1) Use Of Different Languages For Filling OMR And Answer Sheet Not Acceptable – SC Upholds Rejection Of Candidature For Constable Post - The Supreme Court held that the use of different languages for filling up the OMR sheet and answer sheet cannot be accepted and upheld the rejection of the candidature of a candidate for the constable post.
The Court also held that the language chosen is relevant to ensure that the candidate who has filled the application form alone appears in the written examination to maintain probity. The answer sheets have to be in the language chosen by the candidate in the application form.
Cause Title – Union of India & Ors. v. Mahendra Singh
Date of Judgment – July 25, 2022
Coram – Justice Hemant Gupta & Justice Vikram Nath
2) Haj Group Organizers Work For Profit Motive, Unlike Haj Committees – SC Holds HGOs Liable To Pay GST - The Supreme Court held that Haj Committees are the agencies and instrumentalities of the State, thus when Haj committee facilitates the Haj pilgrims by making arrangements for their visit to Saudi Arabia for undertaking the Haj pilgrimage, there is a complete absence of profit motive while the Haj Group Organizers (HGOs) earn profit while rendering service to Haj pilgrims, thus liable to pay service tax.
The Court also held that the HGOs supply service to the service recipient in India and the service is rendered by providing a package for the Haj Pilgrimage to the service recipient who is located in a taxable territory. That is how the service provided by the HGOs is taxable for service tax.
Cause Title – All India Haj Umrah Tour Organizer Association Mumbai v. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment – July 26, 2022
Coram – Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice CT Ravikumar
3) Post Mortem Report Cannot Be Substantive Evidence - SC Holds Murder Accused Cannot Be Discharged Solely Based On It - While observing that the post mortem report is not substantive evidence, the Supreme Court has set aside the decision of the Trial Court discharging murder accused from the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and framing charge for the offence of culpable homicide punishable under Section 304 of the IPC by relying solely upon post mortem report.
The Court observed, ""Ultimately, upon appreciation of the entire evidence on record at the end of the trial, the trial court may take one view or the other i.e. whether it is a case of murder or case of culpable homicide. But at the stage of framing of the charge, the trial court could not have reached to such a conclusion merely relying upon the port mortem report on record."
Cause Title – Ghulam Hassan Beigh V. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey & Ors.
Date of Judgment – July 26, 2022
Coram – Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice JB Pardiwala
4) Supreme Court Upholds Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act Requiring Collection Of Welfare Funds From Transport Vehicle Owners - The Supreme Court while upholding the constitutional validity of sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 4 of Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 including Section 15 and Section 8A of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Act, 1985 has held that said provisions in no way are in conflict with the Motor Vehicles Act, enacted by the Parliament in 1988.
The Bench held that the provisions of the 1976 Act and 1985 Act enacted by the State Legislature, are intended to ensure that the vehicle owner/permit holder does not remain in arrears of either the welfare fund contribution or the vehicle tax payable under the tax enactments.
Cause Title – All Kerala Distributors Association, Kottayam Unit,
Represented By Its Secretary V. The State of Kerala & Anr.
Date of Judgment – July 27, 2022
Coram – Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice CT Ravikumar
5) Several Inbuilt Safeguards Provided By Parliament While Enacting PMLA - SC While Upholding Constitutional Validity Of Provisions Of PMLA – The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ["PMLA"] that relate to the power of arrest, attachment and search and seizure conferred on the Enforcement Directorate ["ED"].
The Bench held that the officers of the ED who investigate money laundering cases under the PMLA would not fall under the definition of the term police officers and as a consequence, the statements that are recorded by the officers under Section 50 of the PMLA would not be hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution that provides for the right against self-incrimination.
Cause Title – Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment – July 27, 2022
Coram – Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari & Justice CT Ravikumar
6) Both Additional CMM And Additional DM Can Exercise Section 14 SARFAESI Act Powers – SC Overrules 3 Existing Precedents – While upholding the judgment of the Bombay High Court, the Supreme Court held, "the powers under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act can be exercised by the concerned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates of the area having jurisdiction and also by the Additional District Magistrates, who otherwise are exercising the powers at par with the concerned District Magistrates either by delegation and/or special order."
