery so as to obtain the judgment by misleading the court."
Cause Title – Yashoda (Alias Sodhan) v. Sukhwinder Singh and Others
Date of Judgment – September 12, 2022
Coram – Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice C.T. Ravikumar
3) SC allows modification of BCCI's constitution- Office Bearers can serve continuously for 12 years in State & BCCI: The Court allowed modification of BCCI's constitution and paved the way for its President Sourav Ganguly and secretary Jay Shah to continue in office without having to serve the mandatory cooling-off period.
The Bench held that an office bearer can have continuous tenure of 12 years which includes six years in State Association and six years in BCCI before the cooling-off period of three years triggers.
Cause Title – The Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors.
Date of Judgment – September 14, 2022
Coram – Justice D.Y. Chandrachud & Justice Hima Kohli
4) Case of mercilessly beating on vital parts of body – SC upholds murder conviction of son who killed his father: While upholding the murder conviction of son who killed his father, the Court observed that it was case of mercilessly beating by the son on the vital parts of the body of the deceased father.
It was a case of patricide where both father and the son were drinking together. The effect of alcohol resulted in a fight between the father and the son. The informer who was a neighbor on reaching their house found the Appellant-son assaulting his father with Nagar wood. The deceased fell onto the ground and died.
Cause Title – Chherturam @Chainu v. State of Chattisgarh
Date of Judgment – September 13, 2022
Coram – Justice SK Kaul & Justice P.S. Narasimha
5) Plea Of Juvenility- Court should lean in favor of holding accused to be juvenile in borderline cases: It was observed that the Court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be juvenile in borderline cases where two views are possible on the evidence adduced by the accused in support of his juvenility plea.
The Bench also held that the Court, the Juvenile Justice Board or the Committee should go for medical test for age determination only if the documents placed on record by the accused in support of his claim of juvenility are found to be fabricated or manipulated.
Cause Title – Vinod Katara v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Date of Judgment – September 12, 2022
Coram – Justice Dinesh Maheshwari & Justice J.B. Pardiwala
6) State Election Commission has power to direct candidates to file affidavit disclosing assets of spouse: While setting aside the election of the Appellant – Candidate to the Mysore Municipal Corporation as Councillor, the Court observed that the state election commission has the power to direct the candidates to file an affidavit disclosing the assets of the spouse.
The Bench also observed that filing an affidavit by giving a false declaration regarding the assets of the spouse would amount to 'corrupt practices' under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (KMC).
Cause Title – S. Rukmini Madegowda v. The State Election Commission & Ors.
Date of Judgment – September 14, 2022
Coram – CJI UU Lalit, Justice Indira Banerjee & Justice Ajay Rastogi
7) Court cannot grant relief of specific performance against person compelling him to enter into agreement with third party: In a suit for specific performance, it was observed that a Court cannot grant the relief of specific performance against a person compelling him to enter into an agreement with a third party.
The Court noted that since the Defendant's brother's wife was not a party to the suit agreement of sale, the Court cannot compel her to enter into an agreement with the Defendant.
Cause Title – Raman (Dead) By Lrs. v. R. Natarajan
Date of Judgment – September 13, 2022
Coram – Justice Indira Banerjee & Justice V. Ramasubramanian
8) Punjab Courts Act - HC's jurisdiction under second appeal cannot be exercised for re-appreciation of evidence: The Court held that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Punjab Court's Act 1918 in second appeal cannot be exercised for re-appreciation of evidence.
The Court placed reliance on its Judgment in Satyender and Others v. Saroj and Ors., where it held that second appeal is not a forum where the court is to reexamine or re-appreciate the question of fact settled by the Trial Court or the Appellate Court.
Cause Title – M/s. Shivali Enterprises v. Godawari (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. And Others
Date of Judgment – September 13, 2022
Coram – Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice C.T. Ravikumar
9) Use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes would not alter its nature as agricultural land: The Court held that the use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes would not alter the nature of the land as an agricultural land under the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987.
The Court also observed that the use of land for non-agricultural purposes would be irrelevant for statutory cancellation of the lease of agricultural lands under the said Act.
Cause Title – Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd v. The State of Telangana & Ors with Anr.
