Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: May 1 – May 4, 2023
|1) In exercise of power under Article 142, court has discretion to dissolve marriage on ground of irretrievable breakdown
The Court held that once every effort has been made to save the marriage and there remains no possibility of reunion and cohabitation, the court is not powerless in enabling the parties to avail a better option, which is to grant a divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
In this case, the issue before the Constitution Bench arose primarily from the order passed in Neeti Malviya v. Rakesh Malviya [T.P. (C) No. 899 of 2007], wherein a Two Judge bench had doubted the view expressed in case of Anjana Kishore v. Puneet Kishore [(2002) 10 SCC 194] and case of Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel [(2010) 4 SCC 393], that the Court, in exercise of the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, cannot reduce or waive the period of six months for moving the second motion as stipulated in sub-section (2) to Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956.
Cause Title- Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan
Date of Judgment- May 1, 2023
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Vikram Nath, and Justice J.K. Maheshwari
2) Chargesheet cannot be considered incomplete simply because it was filed without sanction
The Court clarified that an accused person will not be entitled to default bail on the ground that the chargesheet was filed without the sanction of valid authority and also cautioned the investigating agencies against filing applications seeking an extension of time at the last minute.
In this case, the accused were charged with offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and the Explosive Substances Act, and an application was filed seeking to extend the time for investigation, as per Section 43B(2)(b) of the UAPA, when there were 2 days left for the 90 days’ time limit to expire. The Court extended the time on the 101st day.
Cause Title- Judgebir Singh @ Jasbir Singh Samra @ Jasbir & Ors. v. National Investigation Agency
Date of Judgment- May 1, 2023
Coram- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala
3) Carriage by Road Act: No notice U/s. 16 is necessary for instituting suit against common carrier for recovery of loss
The Court observed that the provision of Section 16 of the Carriage by Road Act, 2007 does not come into play vis à vis the condition of giving notice in respect of claims for damages for the loss of reputation, business opportunity, etc. as such claims are not in connection with the damage or loss to the consignment.
After considering the arguments, the Court found from the perusal of the Carriage by Road Act, 2007, that no suit or legal proceedings shall be instituted against a common carrier for any loss of, or damage to a consignment unless a notice in writing of such loss to the consignment has been served upon the carrier before the institution of the suit or the legal proceedings within six months from the date of booking of the consignment by the consignor.
Cause Title- ESSEMM Logistics v. DARCL Logistics Limited & Anr.
Date of Judgment- May 1, 2023
Coram- Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal
4) LA Act: Acquisition is saved from being lapsed upon either possession of acquired land or compensation being paid to landowners
The Court held that the order passed by the High Court cannot be legally sustained whereby the acquisition has been held to have lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
After considering the submissions, the Court noted that the first respondent admitted that she was not the recorded owner of the land at the time of issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act or even at the time of the passing of the Award and accordingly, it observed that there was a dispute of ownership, and the amount of compensation was deposited by the Land Acquisition Collector with the Reference Court under Section 30/31 of the 1894 Act.
Cause Title- Delhi Development Authority v. Anita Singh & Ors.
Date of Judgment- May 1, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal
5) Prayer for reference to arbitration cannot be granted if substantive reliefs claimed in suits fall outside arbitration clause
While deciding on the question of invocation of arbitration, the Court clarified that even if the original license agreement is said to be the genesis of the contractual relations of the appellant and the respondent, the same does not ipso facto lead to the availability of the arbitration agreement in relation to the dispute in question, which emanates from the tripartite agreement and which cannot be determined without reference to the said tripartite agreement and without involving all the parties thereto.
The Court found that except for the principal agreement, none of the other agreements contained any arbitration clause, even if they related to the same property and also involved the appellant and the respondent.
Cause Title- Gujarat Composite Limited v. A. Infrastructure Limited and Ors.
Date of Judgment- May 1, 2023
Coram- Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
6) Appellate court should not reappreciate evidence at the stage of Section 389 of CrPC & pick up loopholes in prosecution’s case
The Court held that an Appellate Court should not reappreciate the evidence at the stage of Section 389 of the CrPC which deals with the suspension of sentence pending the appeal and release of appellant on bail and further observed that the Court’s endeavour should be to see as to whether the case presented by the prosecution and accepted by the Trial Court can be said to be a case in which, ultimately the convict stands for fair chances of acquittal.
The Court made this observation while dealing with a plea challenging an order passed by the High Court whereby the Court had suspended the substantive order of sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court on 3 convicts in a murder case and ordered their release on bail pending the final disposal of criminal appeals.
