Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: May 8 – May 12, 2023
|1) Waiting to get clearance of right over additional TDR in pending acquisition proceeding does not tantamount to abandonment of claim
Noticing that the Appellants surrendered their land and accepted Transferable Development Rights (TDR) in lieu of compensation, the Court observed that all activities undertaken by the Appellant through their Architects till the handing over of possession of the land were not towards the development of amenity and for the grant of Additional TDR, rather, all those works were undertaken as part of the effort to make the Corporation accept the surrender of land and to grant TDR.
In this case, a Development Plan (DP) for Greater Mumbai was prepared for the period 1981-2001 and certain plots were reserved for purpose of ‘Recreation Ground’, which was admittedly owned by first Appellant. Later, in pursuance of power conferred under Maharashtra under Section 126 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, the Planning Authority proceeded to acquire such plot and the Appellant filed an application for surrendering the said land.
Cause Title- Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company and Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.
Date of Judgment- May 8, 2023
Coram- Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal
2) CPF Scheme: Wrong deductions from salary cannot defeat rightful claim of employee
The Court in a case relating to CPF (Central Provident Fund) scheme observed that merely because there were some wrong deductions from the salary of the employee and that he was treated as a member of the CPF scheme, cannot be permitted to be raised as a ground to defeat his rightful claim.
In this case, the respondent submitted his option within time seeking voluntary retirement in 2017, and certain retirement benefits were paid to him, however, no pension was paid to him for which he had exercised the option. He filed a representation but no action was taken thereon as a result of which he filed a writ petition which was allowed by the High Court.
Cause Title- Calcutta State Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Ashit Chakraborty & Ors.
Date of Judgment- May 8, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal
3) No distinction between time served before or after acquisition of degree so long it’s basis for consideration of promotion
The Court while deciding a batch of appeals reiterated that there is no distinction between the time period served before or after the acquisition of the degree so long as it is the basis for consideration of the promotion and noted that if someone acquires a higher degree as compared to a diploma, he/she comes into a channel which entitles consideration, albeit on merit, in a fast lane with less number of years of service required in the cadre.
In this case, the appellants approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) challenging the decision of the Puducherry administration to promote the Junior Engineers, who were originally Diploma holders as they were alleged to have denied the promotion.
Cause Title- T. Valsan (D) Thr. LRs. & Ors. v. K. Kanagaraj & Ors.
Date of Judgment- May 8, 2023
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Abhay S. Oka, and Justice Manoj Misra
4) Impersonal & irresponsible attitude of officers putting everything to court: SC imposes ₹1 lakh cost on Haryana Urban Development Authority
The Court while dealing with a case imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellants saying that it is because of the impersonal and irresponsible attitude of the officers, who want to put everything to Court and shirk to take decisions.
In this case, the appellants had challenged the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby the dispute pertained to the demand for additional price for the allotment of a plot to the respondent, and a notice was issued to the respondent by the appellants raising demand for additional price as well as to show cause as to why the plot should not be resumed on account of non-construction within a period of two years of allotment.
Cause Title- Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr. v. Jagdeep Singh
Date of Judgment- May 8, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal
5) Arbitration Act| Court cannot after setting aside award proceed to grant further relief by modifying award
The Court reiterated that the Court cannot after setting aside the award proceed to grant relief by modifying the award as per the Arbitration Act in a case wherein Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) entered into a petrol/hsd pump dealer agreement with the respondent in 2003.
An appeal was filed by the respondent before the General Manager of IOC which came to be dismissed and this led to the matter being referred to arbitration. The Sole Arbitrator held that the action of the respondent in withdrawing was not in accordance with the law and that the Letter of Intent issued in favour of the new dealer was not flawed.
Cause Title- Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. M/s. Sathyanarayana Service Station & Anr.
Date of Judgment- May 9, 2023
Coram- Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice B.V. Nagarathna
6) Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 cannot be invalidated on ground that its provisions manifest discrimination or arbitrariness
The Court upheld the validity of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 saying that such an Act is not liable to be invalidated on the ground that its provisions manifest discrimination or arbitrariness.