The Bench also specifically overruled the existing precedent by holding that the contrary view taken by the other High Courts - namely, Gujarat High Court in the case of Pushpa Devi B Jain W/o Bhawarlal M Jain Vs. Indian Overseas Bank; Calcutta High Court in the case of Shri Chellaperumal & Anr. Vs. The Authorised Officer & Ors.; and Kerala High Court in the case of Aseena Vs. SubDivisional Magistrate and Ors. - was not good law.
Cause Title – M/s R.D. Jain and Co. v. Capital First Ltd. & Ors.
Date of Judgment – July 27, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice BV Nagarathna
7) Mother Being The Only Natural Guardian Has Right To Decide Surname Of Child – The Supreme Court adjudicated upon a dispute regarding the surname of the child after the death of his father.
The Bench observed, "the mother being the only natural guardian of the child has the right to decide the surname of the child. She also has the right to give the child in adoption. The Court may have the power to intervene but only when a prayer specific to that effect is made and such prayer must be centered on the premise that child's interest is the primary consideration and it outweighs all other considerations. With the above observations the directions of the High Court so far as the surname of the child is concerned are set aside."
Cause Title – MRS. AKELLA LALITHA v. SRI KONDA HANUMANTHA RAO & ANR.
Date of Judgment – July 28, 2022
Coram – Justice Dinesh Maheshwari & Justice Krishna Murari
8) Welfare Of Child Should Be Paramount Consideration- SC Asks Mother To Ensure Return Of Son To US To Be With Father - The Supreme Court observed that a claim for custody of a minor child should be decided solely looking into the question as to, 'what would be the best interest of the child concerned'.
"…we are of the view that for considering the claim for custody of a minor child, unless very serious, proven conduct which should make one of them unworthy to claim for custody of the child concerned, the question can and shall be decided solely looking into the question as to, 'what would be the best interest of the child concerned'. In other words, welfare of the child should be the paramount consideration." the Bench held.
Cause Title – Rohith Thammana Gowda V. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Date of Judgment – July 29, 2022
Coram – Justice AM Khanwilkar & Justice CT Ravikumar
9) Appellants/Predecessors Not Thika Tenants Under Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act 1981 - SC Rejects Claim For Thika Tenancy – The Bench refused to grant relief to lessees-appellants claiming to be Thika tenants within the meaning of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 and Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981.
The Court held, "The appellants and/or their predecessors were not thika tenants within the meaning of the Act of 1981 for two major reasons: a. that the structure in question was a pucca structure; and b. that the Act of 1981 was not operative in relation to the property in question because of the stay order passed by the High Court."
Cause Title – Nemai Chandra Kumar (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. V. Mani Square Ltd. & Ors.
Date of Judgment – July 27, 2022
Coram – Justice AM Khanwilkar & Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
10) Developing Slum Area & Rehabilitating Slum Dwellers Is Continuous Obligation Of State Until Fully Discharged – The Supreme Court held, ""The need to develop the slum area and to rehabilitate the slum dwellers is a continuing obligation of the State until it is fully discharged."
In this case, the subject matter was the notification issued by the Housing Department of the State of Karnataka under Section 17 of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 (1973 Act) and the constitutional validity of Section 20 of the said Act.
Cause Title – The State of Karnataka & Anr. V. B.R. Muralidhar & Ors
Date of Judgment – July 28, 2022
Coram – Justice AM Khanwilkar & Justice Sanjiv Khanna
11) Delhi School Ed. Act- Tribunal Has No Express Power U/s. 8 R/w. Section 11 To Order Back Wages – The Supreme Court observed that as per Section 8 read with Section 11 of the Delhi School Education Act, the Tribunal so constituted under the Act does not have an express power to order back wages.
The Court opined that the powers under Section 107 CPC cannot be understood as meaning that the Appellate Court has the express power to grant the relief of back-wages or to decide upon the question as to whether the period of absence should be treated as duty, and that such power is coupled with a duty which is squarely vested with the Management.
Cause Title – SUNIL SIKRI v. GURU HARKRISHAN PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR.
Date of Judgment – July 28, 2022
Coram – Justice KM Joseph & Justice PS Narasimha
12) Permanent Establishment Enquiry For Issuance Of Certificate U/s. 197 Of Income Tax Act: SC Delivers Split Verdict – The Apex Court delivered a split verdict arising out of difference of opinion pertaining to the permanent establishment enquiry for issuance of certificate under Section 197 Income Tax Act.