Cause Title- Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary & Anr. ETC.
Date of Judgment- May 2, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice J.B. Pardiwala
7) Competent authority ratified dismissal order allegedly passed without jurisdiction: SC sets aside HC’s order quashing employee's dismissal
The Court set aside the Gujarat High Court’s Order quashing the Order of dismissal passed against an employee of Municipal Corporation over allegations of misconduct.
In this case, the High Court had set aside the Dismissal Order on the ground that the Commissioner had no authority to pass the Order of dismissal.
Cause Title- Municipal Commissioner, Jamnagar Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. R.M. Doshi
Date of Judgment- May 2, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice J.B. Pardiwala
8) HC shouldn’t have entertained plea challenging e-auction notice when alternative remedy was available- SC sets aside order staying auction
The Court set aside the High Court’s Order staying the auction of a flat in respect of which auction proceedings were already over at the time when the stay order was passed. It was observed that in the e-¬auction, the appellant was declared as a successful bidder and he made a payment of 25% of the bid amount on the very day.
In this case, the Court noted that much after that respondent no.1 filed a plea before the High Court against the e-auction notice. It pointed out that against any steps taken by the Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the aggrieved party has a remedy under the SARFAESI Act by way of appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to approach the DRT.
Cause Title- G. Vikram Kumar v. State Bank Of Hyderabad & Ors.
Date of Judgment- May 2, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
9) Assessee is liable to pay service tax on value of services rendered- SC observes on 'Works Contract Service'
The Court stressed that in the case of ‘works contract service’ an assessee is liable to pay the service tax on the service element/value of the service rendered and the sales tax/tax on the element of goods transferred pursuant to the contract.
The issue posed for consideration before the Court was whether an assessee who is liable to pay service tax under works contract service has the legal right not to follow Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 nor the Composition Scheme on the ground that in terms of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 an assessee is entitled to take the total contract value which includes both goods and services and remit service tax on the entire value as works contract service and in the process also entitled to avail the CENVAT Credit.
Cause Title- CC and CE and ST, NOIDA v. M/s Interarch Building Products Pvt. Ltd.
Date of Judgment- May 2, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari
10) Section 327(7) of Companies Act is not violative of Article 21: SC while clarifying over liquidation process under IBC
The Court observed that Section 326 of the Companies Act, 2013 deals with overriding preferential payments which have to be paid in priority to all other debts, and these include the workmen debts, and dues of the secured creditor where the secured creditor has realized the secured asset but could not realize the entire amount, or the amount of workmen’s portion in his security payable under the law, whichever is less, pari-passu with the workmen’s dues.
In a nutshell, the petitioners had approached the Court seeking a declaration of Clause 19(a) of the Eleventh Schedule of the IBC pursuant to Section 255 of the IBC, as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as Clause 19(a) of the Eleventh Schedule of the IBC inserts sub-section (7) in Section 327 of the Companies Act, 2013, which puts a statutory bar on the application of Sections 326 and 327 of the Companies Act, 2013, to the liquidation proceedings under the IBC.
Cause Title- Moser Baer Karamchari Union and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
Date of Judgment- May 2, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Sanjiv Khanna
11) [Classification under Central Excise] Aswini Homeo Arnica Hair Oil is not cosmetic & rather medicament
While considering the classification of ‘Aswini Homeo Arnica Hair Oil’ (AHAHO) under Central Excise Rules, 2002, the Court observed that when the product in question is intended to control hair fall as also to prevent dandruff and to induce good sleep, which all carry their own therapeutic and prophylactic connotations, the picture of a lady with long black flowing hair, by itself, cannot make the product in question a cosmetic.
After considering the evidences, the Court found that the product in question, i.e., AHAHO, was classified as 'medicament' under Chapter 30 on at least four different occasions by the Department, including two orders passed by the successive Commissioner (Appeals) during 1994-2004 and the said orders had attained finality.
Cause Title- Commissioner Of Customs, Central Excise And Service Tax, Hyderabad v. Ashwani Homeo Pharmacy
Date of Judgment- May 3, 2023
Coram- Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Vikram Nath
12) "Disapproval of resolution plan by NCLAT not to be interfered with"- SC while setting aside MK Rajagopalan's bid for Appu Hotels
The Court upheld an order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal through which the approval was given to Mr. MK Rajagopalan, the MD of MGM Healthcare, to make an Rs. 423 crore bid to take over Appu Hotels Ltd. was set aside.