In this case, an appeal was filed by the appellants challenging the judgment passed by the Madras High Court whereby it upheld the validity of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act saying that it did not suffer from any inherent arbitrariness.
Cause Title- C.S. Gopalakrishnan Etc. v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Others
Date of Judgment- May 9, 2023
Coram- Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Kumar
7) When company & accused are two separate entities & there is no connection with investigation, freeze order is invalid
The Court while deciding an appeal held that when the company and the accused are two separate entities and the company is not connected to the investigation, the freeze order in such a case is not valid.
In this case, the appellant company was a Foreign Institutional Investor and was permitted by the SEBI to buy and sell shares and securities in the Indian Stock Market but due to certain litigations it quit trading in the Indian markets in 2006. Thereafter, the appellant company was subject to two freeze orders under Section 102 of Cr.PC. whereby the first freeze order was imposed in 2006 and the second one was imposed in 2010.
Cause Title- M/s. Jermyn Capital LLC Dubai v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.
Date of Judgment- May 9, 2023
Coram- Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Sanjay Kumar
8) Pre 2015 Amendment Arbitration Act will apply if notice is issued prior to 2015 even though S.11 application is filed thereafter
The Court clarified that the pre-2015 Amendment Arbitration Act would apply if notice is issued prior to 2015 even though Section 11 application for appointment of arbitration is filed thereafter.
Going by the background of the case, the Appellant and the Respondents entered into an agreement for additions/alterations to Senior Non-Commissioned Officers mess and repairs/renewals to floors in tech area at Air Force Academy, Hyderabad. The Appellant raised a revised final bill for the said work and issued “no further claim” certificate upon receiving payment.
Cause Title- Shree Vishnu Constructions v. The Engineer in Chief, Military Engineering Service, and Ors.
Date of Judgment- May 9, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R Shah and Justice C.T Ravikumar
9) SC/ST Act: Officers instituting FIR must be vigilant before invoking any provision of stringent statute
The Court while dealing with a case relating to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 i.e., SC/ST Act has held that the officers who institute an FIR are duty-bound to be vigilant before invoking any provision of a very stringent statute.
In this case, an appeal was preferred against the judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court whereby it rejected the plea of the appellant who was the Managing Director of a company engaged in developing residential properties. The company and its owners entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) in 2009 and thereafter, the apartment project was completed and sale deeds were executed in favour of the allottees.
Cause Title- Gulam Mustafa v. The State of Karnataka & Anr.
Date of Judgment- May 10, 2023
Coram- Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
10) Arbitral award can be considered to be suffering from patent illegality only if it's an illegality apparent on the face of the award
The Court observed that an arbitral award can be said to be suffering from a patent illegality only if it is an illegality apparent on the face of the award, and it is not to be searched out by re-appreciating the evidence.
In this case, Reliance Infrastructure had constructed a power plant for the State of Goa under a power purchase agreement (PPA). Reliance sought arbitration in 2016, after the State failed to pay for the power generated by the plant. Subsequently, in 2018, the arbitrator awarded Reliance a sum of Rs. 292.22 crore along with an interest of 15% per annum from 1st August 2013 till the date of payment.
Cause Title- Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. vs State of Goa
Date of Judgment- May 10, 2023
Coram- Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Kumar
11) Orissa: All central & state laws will continue to apply to scheduled areas unless there’s specific notification
The Court while dismissing an appeal filed by the Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action has held that all the Central and State laws being applicable to the State of Orissa will continue to apply to the Scheduled Area unless there is a specific notification issued by the Governor.
The Court further held that non-Tribals have the right to settle down in a Scheduled Area as every citizen has a right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India under Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution.
Cause Title- Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment- May 10, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal
12) Delhi Govt v. LG- Constitutionally entrenched & democratically elected government needs to have control over its administration
The Court in its unanimous verdict passed held that a democratically elected government needs to have control over its administration.
