Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: April 17 – April 21, 2023
|1) Probity in financial transactions should be the rule instead of exception- SC emphasises
The Supreme Court has stressed the importance of honesty while holding that in financial transactions, probity should be the rule instead of the exception.
In this case, the appellant was elected as a member of the Zilla Parishad as the candidate of a recognised party. The appellant's son had applied to an e-tender was floated by the Gram Panchayat and and was successful against two other applicants. The respondent filed the petition under Sections 40 and 16(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961. He claimed that the appellant had misused his elected post with the object of gaining undue personal financial benefit.
Cause Title- Virendrasing v. The Additional Commissioner & Ors.
Date of Judgment- April 17, 2023
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Aravind Kumar
2) A fact that was in exclusive knowledge of accused alone must be discovered if he makes voluntary statement- SC
The Court reiterated that in pursuance to a voluntary statement made by the accused, a fact must be discovered which was in the exclusive knowledge of the accused alone.
In this case, the accused was working as a labourer in the farmhouse of the deceased. He entered the deceased's room and murdered him by hitting him with an iron rod on his face. He then stole the articles from the farmhouse and sold the same. He also sold the land of said farm house to others to make undue monetary gain. The accused also attempted to conceal his act and deliberately tried to destroy the evidence. On examining the testimonies of the witnesses, the Supreme Court noted that there was a substantial amount of evidence indicating the guilt of the accused. The Counsel for the appellant had contended that the confession statement was not admissible evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, as the method of recording the confession was quite unusual.
Cause Title- Siju Kurian v. State of Karnataka
Date of Judgment- April 17, 2023
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice Aravind Kumar
3) Punjab Land Revenue Act| Jurisdiction of revenue officer in cases of partition is concurrent with that of civil court
The Court held that under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, the jurisdiction of the Revenue Officer in cases of partition is concurrent with that of the Civil Court. The Court further held that merely because the instrument of partition was not drawn, it could not be said that the partition was not completed or that the joint status of the parties was not severed.
In this case, a batch of two appeals arose out of the judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, whereby it allowed the appeal of the respondent and decreed the suit filed by him, seeking a decree for the possession of the lands, claiming the right of pre-emption against the appellants. The appellants and respondent were substituted as the legal heirs of the original defendant and original plaintiff respectively before the Apex Court.
Cause Title- Jhabbar Singh (Deceased) through Legal Heirs & Ors. v. Jagtar Singh
Date of Judgment- April 17, 2023
Coram- Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
4) Courts cannot compensate for defective phrasing of legislatures by adding or mending
The Court stressed that the language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intent. It was further clarified that the legislature's intention is primarily to be gathered from the language used, which means that attention should be paid to what has been said and what has not been said.
Thus the Court said that the courts cannot aid the legislatures' defective phrasing of an Act; they cannot add or mend, and by construction makeup deficiencies which are left there.
Cause Title- State of Gujarat and Anr. vs M/s Saw Pipes Ltd. (known as Jindal Saw Ltd.)
Date of Judgment- April 17, 2023
Coram- Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna
5) PCA: CBI should carry out free, fair & dispassionate probe with faithful observance to the rights of accused
The Court observed that the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) is expected to carry out a free, fair, and dispassionate investigation with faithful observance of the rights of an accused, who is subjected to custodial interrogation.
The Court also noted that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA) merely contemplates that police officers shall not conduct any inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken in discharge of official functions or duties, without the previous approval of the competent authority.
Cause Title- Central Bureau of Investigation v. Santosh Karnani & Anr.
Date of Judgment- April 17, 2023
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice J.K. Maheshwari
6) Supreme Court grants bail to two men accused of murdering a sitting MLA & a former MLA
The Court granted bail to two accused in the case wherein Kidari Sarveswara Rao, a member of the Legislative Assembly and one Siveri Soma, a former MLA belonging to Telugu Desam Party, were killed.
The Court reiterated that discovery of fact under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act must relate to the commission of some offence and granted bail to appellants-accused. The Court added that there were no reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the appellants were prima facie proved.