In this case, an appeal was filed by Mr. Periasamy Palani Gounder, the promoter and erstwhile director of Appu Hotels Ltd., against the approval given to Mr. Rajagopalan's bid to take over Appu Hotels. Subsequently, NCLAT set aside the approval and hence, Mr. Rajagopalan moved to the Apex Court against the order of the NCLAT.
Cause Title- M.K. Rajagopalan v. Dr. Periasamy Palani Gounder & Anr.
Date of Judgment- May 3, 2023
Coram- Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Vikram Nath
13) SC upholds constitutional validity of Section 140(5) of Companies Act, says proceedings under Section 140(5) will continue despite auditor’s resignation
The Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 140(5) of the Companies Act 2013, which deals with the removal and resignation of auditors. It held that Section 140(5) cannot be said to be arbitrary, excessive, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution or violative of fundamental rights.
The Court was dealing with a plea challenging the Bombay High Court’s Order which had quashed the SFIO investigation against two audit firms BSR and Associates and Deloitte Haskins and Sells in connection with the IL&FS fraud case.
Cause Title- Union of India and Another v. Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP & Anr
Date of Judgment- May 3, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice M.M. Sundresh
14) Amravati Land Scam- Supreme Court sets aside AP HC’s order staying SIT probe
The Court set aside the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court whereby the High Court had stayed SIT probe into the allegations of corruption against members of the erstwhile Government.
In this case, the Court while considering a matter related to the involvement of the TDP Leader of Andhra Pradesh in a scam observed that the State had expressly given its consent to the exercise of powers by the Delhi Police Establishment within the State of Andhra Pradesh and said that the Union of India is a proper and necessary party to be arrayed as a Respondent in the writ petitions, as the Appellant (State of Andhra Pradesh) did file an application before the High Court to implead the Union of India and the Enforcement Directorate.
Cause Title- State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. V. Varla Ramaiah
Date of Judgment- May 3, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice M.M. Sundresh
15) Not within court’s domain to delve upon decision of MHA to defer mercy petition: SC while declining to commute death penalty of Balwant Singh Rajoana
While hearing an appeal concerning the inordinate delay of ten years in considering the Mercy Petition of Balwant Singh convicted in the bomb blast and murder of former Punjab Chief Minister, the Court directed that the competent authority, in due course of time, would again as and when it is deemed necessary, may deal with the Mercy Petition, and take a further decision.
In this case, the Ministry of Home Affairs had concluded that the consideration of the Mercy Petition may be deferred as it could have an impact of compromising the security of the nation or creating law and order situation
Cause Title- Balwant Singh v. Union of India and Ors.
Date of Judgment- May 3, 2023
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Karol
16) Breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution unless dishonest intention is present since beginning
The Court while dealing with a Criminal Appeal related to the quashing of an FIR, has again in its recent judgement reiterated that "a breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction." It observed that "Merely on the allegation of failure to keep up promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings.”
In this case, the Court was dealing with an appeal which had challenged the order, passed by the Allahabad High Court, refusing to quash the criminal proceedings before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 417 and 418 of the Indian Penal Code.
Cause Title- Kunti And Anr. v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr.
Date of Judgment- May 3, 2023
Coram- Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Sanjay Karol
17) Power of directing further investigation rests with magistrate & not with police
The Court reiterated that the power of ordering further investigation rests with the concerned Magistrate or with a higher Court and an order from the District Police Chief for further investigation is not the same as an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate.
In this case, dealing with a Criminal Appeal challenging the order passed by the Kerala High Court noted that the Appellant was charged with an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code for which the Police had primarily placed a report stating the 'case to be false' and subsequently placed another report of further investigation on the order of District Police Chief, Kottayam.
Cause Title- Peethambaran v. State Of Kerala & Anr.
Date of Judgment- May 3, 2023
Coram- Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Sanjay Karol
18) Vital and basic facts omitted: SC while dismissing election petition against DMK MP Kanimozhi Karunanidhi
The Court dismissed the election petition filed against the DMK MP Kanimozhi Karunanidhi and upheld her election from Thoothukudi in the 2019 Lok Sabha polls on the ground of omission of vital and basic facts in the same.
The Court was dealing with an appeal filed by the DMK MP challenging an order passed by the Madras High Court whereby it declined to quash the said election petition. It said that mere bald and vague allegations without any basis would not be sufficient compliance with the requirement of stating material facts in the Election Petition.
Cause Title- Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A. Santhana Kumar & Ors.