While dealing with the asymmetric federal model of governance in India, involving the contest of power between a Union Territory and the Union Government, and after considering Article 239AA of the Constitution and the 2018 Constitution Bench judgment [(2018) 8 SCC 501], the Court held that the Lieutenant Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers of National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD) in relation to matters within the legislative scope of NCTD.
Cause Title- Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Union of India
Date of Judgment- May 11, 2023
Coram- CJI D.Y Chandrachud, Justice M.R. Shah, Justice Krishna Murari, Justice Hima Kohli, and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
13) No doubt that corporate debtor committed default under IBC due to non-payment of due amount: SC rejects plea
The Court dismissed an appeal on the ground that the Corporate Debtor committed a default within the meaning of Section 3(12) of the IBC (Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016) due to non-payment of the amounts due to the Bank.
The Bench noted that the amount payable by the Corporate Debtor also included the amount repayable under the fund-based credit facility of secured overdrafts and that the facility granted to the Corporate Debtor was not confined to Bank Guarantees.
Cause Title- M. Suresh Kumar Reddy v. Canara Bank & Ors.
Date of Judgment- May 11, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal
14) When Trial Judge seeks help of prosecutor & defence lawyer U/s 313(5) CrPC, lawyers must act as officers of court & not as clients’ mouthpiece
The Court while dealing with a murder case observed that the Judicial Officers have to understand the importance of Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The Court said that when the Judge seeks the assistance of the prosecutor and the defence lawyer under Section 313(5) of CrPC, the lawyers must act as the officers of the Court and not as mouthpieces of their respective clients.
The Court further held that while recording the statement under Section 313 of CrPC in cases involving a large number of prosecution witnesses, the Judicial Officers will be well advised to take benefit of sub-section (5) of Section 313 of CrPC, which will ensure that the chances of committing errors and omissions are minimized.
Cause Title- Raj Kumar @ Suman v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Date of Judgment- May 11, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal
15) Supreme Court dismisses appeal challenging HC order whereby inspector was prima facie found guilty of dereliction of duty
The Court dismissed the appeal filed against the Madhya Pradesh High Court's Order whereby an Inspector was prima facie found guilty of dereliction of duty.
Finding that as the lapses are grave and the factum that the police authority had itself realized that lapses had crept into the investigation, and decided to initiate proceedings against the Appellant (Police officer), the Court said that the operative portion of the judgment impugned becomes, merely reiterative, and does not warrant any interference in the extant facts and circumstances involving dereliction of duty by the Appellant.
Cause Title- Sanjay Dubey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.
Date of Judgment- May 11, 2023
Coram- Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
16) "Late payment of rent as per direction of revenue court is valid ground for eviction"- SC while upholding order against cultivating tenant
The Court upheld an eviction order against some cultivating tenants by holding that as per Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, the late payment of the rent as per the direction of the Revenue Court is clearly a valid ground for effecting eviction.
In this case, the respondent had filed a petition before the Revenue Court against the appellants, seeking their eviction on account of not having paid the lease rent for Fasli 1419 to Fasli 1424 (corresponding to the years 2009 to 2014) @ 10½ bags of paddy each weighing 65kgs.
Cause Title- K Chinnammal (Dead) Thr. Lrs. vs LR Eknath & Anr.
Date of Judgment- May 11, 2023
Coram- Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
17) IBC| Infusion of funds to be treated as interim finance regarding which total account is maintained by IRP
The Court while deciding a batch of appeals noted that the infusion of funds by the promoter in different projects is to be treated as interim finance regarding which total account is to be maintained by IRP (Interim Resolution Professional).
In this case, Union Bank of India and Indiabulls Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. were the financial creditors of the corporate debtor. The NCLAT (National Company Law Appellate Tribunal) had admitted an application under Section 7 of the (IBC) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and issued a slew of directions that practically had the effect of converting the corporate insolvency resolution process.
Cause Title- Indiabulls Asset Reconstruction Company Limited v. Ram Kishore Arora & Ors.
