Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: July 18 – July 22, 2022
|1) Even Individual Trustee Entitled To Question Orders Which Adversely Affect Trust And /Or Its Beneficiaries – The Supreme Court has observed that even an Individual Trustee is entitled to question orders which adversely affect the Trust and/or its beneficiaries.
The case revolved around the properties claimed by the Khasgi (Devi Ahilyabai Holkar Charities) Trust (Khasgi Trust) as the Trust Properties. The Khasgi Trust had challenged the Order of the Division Bench of the High Court holding that the Khasgi properties mentioned in Part 'B' of the Schedule to the Trust Deed continued to be vested in the State Government and therefore, the Trustees had no authority to alienate the same.
Cause Title – The Khasgi (Devi Ahilyabai Holkar Charities) Trust, Indore & Anr. v. Vipin Dhanaitkar & Ors.
Date of Judgment – July 21, 2022
Coram – Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice CT Ravikumar
2) Entitlement Of Soldier To Disability Pension Cannot Be Determined Based On Medical Examination Held 20 Years After Discharge – While rejecting the plea of an ex-Soldier for the grant of disability pension, the Supreme Court held that the entitlement of soldier to disability pension cannot be determined based on the medical examination which took place twenty years after he was discharged.
The Bench while rejecting the plea, held that the soldier could not challenge his dismissal on administrative grounds after two decades.
Cause Title – Union of India & Ors. v. Ex. SEP R. Munusamy
Date of Judgment – July 19, 2022
Coram – Justice Indira Banerjee & Justice V Ramasubramanian
3) Narrow Parameters Of Bail Available U/s. 37 NDPS Act Not Satisfied - SC Reverses HC's Order Granting Post-Arrest Bail – The Apex Court in an NDPS case reversed the order of the Delhi High Court that had granted post-arrest bail to the accused who was facing trial for the offence under Sections 8, 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The Supreme Court set aside the order releasing the Respondent on post-arrest bail, and held that "In our opinion the narrow parameters of bail available under Section 37 of the Act, have not been satisfied in the facts of the instant case. At this stage, it is not safe to conclude that the respondent has successfully demonstrated that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of the offence alleged against him, for him to have been admitted to bail."
Cause Title – Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal
Date of Judgment – July 19, 2022
Coram – CJI NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari, & Justice Hima Kohli
4) Denying Unmarried Woman Right To Safe Abortion Violates Her Personal Autonomy - SC Allows Termination Of 24-Week-Old Pregnancy – While allowing an unmarried woman carrying a 24-week-old fetus to medically terminate her pregnancy, the Supreme Court observed –
"Denying an unmarried woman the right to a safe abortion violates her personal autonomy and freedom".
In this case, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before Delhi High Court seeking permission to medically terminate her pregnancy as her relationship had failed. The Delhi High Court rejected her plea stating that since the petitioner is an unmarried woman whose pregnancy arose out of a consensual relationship, her case was "clearly not covered" by any of the clauses of Rule 3B of Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Rules 2003.
Aggrieved, the woman approached the Apex Court.
Cause Title – X v. The Principal Secretary Heath and Family Welfare Department & Anr.
Date of Judgment – July 21, 2022
Coram – Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud, Justice Surya Kant, & Justice AS Bopanna
5) SC Sets Aside Decision Of Orissa High Court Appointing Arbitrator U/s. 11(6) Arbitration Act Without Jurisdiction – The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Orissa High Court appointing arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act without jurisdiction with respect to the contract agreement for which the respondent-claimant earlier initiated the arbitration proceedings in the Court at Vishakhapatnam.
A specific objection was raised by the appellant before the High Court on the entertainability and/or maintainability of the application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act before the Orissa High Court.
Cause Title – General Manager East Coast Railway Rail Sadan & Anr. v. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd.
Date of Judgment – July 22, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice BV Nagarathna
6) Use Of Forest Land For Non-Forest Purposes Cannot Be Permitted Without Prior Approval From Central Government – The Apex Court held that the use of forest land for non-forest purposes cannot be permitted without the prior approval from Central Government.
The Court also held that prior permission of the Central Government is the quintessence to allow any change of user of forest or so to say deemed forest land.
The Court observed –
…we hold that the lands covered by the special orders issued under Section 4 of PLPA have all the trappings of forest lands within the meaning of Section 2 of the 1980 Forest Act and, therefore, the State Government or competent authority cannot permit its use for non-forest activities without the prior approval of the Central Government with effect from 25th October 1980."
Cause Title – Narinder Singh & Ors. v. Divesh Bhutani & Ors.
Date of Judgment – July 21, 2022
Coram – Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice CT Ravikumar
7) Questions Of Jurisdiction And Non-Arbitrability Can Be Considered By Court At Stage Of Section 11 A&C Act Application: The Supreme Court held, "though the Arbitral Tribunal may have jurisdiction and authority to decide the disputes including the question of jurisdiction and nonarbitrability, the same can also be considered by the Court at the stage of deciding Section 11 application if the facts are very clear and glaring and in view of the specific clauses in the agreement binding between the parties, whether the dispute is nonarbitrable and/or it falls within the excepted clause. Even at the stage of deciding Section 11 application, the Court may prima facie consider even the aspect with regard to 'accord and satisfaction' of the claims."
The Court did not agree with the conclusion of the High Court that Section 11(6-A) enquiry is confined only to ascertain whether or not a binding arbitration agreement exists between the parties.
Cause Title – Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. NCC Limited
Date of Judgment – July 20, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice BV Nagarathna
8) Application Of Son Substituting Himself As Legal Representative Of Deceased-Mother Cannot Be Declined When He Is Son Of Deceased Because Other Heirs are not impleaded- The Supreme Court observed that application made by the appellant-son for substituting himself as the legal representative of the deceased-mother cannot be declined when admittedly the appellant is the son of the deceased-mother.
The Bench noted that the appellant being admittedly the son of the deceased plaintiff, the application made by him for substituting himself as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff could not have been declined by the Trial Court because other legal heirs are not impleaded.
Cause Title – R. Krsna Murtii v. R. R. Jagdesan
Date of Judgment – July 21, 2022
Coram – Justice Dinesh Maheshwari & Justice Anirudda Bose
Read further...
9) Expression 'Transfer' Used Not Confined To Sale/Lease, Includes Development/Collaboration Agreements – SC Clarifies 2018 Judgment - While disposing of various Interlocutory Applications (IA) filed by the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (HSIIDC) and others seeking clarification on the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Rameshwar v. State of Haryana in 2018, the Supreme Court has held –
"The expression 'transfer' used in the main judgment, especially in light of para 42.6, is not confined to sale, lease or other encumbrance. It includes development and/or collaboration agreements, as well as licenses issued (for development) during the suspect period, whether or not in favour of the developer."
The IAs were preferred by the HSIIDC and several colonizers and developers, transferees, license holders, associations of allottees of flats or commercial plots, consumers, etc.
Cause Title – Rameshwar and Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Date of Judgment – July 21, 2022
Coram – Justice UU Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat & Justice PS Narasimha
Read further...