Cause Title- Yedala Subba Rao & Anr. V. Union of India
Date of Judgment- April 17, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal
7) Protection U/S. 19(2) of prevention of food adulteration act is available to vendor if food article is purchased with written warranty
The Court observed that protection under Section 19(2)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act), in relation to the sale of adulterated food is available to a vendor if it is proved that the vendor purchased the article of food from any manufacturer, distributor or dealer with a written warranty in the prescribed form.
The Court noted that there is a bar on the manufacturer or distributor or dealer to sell any article to any vendor unless he has given a warranty in writing about the nature and quality of such article to the vendor. Further, it noted that the cash memorandum or invoice in respect of the sale of any article of food given by a manufacturer or distributor of, or dealer in, such article to the vendor thereof should be deemed to be a warranty given by such manufacturer, distributor or dealer.
Cause Title- M/S Sri Mahavir Agency & Anr. v. The State Of West Bengal & Anr.
Date of Judgment- April 17, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal
8) Sec 464 CrPC: Omission to frame a charge or any error in charge is never fatal unless failure of justice is occasioned
The Court asserted that under Section 464 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), omission to frame a charge or any error in charge is never fatal unless, in the opinion of the Court, a failure of justice is being occasioned.
In this case, the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA). He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/¬. The High Court had confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant by passing a judgment against him.
Cause Title- M Soundarajan v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police Vigilance Anticorruption Dindigul
Date of Judgment- April 17, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal
9) Asaram Bapu Matter| Supreme Court sets aside Rajasthan HC's order summoning IPS officer as witness in rape case
The Court in Asaram Bapu matter has recently allowed the plea filed by the State of Rajasthan challenging the order passed by the Rajasthan High Court summoning IPS Officer Ajay Lamba as a witness in a minor rape case. The Apex Court requested the High Court to take up the appeal for an expeditious hearing as Asaram had already suffered incarceration for nearly ten years.
The Court said that the criminal appeal which is ripe for hearing before the High Court has not been taken up and has been delayed by moving the application under Section 391 of the Cr.PC. for the recording of additional evidence, which was filed nearly eight years after the date of occurrence.
Cause Title- State of Rajasthan v. Asharam @ Ashumal
Date of Judgment- April 17, 2023
Coram- Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice M.M. Sundresh
10) Full Bench Of P&H HC had invalidated actual allotments made under discretionary quota: SC sets aside order to allot plot to woman
The Court set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Order dismissing the appeal against allotment of a plot in favor of a woman out of the Punjab Government’s discretionary quota. The High Court had observed that the Government had already approved allotment of a plot to the woman.
The Apex Court noted a crucial fact was not brought to the notice of the High Court, that is, the legal status of the discretionary quota rule, under which the Government of Punjab had approved allotment of a plot to the woman.
Cause Title- Improvement Trust, Ropar Through Its Chairman, Ropar, Punjab v. Shashi Bala & Anr.
Date of Judgment- April 17, 2023
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Kumar
11) Writ of mandamus is prerogative writ, court cannot exercise such power in absence of any legal right
The Court while dealing with an appeal has observed that a writ of mandamus is a prerogative writ and that the Court cannot exercise the said power in absence of any legal right.
In this case, seeking enforcement of a unilateral offer concerning private financial transactions, while questioning the steps taken to recover the dues on the failure to comply with the one-time settlements, extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court was sought to be invoked. Acceding to the request made by duly interfering with the action taken by the appellants, orders were passed, in the exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Kerala High Court, which were challenged in the appeals.
Cause Title- M/s. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. Naveen Mathew Philip & Anr.
Date of Judgment- April 17, 2023
Coram- Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice M.M. Sundresh
12) Tender Process: Action of imposing penalty without even putting the party to notice cannot be approved under law
The Court held that an action of imposing a penalty by the State without even putting the party to notice cannot be approved as per the relevant provisions under the law.
The appellant, being a proprietorship firm, was engaged in the business of manufacturing and repairing transformers, having its plant in Bhopal (M.P.) for the past 30 years and the only customers of it were the distribution companies (Discoms). The appeals were filed by the appellant challenging the order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur. The High Court had partly allowed the writ petition and while maintaining the order of debarment as passed against the appellant, modified its term of operation by making the same effective from February 13, 2020, for a period of three years, instead of being effective from July 30, 2020.