Date of Judgment – September 13, 2022
Coram – Justice Hemant Gupta & Justice Vikram Nath
10) State reorganization act cannot take away fundamental rights of citizens to reside and settle anywhere in India: The Court observed that Andhra Pradesh State Reorganization Act 2014 cannot take away the fundamental right of a citizen to settle and reside anywhere in the country.
The Court also observed that there is only one domicile i.e., the domicile of the country and there is no domicile for the State while placing reliance on the judgment Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India.
Cause Title – The State of Telangana & Anr. v B. Subba Rayudu and Others
Date of Judgment – September 14, 2022
Coram – Justice Indira Banerjee & Justice V. Ramasubramanian
11) Court's power to grant interim relief U/s. 9 of arbitration act not curtailed by rigours of every procedural provision in CPC: The Court observed that the power of Court to grant interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not curtailed by the rigours of every procedural provision in the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Court further observed that "If a strong prima facie case is made out and the balance of convenience is in favour of interim relief being granted, the Court exercising power under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act should not withhold relief on the mere technicality of absence of averments, incorporating the grounds for attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 of the CPC."
Cause Title – Essar House Private Limited v. Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited
Date of Judgment – September 14, 2022
Coram – Justice Indira Banerjee & Justice AS Bopanna
12) Simple and necessary inquiry required for proper adjudication of application for discharge U/s. 227 CrPC: The Court observed that it is not a roving inquiry but a simple and necessary inquiry is required for the proper adjudication of an application for discharge under Section 227 CrPC.
The Bench was hearing a plea of a 72-year-old man who was subjected to an inquiry while he was in service and had now retired. It was alleged by the Prosecution that the Appellant while being in service possessed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.
Cause Title – Kanchan Kumar v. The State of Bihar
Date of Judgment – September 14, 2022
Coram – Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice P.S. Narasimha
13) Resolutions of pharmacy council are executive instructions, cannot impose restrictions on right to establish educational institutions: While striking down the resolutions/communications of the Central Council of the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) which had restricted to establish pharmacy colleges in the country for a period of five years, the Supreme Court observed that such resolutions/communications which are in the nature of executive instructions cannot impose restrictions on the fundamental right to establish educational institutions under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
The Bench was hearing a plea of the institutions which had filed a batch of appeals challenging the communications of the PCI through which it had restricted the establishment of pharmacy colleges in India for a period of five years.
Cause Title – Pharmacy Council of India v. Rajeev College of Pharmacy & Ors.
Date of Judgment – September 15, 2022
Coram – Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice P.S. Narasimha
14) Court must give cogent reasons while giving bail to accused persons facing trial in serious offences: The Court observed that that when an accused person is facing trial under Section 302, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, which are serious offences, the Court must give cogent reasons while releasing them on bail.
The Court while setting aside the order of granting bail to the accused held that the High Court did not provide any reason while releasing the accused on bail.
Cause Title – Yashpal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Date of Judgment – September 15, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice Krishna Murari
15) SC Dismisses appeal challenging imposition of ₹1 crore penalty on entities who failed to comply with summons issued by SEBI: The Court dismissed the appeal preferred by entities- DKG Buildcon Private Ltd and R.C. Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd. who had approached the Apex Court challenging the imposition of Rs. 1 Crore penalty on them for failing to comply with the summons issued to them in connection with their alleged involvement in aiding and abetting one Ketan Parekh and his companies in manipulating the securities market.
In this case, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) had held that the appellants and other entities had facilitated Ketan Parekh and his companies in manipulating the securities market.
The investigation by SEBI had found that the appellants were involved in certain unauthorized transfer of shares starting from the allotment of shares of STIL to various people including Ketan Parekh's entities through a web of transfers that virtually wrecked the integrity of the securities market with a view to make unfair gains.
Cause Title – DKG Buildcon Private Ltd. v. The Adjudicating & Enquiry Officer, S.E.B.I. with Anr.
Date of Judgment – September 14, 2022
Coram – Justice Ajay Rastogi & Justice B.V. Nagarathna
16) Issue involved only restricted to terminal benefits/pension – SC directs payment of benefits to retired Govt. servants: The Court directed the Union of India-Respondents in the case to calculate and pay the terminal benefits to the retired government servants including their pension.
The Bench observed that it was not necessary to go into the question of law as raised by the parties, since all the Appellants had superannuated and the only issue involved was the payment of terminal benefits to the Appellants including the payment of pension.
