Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: Nov 20 – Nov 25, 2022
|1) Contract considered to be concluded only once parties are ad idem on all essential terms: The Court held that a contract can be considered to be concluded only once the parties are ad idem on all the essential terms of the contract.
In this case, an appeal was filed by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) against an order passed by the Karnataka High Court. The issue raised was whether there existed a binding contract between the appellant and the KPTCL on the tariff prior to the commencement of the Karnataka Electricity Reform Act, 1999, with effect from June 1, 1999, in terms of Explanation to Section 19 and proviso to Section 27(2) of the Act.
Cause Title: Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited v. JSW Energy Limited
Date of Judgment: November 22, 2022
Coram: Justice KM Joseph, Justice Aniruddha Bose & Justice Hrishikesh Roy
2) Conditions for lapse of acquisition not satisfied- SC sets aside order declaring deemed lapse of land acquisition: While observing that the conditions for the deemed lapse of land acquisition were not satisfied, the Court set aside the Order declaring deemed lapse of land acquisition under Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
The Bench noted that it was the specific case on behalf of the authority that the possession of the land in question was already taken over.
Cause Title: The Secretary, The Department of Land and Building and Ors. v. Anjeet Singh (Dead) through LRs. and Anr.
Date of Judgment: November 24, 2022
Coram: Justice MR Shah & Justice MM Sundresh
3) Order of regularization cannot be passed based on continuity of service for longer period on contractual basis: The Court in a service matter observed that the order of regularization cannot be passed on the basis of continuity of service for a longer period on a contractual basis, more particularly when a policy decision was taken to avail services of other drivers.
The Court held that High Court had committed a very serious error in ordering regularization and quashing and setting aside the order by which on the contract being awarded to the outsourcing agency, the services of Respondent No. 1 were put to an end.
Cause Title: Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Thane & Ors. v. Santosh Tukaram Tiware & Ors.
Date of Judgment: November 24, 2022
Coram: Justice MR Shah & Justice MM Sundresh
4) Arbitration clause is collateral form of contract distinguished from substantive terms but is integral part of it- SC reiterates: The Court reiterated that an arbitration clause is a collateral term of a contract as distinguished from its substantive terms but is an integral part of it.
The Court held that the High Court was not right in dismissing the Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, filed by the Appellant in the case by giving a finding on novation of the Share Purchase Agreement between the parties as the said aspect would have a bearing on the merits of the controversy between the parties.
Cause Title: M/s. Meenakshi Solar Power Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Abhyudaya Green Economic Zones Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Date of Judgment: November 23, 2022
Coram: Justice BR Gavai & Justice BV Nagarathna
5) Word "otherwise" in section 45(4), IT act also covers cases of partners transferring assets to retiring partner- SC Affirms Bombay HC's view: The Court affirmed the view aken by the Bombay High Court in A.N. Naik Associates and Ors., wherein it was observed that the word "OTHERWISE" used in Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act takes into its sweep not only the cases of dissolution but also cases of subsisting partners of a partnership, transferring the assets in favour of a retiring partner.
The bench of Justice MR Shah and Justice MM Sundresh was dealing with the question of applicability of Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act as introduced by the Finance Act, 1987.
Cause Title: The Commissioner of Income Tax – 23 v. M/s. Mansukh Dyeing and Printing Mills with Anr.
Date of Judgment: November 24, 2022
Coram: Justice MR Shah & Justice MM Sundresh
6) State electricity commissions possess complete autonomy in regulation of tariff; state & centre only have advisory role: The Court held that the State Electricity Commissions possess complete autonomy in the determination and regulation of tariffs, while the State and Central governments only play an advisory role.
Further, the Court also stressed that "The provisions of the Electricity Act 2003 do not prescribe one dominant method to determine tariff. Section 63 operates after the bidding process has been conducted."
Cause Title: The TATA Power Company Limited Transmission v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.