Cause Title- Isolators and Isolators through its Proprietor Sandhya Mishra v. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Date of Judgment- April 18, 2023
Coram- Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Kumar
13) "Consumer Fora has not returned cogent findings nor examined contours of their jurisdiction"- SC observes in "Peculiar" Case
The Court termed the circumstances of a consumer dispute case to be "peculiar" while providing partial relief to the appellants and holding that the Consumer Fora did not return cogent and convincing findings on the loss or injury of the respondent with reference to the relevant factors.
In this case, the appellant launched a residential project, and the respondent applied for the allotment of 3 flats, and an allotment letter was issued to her. The entire consideration was payable by the respondent in 12 installments. The case of the appellants was that the respondent made payment up to the 6th installment but defaulted thereafter and did not make the remaining payments despite numerous reminders. However, the respondent had issued a notice to the appellants stating that even after 16 years, the appellants had kept the allottees waiting despite having received more than 60% of the total cost of the respective flats.
Cause Title- M/s Suneja Towers Private Limited & Anr. vs Anita Merchant
Date of Judgment- April 18, 2023
Coram- Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Kumar
14) Question of paying balance sale consideration does not arise when the vendor did not get the subject land measured within prescribed time
The Court observed that unless the vendor gets the subject land measured and demarcated within stipulated time period, it would be impossible for the purchaser to get a sale deed executed, and as such, the question of paying the balance sale consideration does not arise.
The Court also added that when specific performance of the terms of the contract has not been done the question of time being the essence does not arise.
Cause Title- Gaddipati Divija & Anr. v. Pathuri Samrajyam & Ors.
Date of Judgment- April 18, 2023
Coram- Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Sanjay Karol
15) Practice of filing applications in disposed of SLPs in order to side-step arbitration process should be discouraged
The Court observed that the practice of filing applications in disposed of Special Leave Petitions in order to side-step the arbitration process should be discouraged.
The Court made this observation while dealing with applications filed in a Special Leave Petition, which was disposed of by the Court in August 2012. While disposing of the matter, a direction was issued for the same to be referred to arbitration. In the same order, a further direction was also issued by the Court to maintain status quo till the Arbitrators entered reference.
Cause Title- Narsi Creation Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
Date of Judgment- April 18, 2023
Coram- Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Sanjay Karol
16) Matrimonial Case: Leniency towards women in transfer petitions must not be misused
Considering the status of the parties and the fact that the present is a petition filed by the wife seeking transfer of case filed by the husband from Mangaluru, Karnataka to Mumbai, Maharashtra, the Court held that no case is made out for transfer of the petition from Family Court at Mangaluru to Mumbai, since the petitioner (wife) is a permanent resident of Canada and she must be traveling abroad regularly.
Noticing the number of Transfer Petitions filed in matrimonial cases primarily by the wives seeking transfer of the matrimonial proceedings initiated by the husband, and Court normally has been accepting the prayer made while showing leniency towards ladies, the two-judge Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Aravind Kumar “took support from the decision in case of Anindita Das v. Srijit Das (2006) 9 SCC 197, wherein it was held that this leniency was being misused by women, and therefore observed that each and every case has to be considered on its own merits”.
Cause Title- Delma Lubna Coelho v. Edmond Clint Fernandes
Date of Judgment- April 18, 2023
Coram- Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Aravind Kumar
17) Persons in public service who are holders of civil posts cannot claim benefits of double over time allowance under chapter vi factories act
The Court held that the holders of civil posts or in the civil services of the State cannot claim the benefits of the provisions of Chapter VI of the Factories Act 1948, dehors the service rules. The Court observed that appointment either to a civil post or in the civil services of the Union or the State, is one of a status and that it is not an employment governed strictly by a contract of service or solely by labour welfare legislations.
The Court was hearing an appeal challenging the Order holding that employees working as Supervisors in a Currency Note Press were entitled to Double Over Time Allowance.
Cause Title- Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. Etc v. Vijay D. Kasbe & Ors. Etc.