Cause Title – R.D. Kaushal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment – September 14, 2022
Coram – Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice P.S. Narasimha
17) Medical exam to reassess disability conducted after 9 years- SC overturns refusal of compensation to workman for accident: The Court held that the injured was entitled to compensation after his compensation award was set aside by the High Court based on his medical examination after a period of approximately nine years from the date of accident.
The Commissioner, Employees' Compensation awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,74,364/- towards the compensation taking the permanent disability of the appellant as 60%, while the Apex Court held the appellant-employee to be entitled to Rs. 3,76,236 by way of compensation with interest.
Cause Title – Suresh Paswan v. M/s. Kla Construction Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Date of Judgment – September 16, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice Krishna Murari
18) Unfair Trade Practices | There is no rule which requires SEBI to furnish its opinion to noticee in entirety: The Court heard a Special Leave Petition against a judgment passed by the Bombay High Court, by which a petition seeking directions against SEBI to furnish documents relied upon them towards a Show Cause Notice was dismissed.
The Apex Court upheld the orders of the High Court and held that there is no rule which requires SEBI to furnish the opinion to the noticee in its entirety under Rule 3 of the Security and Exchange Board of India (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995.
Cause Title – Kavi Arora v. Securities Exchange Board of India
Date of Judgment – September 14, 2022
Coram – Justice Indira Banerjee & Justice AS Bopanna
19) Central Excise Rules- Assessee not entitled to modvat credit on 'guide cars' treating it as 'components' of coke oven battery: The Court observed that Guide Car' which is used for transporting hot coke, is a different equipment distinct from the Coke Oven Battery and cannot be considered to be a part of the Coke Oven Battery.
Thus, the Court held that assessee is not entitled to Modvat credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules 1944 on 'Guide Cars' treating the same as 'components' of Coke Oven Battery.
Cause Title – M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited v. Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Bhubaneswar
Date of Judgment – September 16, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice Krishna Murari
20) Section 138 NI Act: For quashing complaint U/s. 482 CrPC, director or partner of firm must produce sterling inconvertible material: The Court in a cheque dishonour case, has held that for quashing a complaint under Section 482 CrPC related to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the director or the partner of a firm must produce sterling inconvertible material before the High Court.
The Bench with respect to Section 141 (1) of the NI Act also held that f the accused is able to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that the offence was committed without his/her knowledge or he /she exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence, he/she will not be liable of punishment.
Cause Title – S.P. Mani and Mohan Dairy v. Dr Snehalatha Elangovan
Date of Judgment – September 16, 2022
Coram – Justice Surya Kant & Justice J.B. Pardiwala
21) Motor Accident Claim- SC enhances compensation amount by 16 times towards pain, shock & suffering: While enhancing the compensation amount towards pain, shock, & suffering from Rs. 25000 to Rs. 400000 in a Motor Accident claim, the Court held the claimant to be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 62,35,000/ with 7.5% interest per annum.
The Court revised the compensation amount towards pain, shock and suffering from Rs. 25000 to Rs. 4 Lakh.
Cause Title – Ramesh v. Karan Singh & Anr.
Date of Judgment – September 16, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice Krishna Murari
22) Stamp Duty leviable only when agreement to sell is followed by delivery of possession in State of Punjab: The Bench heard an appeal against an order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court by which the High Court had dismissed a Revision Petition preferred by the Appellant and confirmed an order directing the Appellant to pay a deficit stamp duty along with penalty.
The Court observed, ""As per Entry No. 5 (cc) of Schedule 1-A applicable under the State of Punjab, "in the case of agreement to sell followed by or evidencing delivery of possession of the immovable property agreed to be sold", the stamp duty is leviable under Column No. 2 of Entry No. 23 of Schedule 1-A. As observed hereinabove, the plaintiff was already in possession prior to the execution of the aforesaid agreements as per the recitals in the aforesaid two agreements. It is to be noted that even the plaintiff has also not sought the possession in the suit filed by him and has in fact sought the permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and from dispossessing or causing to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property."
Cause Title – Vijay Kumar Goel (Dead) Thr L.R. v. Neena Rani & Ors.
Date of Judgment – September 16, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice Krishna Murari