Date of Judgment- May 11, 2023
Coram- Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Kumar
18) Meghalaya’s suit against Provisions Of Lotteries (Regulation) Act- SC rejects Centre’s challenge to maintainability of the suit
The Court observed that it is not inclined to accept the contentions urged by the Union of India and some of the States that the suit filed by the state of Meghalaya, challenging certain provisions of Lotteries (Regulation) Act, is not maintainable under Article 131 of the Constitution.
In a nutshell, the Plaintiff (State of Meghalaya) sought for a declaration that Sections 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 and Rule 5 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2010, are ultra vires and unconstitutional. In addition to the declaratory reliefs, the Plaintiff also sought for a perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants (Union of India) from issuing orders under Section 6 of the Act of 1998 in relation to the lotteries organized by it.
Cause Title- State of Meghalaya vs. Union of India and Ors.
Date of Judgment- May 11, 2023
Coram- Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Kumar
19) "Anxiety to be fair to victims of sexual harassment has ended up causing them greater harm"- SC while setting aside order dismissing lecturer from service
The Court set aside an order which dismissed a lecturer against whom as many as 17 students had levied serious allegations of sexual harassment from service.
The Court also considered that it was disquieting that there are serious lapses in the enforcement of the POSH Act even after such a long passage of time. In that context, the Court noted that of 30 national sports federations, 16 did not have an ICC, and where the ICC were in place, they did not have the stipulated number of members or lacked the mandatory external member.
Cause Title- Aureliano Fernandes v State of Goa and Others
Date of Judgment- May 12, 2023
Coram- Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli
20) 'Legal profession no longer considered as family profession': SC modifies guidelines for designating senior advocates
The Court pronounced its judgment by modifying the guidelines governing the exercise of designating lawyers as senior advocates before the Supreme Court and High Courts. The Court refused the prayer of the Union of India to revisit or review its 2017 judgment but modified the existing guidelines by fine-tuning the process of designation for all meritorious candidates to have a fair chance.
The Court had on March 17, 2023, reserved its judgment on petitions seeking modification in the 2017 verdict which had laid down guidelines for the designation of lawyers as senior advocates. Senior Advocate Indra Jaising had sought the modification in the guidelines regarding the process of designation of Senior Advocates practising before the Supreme Court as well as the High Courts.
Cause Title- Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court Of India Through Secretary General
Date of Judgment- May 12, 2023
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
21) Seniority to be given weight only when merit & ability are equal: SC while staying promotion of 68 judicial officers in Gujarat
The Court while setting aside the impugned select list and subsequent notification issued by the Gujarat High Court and the State government respectively, has stayed the promotion of 68 Judicial Officers as District Judges. Further directed them to be sent to their original posts which they were holding prior to their promotion.
The list of judicial officers also included Chief Judicial Magistrate Harish Hasmukhbhai Varma's name, who had convicted Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in a defamation case.
Cause Title- Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta & Anr. v. High Court of Gujarat and Ors.
Date of Judgment- May 12, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
22) It is the duty of referral court to examine existence of arbitration agreement U/s. 11(6a) of Arbitration Act
The Court held that as per the Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it is the duty cast upon the referral court to consider the dispute/issue with respect to the existence of an arbitration agreement. The Court clarified that when the validity of an arbitration agreement is concerned, as the same goes to the root of the matter, it has to be conclusively decided by the referral court at the referral stage itself.
The question posed before the Court was on the jurisdiction of the referral court at a pre-referral stage when the issue with respect to the existence and validity of an arbitration agreement is raised.
Cause Title- Magic Eye Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Green Edge Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Etc.
Date of Judgment- May 12, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
23) Investigation of predicate offences & investigation by ED for scheduled offences under PMLA are different & distinct
The Court held that the investigation for the predicated offences and the investigation by the Enforcement Directorate for the scheduled offences under the PML Act are different and distinct.