Date of Judgment- April 18, 2023
Coram- Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal
18) Dismissal of bail application pending investigation is no ground to reject prayer for protection against arrest: SC while granting bail to Akhil Gogoi
Finding that the present one is not a case where the petitioner should be allowed to be detained in custody, especially after having secured an order of discharge, rightly or wrongly, the Court held that except in cases of preventive detention, the purpose of detaining a person in police/judicial custody is either to facilitate fair and proper investigation or as a measure of penalty after conviction.
The Court observed that no purpose will be served in allowing the Special Court to remand the Petitioner to custody and then enabling him to move an application for bail, since the investigation was over and the petitioner is not yet a convicted criminal.
Cause Title- Akhil Gogoi v. State (National Investigation Agency) and Ors.
Date of Judgment- April 18, 2023
Coram- Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal
19) According of hearing to convict before sentencing him is equally applicable even if done by appellate court
Finding that the Trial Court had acquitted the first and the third accused, whereas they were convicted by the appellate court, the Court held that the appellate court was obliged under law to hear the accused on the quantum of sentence in accordance with the mandate of Section 235(2) of CrPC before pronouncing any sentence against them.
In a nutshell, eleven accused persons pursuant to an FIR registered against them, stood acquitted by the Trial Court for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The acquittal of nine of them has been affirmed by the High Court except for the first and the third accused who have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC with life imprisonment and under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC for causing grievous injuries with imprisonment of five years.
Cause Title- Fedrick Kutinha v. State of Karnataka
Date of Judgment- April 18, 2023
Coram- Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal
20) High Court cannot alter or amend a registered lease deed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226
The Court in an appeal has held that it is nowhere open for the High Court to alter or amend a lease deed registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court provided an opportunity to a person being an original bidder for the remainder of an area on a priority basis on the prevalent circle rate notified by the Government.
The Court was deciding a case wherein an appeal was preferred against the judgment passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench whereby it directed the appellants to execute the lease deed in favour of the respondent of the remaining area of the land in accordance with the acceptance of his offer of a total plot area.
Cause Title- Gwalior Development Authority and Another v. Bhanu Pratap Singh
Date of Judgment- April 19, 2023
Coram- Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
21) Transfer Pricing- Open for HC to examine whether findings recorded by tribunal while determining arm’s length price are perverse or not
The Court held that there cannot be any absolute proposition of law that in cases where the Tribunal has determined the arm’s length price it cannot be the subject matter of scrutiny by the High Court.
The Court added that when the determination of the arm’s length price is challenged before the High Court, it is always open for the High Court to consider and examine whether the arm’s length price has been determined while taking into consideration the relevant guidelines under the Income Tax Act and the Rules.
Cause Title- Sap Labs India Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer, Circle 6, Bangalore with connected matters
Date of Judgment- April 19, 2023
Coram- Justice MR Shah and Justice MM Sundresh
22) Additional charges levied by state instrumentalities after cut-off date are "change in law", compensation must be paid- SC To DISCOMS
The Court held that the Distributing Companies must pay "Change In Law" compensation to Power Generating Companies for all additional charges levied by State instrumentalities. The Apex Court held that all additional charges which are payable on account of orders, directions, Notifications, Regulations, etc., issued by the instrumentalities of the State, after the cut-off date, will have to be considered to be ‘Change in Law’ events."
In this case, cross-appeals were preferred by various Distributing Companies (DISCOMS) against the judgment of the APTEL and by several power-generating companies which those DISCOMS awarded the Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs).
Cause Title- GMR Warora Energy Limited vs Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) & Ors.
Date of Judgment- April 20, 2023
Coram- Justice BR Gavai and Justice Vikram Nath
23) Power to notify tiger reserve as buffer zone is vested with state govt u/s. 38v of Wildlife Protection Act
The Court while deciding a batch of appeals has said that the power to notify a Tiger Reserve as a Buffer Zone is vested with the State Government under Section 38V of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The Court noted that any order or notification, rule, or regulation by an Indian Governmental Instrumentality would constitute ‘Law’.