Date of Judgment: November 23, 2022
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice AS Bopanna & Justice JB Pardiwala
7) SC restores reference court's order of enhancing compensation to land owners utilised 40 years ago: The Court while dealing with a case having a history of repeated litigation by the land owners has restored the order of the Reference Court that enhanced the compensation to the owners of the land which was utilised 40 years ago.
The Bench observed that the High Court has committed an error in computing the compensation @ Rs. 100 per sq. yard ignoring the documents produced by the land owners.
Cause Title: The Revenue Divisional Officer & Anr. v. Ismail Bhai and Others
Date of Judgment: November 22, 2022
Coram: Justice S. Abdul Nazeer & Justice J.K. Maheshwari
8) GPMC Act- Educational, social institutions run by public charitable trusts cannot be treated at par with hospitals/maternity homes: The Court has observed that under the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act 1949 (GPMC Act) and its related Rules, educational and social institutions run by public charitable trusts cannot be treated at par with hospitals and maternity homes under the Taxation Rules.
The Bench held, ""Sub-clause (iv) to clause (a) to sub-rule (4) of Rule 8B of the Taxation Rules applies to educational and social institutions run by public charitable trusts for the welfare of women, old people, deaf, dumb, blind, physically handicapped or mentally retarded people. These are separate categories and cannot be confused and treated similarly and at par with hospitals, clinics, maternity homes, etc, as elucidated in sub-clause (i) to clause (a) to sub-rule (4) of Rule 8B of the Taxation Rules."
Cause Title: Parivar Seva Sanstha v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
Date of Judgment: November 24, 2022
Coram: Justice Sanjiv Khanna & Justice JK Maheshwari
9) Land acquisition proceedings shall not lapse if award not made as on commencement of LA Act 2013- SC reiterates: The Court in a land acquisition case has observed that the acquisition proceedings shall not lapse if the award has not been made as on the commencement of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 i.e., January 1, 2014.
The Bench placed reliance on Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. wherein it was observed, "nder the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act."
Cause Title: Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. & Ors. v. Shiv Dutt Sharma and Anr.
Date of Judgment: November 24, 2022
Coram: Justice MR Shah & Justice MM Sundresh
10) When evidence is adequate, disciplinary authority has discretion to impose appropriate punishment on delinquent- SC reaffirms: The Court reiterated that on finding the evidence to be adequate and reliable during the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to impose appropriate punishment on the delinquent employee keeping in mind the gravity of the misconduct.
The Bench observed that both the disciplinary and the Appellant authority are vested with the exclusive power to examine the evidence forming a part of the inquiry report.
Cause Title: Union of India and Others v. Subrata Nath
Date of Judgment: November 23, 2022
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud & Justice Hima Kohli
11) Conditions of service of officers and employees do not constitute functions Of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad- SC confirms: The Court upheld he decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs Preetam Singh & Ors., and it has confirmed that the conditions of service of officers and employees do not constitute the functions of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad.
In that context, it was clarified that "the State Government can always frame Rules in the exercise of powers under clause (nn) of subsection (1) of Section 94 of the 1965 Act for determining the conditions of service of the servants and officers of the Board. Whenever there is any inconsistency between Regulations framed under clause (f) of subsection (1) of Section 95 and the Rules framed under clause (nn) of subsection (1) of Section 94, the Rules will prevail and to that extent, the provisions of the Regulations which are repugnant to the Rules shall be void."
Cause Title: State of Up & Ors. vs Virendra Kumar & Ors.
Date of Judgment: November 25, 2022
Coram: Justice SK Kaul, Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Vikram Nath
12) Determination of market value of land by HC is unsustainable- SC remits matter to HC for determining compensation afresh: The Court in a land acquisition case allowed the appeals filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh and remitted back the matter to the High Court to determine the valuation of compensation for fresh consideration as per the law and settled principles.
The Bench was dealing with the appeals against the orders passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore through which the appeals of the State got dismissed by reducing the deduction awarded by the Reference Court for irrigated and un-irrigated land respectively.
Cause Title: State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Radheshyam & Ors.
Date of Judgment: November 24, 2022
Coram: Justice S. Abdul Nazeer & Justice Krishna Murari