The Directorate of Enforcement had approached the Court challenging the order passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad which had granted bail to one Aditya Tripathi accused under Sections of the Indian Penal Code, Information Technology Act, 2000, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in connection with Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Cause Title- Directorate Of Enforcement v. Aditya Tripathi
Date of Judgment- May 12, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
24) Income Tax Act: SC relegates revenue to file appropriate review plea seeking relief regarding waiver of limitation U/s. 150(2)
The Court while dealing with a miscellaneous application filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax relegated the Revenue to file an appropriate review application seeking relief with regard to the waiver of limitation under Section 150(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Court said that as it had not entered into the merits of the application and relegated the Revenue to file an appropriate review application, the review application be decided and disposed of in accordance with law and on its own merits.
Cause Title- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-3 v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd.
Date of Judgment- May 12, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
25) When there’s misconduct from scientist in sensitive organisation like ISRO, dismissal from service isn’t illegal
The Court while rejecting an appeal held that when there is misconduct from a scientist working in a sensitive and strategic organisation like ISRO (Indian Space Research Organisation), the decision to impose dismissal from service cannot be said to be illegal.
In this case, the appellant who was working as a scientist in ISRO had challenged the judgment passed by the Kerala High Court whereby it dismissed his plea against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Cause Title- Dr. V.R. Sanal Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment- May 12, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
26) Supreme Court delivers split verdict on question of tax exemption based on doctrine of legitimate expectation
The Court while deciding a batch of appeals delivered a split verdict regarding the question of tax exemption based on the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation.
There were amendments to the West Bengal Finance Act, 2001, Section 2(17) of the 1994 Act in the year 2001, and the term “blending of tea” was omitted from the definition of “manufacture” provided under Section 2(17). The appellant i.e., a company engaged in the business of manufacturing blended tea enjoyed the benefit of exemption from payment of sales tax under Section 39 of the 1994 Act for a period of two years but then was excluded from availing the said exemption once Section 2(17) was amended.
Cause Title- M/s. K.B. Tea Product Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Siliguri & Ors.
Date of Judgment- May 12, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari
27) Wisdom, unwisdom and soundness of reasons or their sufficiency cannot be proper subject matters of judicial review
The Court held that judicial scrutiny can also extend to consideration of legality and bona fides of the decision and that the wisdom or unwisdom, and the soundness of reasons, or their sufficiency, cannot be proper subject matters of judicial review.
The Court was dealing with a case wherein an appeal was preferred by the Union of India against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court which held the withdrawal of a customs notification invalid.
Cause Title- Union of India & Ors. A.B.P. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Date of Judgment- May 12, 2023
Coram- Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta
28) Even if minimum sentence is provided U/s. 7 of Essential Commodities Act, person is entitled to benefit of probation
The Court held that even if a minimum sentence is provided under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities, 1955 (EC Act), the person is entitled to the benefit of probation, being of the year 1955 and the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 being later.
In this case, the appellant was tried and convicted under Section 7(1) (a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for violation of para 3(1) of the West Bengal Pulses, Edible Oil (Dealers Licensing) Order, 1978 and it was on account of the fact that at the time of inspection of his grocery shop on in 1985, mustard oil and vegetable oil were found to be more than the permissible limit.
Cause Title- Tarak Nath Keshari v. State of West Bengal
Date of Judgment- May 10, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal
29) Could have considered reinstating Uddhav govt had he not resigned as CM- SC Constitution bench observes in Shiv Sena case
The Court heard a matter pertaining to the Shiv Sena party split between the Eknath Shinde and Uddhav Thackeray factions, which, in 2022, led to a huge political crisis in Maharashtra, and further led to a change in the State Government.
The Court held that it cannot quash the resignation letter of Thackeray and that the Governor was justified in inviting Eknath Shinde to form the Government.
Cause Title- Subhash Desai vs Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra & Ors.
Date of Judgment- May 11, 2023
Coram- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice M.R. Shah, Justice Krishna Murari, Justice Hima Kohli, and Justice P.S. Narasimha