Date of Judgment- May 4, 2023
Coram- Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
19) In absence of specific guideline or definition of land grabbing cases powers can be abused being arbitrary
The Court upheld the order of the High Court saying that it was rightly held and observed that in the absence of any specific guideline and/or definition of “land grabbing cases,” the powers can be abused or misused and the same are said to be exercised arbitrarily.
In this case, the Madras High Court had allowed the pleas and quashed the Government Orders directing the transfer of the case from the Special Judicial Magistrate, Land Grabbing, Erode to the Judicial Magistrate-II, Erode. The State of Tamil Nadu had sanctioned the formation of 36 Anti Land Grabbing Special Cells with one cell each at the State Police Headquarters, 7 Commissionerates, and 28 Districts to deal with the Land Grabbing Cases in the State.
Cause Title- Government of Tamil Nadu & Others v. R. Thamaraiselvam Etc. Etc.
Date of Judgment- May 4, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna
20) Selling development rights in property will not become stock in trade merely on basis of recording of inventory in books of accounts
The Court clarified that the moment the receipt of the amount is received and recorded in the books of accounts of the taxpayer unless shown to be refunded/returned, it is to be treated as income in the hands of the recipient.
The Court quashed the judgment passed by the High Court and remitted the matter back to the ITAT to consider the appeal afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits while taking into consideration whether the transaction in question is the sale of capital assets or sale of stock in trade and other aspects.
Cause Title- Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Glowshine Builders & Developers
Date of Judgment- May 4, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna
21) Operational creditors must be paid equivalent to the amount to which they would have been entitled to incase of liquidation
While modifying the judgment of NCLAT by directing that the Appellant would be treated as a secured creditor, who would be entitled to all rights and obligations as applicable to a secured creditor in terms of Sections 52 & 53 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, the Court opined that it is the mandate of Section 31 of the IBC that the adjudicating authority should be satisfied that the resolution plan, as approved by the CoC meets with the requirement under Section 30(2).
In this case, one Amtek Auto Limited (Corporate Debtor) approached the Appellants to extend a short term loan facility of INR 500 crores to its group companies i.e. Brassco Engineers Ltd. and WLD Investments Pvt. Ltd. for the ultimate end use of the Corporate Debtor. Pursuant thereto, two Security Trustee Agreements were executed between the first Appellant and WLD as well as between the first Appellant and Brassco.
Cause Title- M/s. Vistra ITCL (INDIA) Ltd and Ors. v. Dinkar Venkatasubramanian and Anr.
Date of Judgment- May 4, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Sanjiv Khanna
22) SC sets aside order directing police investigation into rape allegation against BJP leader, remands matter back to magistrate
The Court set aside an order of a magisterial court in West Bengal for registration of an FIR against BJP's National General Secretary and two others for offences including rape and criminal intimidation on a complaint by a woman activist.
In this case, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, alleging that she was raped by all three appellants at the residence of the Political Leader. The CJM dismissed the said application, but the High Court set aside the order passed by the CJM and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Cause Title- Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri and Others
Date of Judgment- May 4, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Sanjiv Khanna
23) SC directs murder accused to surrender whose wife was suffering from brain haemorrhage, remits matter for deciding bail
The Court in a murder case allowed the appeals directing the accused to surrender whose wife was suffering from brain haemorrhage, and remitted the matter to the High Court for deciding the bail applications afresh.
In this case, being aggrieved with the order passed by the Rajasthan High Court by which it directed to enlarge the accused on bail in connection with the FIR for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 201, 120-B of the IPC, the complainant had preferred the appeals.
Cause Title- Rahul Gupta v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Date of Judgment- May 4, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
24) Once sale deed is duly executed & registered, coupled with its delivery & payment of consideration same amounts to full transfer of ownership
While observing that the need to take into consideration the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of parties in deciding the passing of title would arise only if the recitals in the document are indecisive and ambiguous, the Court said that the High Court has committed a serious error based on perverse appreciation of evidence, in setting aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court decreeing the subject suit and in restoring the decree of dismissal of the suit of the trial Court.
After considering the submissions and referring to the Fragmentation Act, the Court observed that it is only aimed at preventing the fragmentation of agricultural holdings and to provide for the consolidation of agricultural holdings for the purpose of the better cultivation thereof.
Cause Title- Damodhar Narayan Sawale (D) through LRs. v. Shri Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske and Ors.