Justice Banerjee held that : "Whether the Appellant had PE or not, during the Assessment Year in question, is a disputed factual issue, which has to be determined on the basis of the scope, extent, nature and duration of activities in India. Whether project activity in India continued for a period of more than nine months, for taxability in India in terms of the AADT, is a question of fact, that has to be determined separately for each Assessment Year."
Justice Maheshwari held that: "The department may enquire about establishment of PE and income attributable to that PE in assessment proceeding but while dealing the issue of issuance of certificate under Section 197(1) relying upon said issues by the High Court is not justified."
Cause Title – National Petroleum Construction Company V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2), International Taxation, New Delhi & Anr.
Date of Judgment – July 29, 2022
Coram – Justice Indira Banerjee & Justice JK Maheshwari
13) Heinous Crime Of Abetment Of Suicide Cannot Be Quashed Based On Compromise Between Complainant And Accused – The Supreme Court in a case of abetment of suicide (Section 306 IPC) has held that heinous crimes which have an impact on society cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the offender and complainant and/or the victim.
The Court also held that orders quashing FIRs and/or complaints relating to grave and serious offences only on basis of agreement with the complainant, would set a dangerous precedent where complaints would be lodged for oblique reasons with a view to extract money from the accused.
Cause Title – Daxaben v. The State of Gujarat & Ors.
Date of Judgment – July 29, 2022
Coram – Justice Indira Banerjee & Justice V. Ramasubramanian
14) Compulsory Acquisition By Scrupulous Adherence To Procedures Authorised By Law Would Not Violate Article 300A – The Supreme Court has observed that compulsory acquisition by scrupulous adherence to the procedures authorised by law would not violate right to property.
The Court was dealing with a bunch of cases which pertained to the meaning and interpretation of the word "initiated" employed in Section 24(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) with reference to land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act).
Cause Title – Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. V. Mr. Deepak Aggarwal & Ors.
Date of Judgment – July 28, 2022
Coram – Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice CT Ravikumar
15) Acquisition Proceedings U/s. 33(2) KHB Act Without Housing Scheme In Existence Would Not Render Such Proceedings Void – The Bench observed, "...initiation of proceedings for acquisition invoking the power under Section 33(2) of the KHB Act without the housing scheme being in existence or the housing scheme not having been sanctioned under Section 24(2) thereof, would not render such proceedings null and void."
The issue dealt with by the Court was –
Whether initiation of proceedings for acquisition of land for the purposes of the Karnataka Housing Board, invoking the power under Section 33(2) of the Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962, without the housing scheme being in existence or the housing scheme not having been sanctioned under Section 24(2) thereof, would render such acquisition proceedings void and non-est.
Cause Title – The Karnataka Housing Board & Anr. v. State Of Karnataka & Ors.
Date of Judgment – July 28, 2022
Coram – Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari & Justice CT Ravikumar
16) Rule 30 Of Air Act Expressly Excludes Applicability Of Limitation Act - Supreme Court In A Case Filed Against British Airways – In a case filed against British Airways, the Supreme Court held that the suit filed would not be barred by limitation, as the Air Act 1972 expressly excludes the applicability of Limitation Act.
The Appellant is a proprietary Concern engaged in the business of imports and exports. Cargos sent via Respondent-Airlines' planes could not be delivered to the destination as they were destroyed due to bad weather conditions. The Appellant raised a claim for damages and the Respondent duly agreed to settle the matter at 50% of the claim amount. However, the Respondent failed to keep up their word. On that, the Appellant filed a suit before the Trial Court, where the Respondent-Airlines contended that the suit would be barred by Limitation.
Cause Title – M/s. Bhagwandas B. Ramchandani v. British Airways
Date of Judgment – July 29, 2022
Coram – Justice KM Joseph & Justice PS Narasimha
17) Children Ordinarily Belong To Caste Of Father - SC Upholds Appointment Claimed On Basis Of OBC Reservation – The Supreme Court while upholding an OBC appointment concurred with the findings of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court that held that children ordinarily belong to the caste of their father
The Court also concurred with the finding of the High Court that the caste of the Respondent was Lingayat-Ganiga and that it will be construed as Hindu Ganiga.
Cause Title – M.V. Chandrakanth v. Sangappa & Ors.
Date of Judgment – July 29, 2022
Coram – Justice Indira Banerjee & Justice JK Maheshwari