The appeals were filed by MSEDCL against APML (Adani Power Maharashtra Limited) challenging the judgment passed by the APTEL (Appellant Tribunal for Electricity). APML and MSEDCL had entered into four long-term Power Project Agreements (PPA) pursuant to the competitive bidding process conducted by the appellant.
Cause Title- Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited v. Adani Power Maharashtra Limited and Others
Date of Judgment- April 20, 2023
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Vikram Nath
24) Haryana utilities indulged in approbation & reprobation, SC upholds 'change in law' compensation granted to adani power
The Court in an appeal has observed that Haryana Utilities are indulging in approbation and reprobation and that they cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold at the same time.
The Court asserted that no error could be found with the concurrent findings that AP(M)L i.e., Adani Power (Mundra) Limited was entitled to Change in Law relief for 100% of the contracted capacity which is 70% of the installed capacity of the Phase IV extension of Mundra Project.
Cause Title- Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. v. Adani Power (Mundra) Limited & Ors.
Date of Judgment- April 20, 2023
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Vikram Nath
25) Status of statutory rules cannot be accorded to regulations brought into existence under articles of non-statutory company
The Court observed that the status of “statutory rules” cannot be accorded to regulations that are brought into existence under the Articles of a non-statutory company.
In this case, the appeals arose from a judgment passed by the Rajasthan High Court, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed. As a corollary, the decision by the Cabinet Committee of the State of Rajasthan, and resulting instructions issued to the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. (RIICO) to cancel a series of permissions and approvals granted/awarded to the Respondent in respect of industrial land in Kota, Rajasthan, were set aside.
Cause Title- Bishambhar Prasad v. M/s Arfat Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Date of Judgment- April 20, 2023
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice Vikram Nath
26) Supreme Court grants bail to CA Sanjay Raghunath Agarwal in ₹318 crores global depository receipts fraud case
The Court granted bail to Sanjay Raghunath Agarwal, Chartered Accountant, suspected of committing fraud of Global Depository Receipts to the tune of Rs. 318 Crores. The Court directed the appellant-CA to be enlarged on bail while observing that no final report has been filed in the FIR for the predicate offense, for the past nine years.
In this case, FIR was registered against six persons, including the appellant for offences under Sections 406, 407, 415 to 420, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The FIR was registered based on a complaint lodged by one M. Srinivas Reddy, who was the Managing Director of a Company by name M/s Farmax India Limited (Farmax).
Cause Title- Sanjay Raghunath Agarwal v. The Directorate of Enforcement
Date of Judgment- April 20, 2023
Coram- Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal
27) Rape & Murder Of 14-Yr-Old Girl: SC Modifies sentence of convict from life term to fixed term sentence of 30 years
The Court while dealing with a matter relating to the rape and murder of a 14-year-old girl has modified the sentence of the convict from life imprisonment to a fixed term sentence of 30 years.
In this case, the appellant was convicted under Sections 302 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code by the Trial Court and a punishment of death penalty was imposed on him. However, the Jharkhand High Court while upholding the conviction of the appellant modified his death sentence into a life sentence and directed him to remain in jail for the whole of his biological life without any benefit of remission.
Cause Title- Kashi Nath Singh @ Kallu Singh v. The State of Jharkhand
Date of Judgment- April 20, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal
28) Dowry Death: Mere unnatural death of wife in matrimonial home within 7 years of marriage not sufficient to convict husband
The Court held that the mere fact that a wife died under unnatural circumstances in her matrimonial home within seven years of marriage would not by itself be sufficient to convict the husband for dowry death.
In this case, the appeal was preferred against the order of the Uttarakhand High Court which had upheld the decision of Trial Court. The Trial Court had convicted the appellant-accused under Sections 304B, 498A and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for the death of his wife within two years of marriage.
Cause Title- Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh v. The State of Uttarakhand
Date of Judgment- April 20, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal
29) Trivial defects in investigation not enough to disbelieve prosecution’s case, acquittal based on defective probe insults injury
The Court observed that the trivial defects in investigation or process are not enough in themselves to disbelieve the prosecution’s case and that an acquittal of the accused solely on a ground of defective investigation would add an insult to the injury.
In this case, the appellants were accused of a robbery of gold ornaments weighing about 3.543 kgs and cash amounting to Rs. 18,340/-. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sompeta, held the accused guilty of offences punishable under Sections 302, 397, and 450 of the IPC and sentenced them accordingly. Their conviction and sentence stood confirmed when the Telangana High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the two accused, vide judgment in the year 2018.
Cause Title- Dakkata Balaram Reddy & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
Date of Judgment- April 21, 2023
Coram- Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Kumar
30) Psychiatric & psychological evaluation of accused must be produced before trial courts if prosecution proposes death sentence
The Court held that the prosecution is mandated to produce before the Sessions Court, material disclosing psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the accused, in cases where death sentence is warranted. The Court while partly allowing an appeal pertaining to kidnapping and murder of an 18 year old boy modified the sentence awarded to convicts (appellants) to a minimum term of 20 years actual imprisonment.
An impugned order of the Delhi High Court was under challenge before the Court, where it had affirmed the imposition of a fixed term sentence of 30 years, without remission, by the trial court.
Cause Title- Vikas Chaudhary v The State of Delhi
Date of Judgment- April 21, 2023
Coram- Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
31) Aarey Forest Case: Improper to move authority for felling trees in excess of 84 trees- SC imposes ₹10 lakh cost on MMRCL
The Supreme Court in the Aarey Forest case has imposed a cost of Rs. 10 lakhs on MMRCL (Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited) saying that it was improper on the part of MMRCL to move the Tree Authority for the felling of any trees in excess of 84 trees. The Court modified its previous order by permitting MMRCL to act in compliance with the order dated March 15, 2023, subject to some directions.
In this case, MMRCL sought a clarification of the order of the Apex Court dated November 29, 2022, whereby the MMRCL was permitted to move the Tree Authority for felling 84 trees. MMRCL submitted that 177 trees need to be felled or transplanted for the Metro Car Shed Land at Aarey Colony. Hence, it sought to implement the permission which was granted on March 15, 2023, by the Superintendent of Gardens of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai for felling 124 trees and transplanting 53 trees. The Bombay High Court in March this year had restrained MMRCL from felling 177 trees without seeking clarification from the Apex Court.
Cause Title-In Re: Felling of Trees in Aarey Forest (Maharashtra)
Date of Judgment- April 17, 2023
Coram- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice P.S. Narasimha, and Justice J.B. Pardiwala
32) SARFAESI Act: Jurisdiction exercised by division bench was analogous to one under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC
The Court in an appeal observed that the jurisdiction exercised by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court was analogous to the one exercised under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Court noted that the SARFAESI Act itself provides remedies to an aggrieved party in view of the provisions of Sections 17 and 18.
In this case, the appellant was inducted as a tenant by M/s. Bharat Chamber of Commerce which preferred an ejectment suit against the appellant. During the pendency of an ejectment suit, the respondent purchased the aforesaid property and availed various credit facilities from the appellant to the tune of Rs. 42.74 crores by mortgaging the same as collateral. Owing to the financial defaults committed by the respondent, the appellant was constrained to classify the credit facilities as NPAs (Non-Performing Assets) and hence issued a demand notice but the same remained unmet.
Cause Title- Punjab and Sind Bank v. Frontline Corporation Ltd.
Date of Judgment- April 18, 2023
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Aravind Kumar
33) Villagers didn’t testify about occurrence of incident: SC quashes FIR registered by husband against wife’s sister alleging attempt to murder
In a matter where prior disputes existed between the families of a husband and wife, the Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings filed by the husband against his wife's sister under Sections 147 (punishment for rioting), 148 (Rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 149 (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object), 452 (House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint), 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 307 (Attempt to murder), 342 (Punishment for wrongful confinement) and 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation) of IPC.
The husband had filed a complaint alleging that his wife's sister, along with her family had forcibly entered his house with an intention to kill him and his father and had allegedly assaulted them with knife when they refused to heed to the demands of the wife's family.
Cause Title- Ritu Tomar v. State Of U.P. And Others
Date of Judgment- April 21, 2023
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Aravind Kumar