Date of Judgment- May 4, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
25) Burden of proof becomes redundant in seizure cases within customs area; provision that mandates such task also becomes redundant
The Court in a plea has observed that the question of burden of proof itself becomes redundant in cases of seizures within the customs area, by default, the provision that mandates such a task also becomes redundant.
In this case, while placing the matter before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders, the Court refrained from making any observations on the merits of the case and left the same for consideration by the Settlement Commission.
Cause Title- Yamal Manojbhai v. Union of India
Date of Judgment- May 4, 2023
Coram- Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Sanjay Karol
26) It is trial judge’s duty to participate in trial and not watch as a recording machine
The Court while highlighting the duties of a judge in a criminal trial set aside an order of conviction for murder by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri, Haryana, which was even upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
In this case, the two accused were convicted for an alleged murder, with the motive to steal the deceased’s tractor. They were convicted by the Sessions Trial for offences under Sections 302, 364, 392, 394,201 read with Section 34 of IPC.
Cause Title- Dinesh Kumar v. The State of Haryana
Date of Judgment- May 4, 2023
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Sanjay Kumar
27) Auction purchaser is justified in assuming that taxes & liability post liquidation of wound-up company is not recoverable from him
The cryptic terms and conditions of sale in the present case, wanting in material stipulations, never obliged a purchaser to carry out a search as regards encumbrances, observed the Court while deciding on the question of obligation of purchaser vis-à-vis official liquidator towards post liquidation liability of a wound-up company.
Going by the background of the case, the company IISCO Ujjain Pipe and Foundry Company Limited, became sick and was referred to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1956 and on the recommendation of BIFR, the company was ordered to be wound up. Pursuant thereto, the Appellant was appointed as the Official Liquidator and was directed to take over possession of the assets of the company in liquidation.
Cause Title- Official Liquidator v. Ujjain Nagar Palika Nigam and Ors.
Date of Judgment- May 4, 2023
Coram- Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Aniruddha Bose
28) Gutkha or pan masala are not ‘declared goods’: clarifies SC while upholding rate of state tax over limit prescribed under CST Act
While holding that the heading which provides the most accurate description has to be followed, the Court held that neither gutkha nor pan masala are “declared goods” under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act), in view of the restrictions under Section 15 of the CST Act.
In this case, it was the claim of the appellants that state legislatures were not empowered to levy sales tax on those articles, in view of the provision in the Constitution enabling the Union to levy additional duties of excise, and further that in any case, the rate of state tax cannot exceed the limit prescribed by the CST Act.
Cause Title- Trimurthi Fragrances v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
Date of Judgment- May 4, 2023
Coram- Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta
29) KGST Act| Talcum powders containing medications treated as cosmetics, fall under category “medicated talcum powder” [Entry 127]
The Court while dealing with a batch of appeals preferred by Heinz India Limited and others has held that all kinds of talcum powders containing medications are treated as cosmetics as per the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (KGST Act) and hence fall under the category of “medicated talcum powder” i.e., Entry 127 of the First Schedule to the said Act.
In this case, as per the first set of appeals, the Kerala High Court by its judgment had rejected the revisions filed by the appellant/assessee i.e., Heinz who was aggrieved by the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal’s orders holding that its product “Nycil Prickly Heat Powder” was classifiable not under Entry 79 of the KGST Act.
Cause Title- Heinz India Limited v. The State of Kerala
Date of Judgment- May 4, 2023
Coram- Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta
30) Judicial discretion must be governed by rule, not by humour: SC reiterates while considering bail
The Court while considering two Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) where bail was sought, considered the factual matrix pertaining to each individual case. While rejecting the prayer for bail in one, the Court allowed the appeal in another.
The Court, however, did not go into the legal aspect pertaining to the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015 as the appeals only dealt with a limited aspect of bail. In the SLPs, two impugned orders of the Gujarat High Court were challenged where the Court had dismissed the prayer for the release of the Appellants.
Cause Title- Atulbhai Vithalbhai Bhanderi v. State Of Gujarat
Date of Judgment- May 4, 2023
Coram- Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
31) Act of a mother who wrongly handled poison to her children while she was trying to end her own life is not brutal
The Court found that the circumstances in which the appellant is said to have administered poison to her two children are clearly reflective of her being under a state of tremendous mental stress.
In this case, the appellant having suffered imprisonment for almost 20 years applied for premature release but the same was rejected considering the cruel and brutal nature of the offence committed by her.
Cause Title- Nagarathinam v. State through Inspector of Police
Date of Judgment- May 4, 2023
Coram- Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah