Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: May 16 - May 20, 2023
|1) It appears that petitioner is on treasure hunt & court cannot go to the aid of such person- SC in a case related to wills: The Court while deciding an SLP (Special Leave Petition) relating to Will has observed that it appears to be a case where the writ petitioner is on a treasure hunt and hence the Court cannot go to the aid of such a person.
The Bench said that it could have thought of providing some relief that was possible within the framework of law to the petitioner if she had at least seen the copy of the Will and was aware of the contents.
Cause Title: A. Wilson v. The Nazar & Ors.
Date of Judgment: May 15, 2023
Coram: Justice V. Ramasubramanian & Justice Pankaj Mithal
2) “A pedantic and hyper-technical approach would cause damage to the very concept of consumerism”- SC holds in consumer case: The Court while allowing a batch of two appeals in a consumer case has held that a pedantic and hyper-technical approach would cause damage to the very concept of consumerism.
The Bench noted that even after five years, the appellant was unable to proceed and that the cases have not progressed.
Cause Title: Alpha G184 Owners Association v. Magnum International Trading Company Pvt. Ltd.
Date of Judgment: May 15, 2023
Coram: Justice JK Maheshwari & Justice MM Sundresh
3) SC grants probation u/s. 360 crpc to convict in 2007 gambling case as he never indulged in similar crime subsequently: The Court granted probation to an accused under Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.PC.)
The Bench was dealing with a case wherein the appellant was convicted under Section 80 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.
Cause Title: Soori @ T.V. Suresh v. The State of Karnataka
Date of Judgment: May 15, 2023
Coram: Justice Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Rajesh Bindal
4) Murder was committed in gruesome manner, has direct eyewitness: SC directs accused to surrender before trial court: The Court directed an accused to surrender before the Trial Court saying that the murder was committed in a gruesome manner and that it was a daylight murder with a direct eye witness.
The Bench said that the argument that the son himself had committed the murder of the deceased to usurp the property is merely out of frustration and that he was living with the deceased whereas the accused party had a grudge that they had been deprived of their share in the property.
Cause Title: Kallu v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
Date of Judgment: May 15, 2023
Coram: Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Rajesh Bindal
4) Insurance Claim- Chain of events leads to the conclusion that fire accident caused damage: SC holds claimant entitled to more than Rs. 2 crore: While emphasizing on the fact of the present nature to arrive at the conclusion as to whether the corrosion could happen within a time period of 4 to 5 hours and in that regard, the NCDRC considering that aspect based only on the definition of corrosion in general terms is not justified, the Court held that the Appellant would be entitled to the amount of Rs.2,26,61,376/- minus the sum of Rs.16,19,209/- which was earlier offered by the Insurance Company and was received without prejudice during the pendency of the proceedings, with interest if any that has been received.
The Bench observed that the chain of events will lead to the conclusion the fire accident has caused the damage.
Cause Title: M/s Super Label Mfg. Co. vs. New India Assurance Company Limited
Date of Judgment: May 16, 2023
Coram: Justice AS Bopanna & Justice Dipankar Datta
5) Power under art. 129 of Constitution to punish a person for contempt is unrestricted by contempt of courts act 1971- Reiterates SC: Finding that the contemnor has shown scant respect to the judicial proceedings pending in the Court and defied assurance given to the Court that he has submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court said that act of denying the fact that he voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court and his conduct of opposing the request for the grant of mirroring order amounts to interference with the administration of justice and obstructing the administration of justice.
The Bench considering his contumacious conduct directed the contemnor to pay a fine of Rs. 25 lakhs and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for committing civil and criminal contempt.
Cause Title: Meenal Bhargava vs. Naveen Sharma and Ors.
Date of Judgment: May 16, 2023
Coram: Justice SK Kaul & Justice Abhay S. Oka
6) "Clarificatory provision may be made applicable retrospectively, may not expand or alter scope of original provision"- SC clarifies: The Court observed, “any legislation or instrument having the force of law, which is clarificatory or explanatory in nature and purport and which seeks to clear doubts or correct an obvious omission in a statute, would generally be retrospective in operation" while stressing that an explanation/clarification may not expand or alter the scope of the original provision."
In this case, an appeal was filed by the appellant-university, against the judgment passed by the High Court, through which the appellant-university was directed to grant two advance increments to the respondent in terms of Clause 6.18 of the revised University Grants Commission (UGC) Scheme, 1998 and Government Order dated 21st December 1999, on his placement as a Selection Grade Lecturer.
Cause Title: Sree Sankaracharya University v. Dr. Manu & Anr.
Date of Judgment: May 16, 2023
Coram: Justice KM Joseph & Justice BV Nagarathna
7) Once initial burden of having valid ticket by deceased stands discharged, railway administration is liable to compensate in case of untoward incident: Noticing that nothing was placed before the Claims Tribunal or brought on record during the course of the hearing that the Railway Administration has discharged the burden of not having the valid railway ticket with the deceased passenger, except to say that during recovery ticket was not found, the Court observed that the Railway Administration shall be liable to pay compensation as prescribed.
The Bench observed, “it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that deceased Muchamy @ Muthusamy died in an untoward incident which took place on 27.9.2014 while traveling in a passenger Train No."
Cause Title: Kamukayi and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
Date of Judgment: May 16, 2023
Coram: Justice Surya Kant & Justice JK Maheshwari
8) Claim regarding right, title, and interest in respect of shares in decretal property cannot be thrown out at threshold: Emphasizes SC: Noticing that the Appellants have been deprived of the fruits of the Decree for over two decades, the Supreme Court requested the Executing Court to proceed with the application of the Appellants under Rule 97 of Order XXI of the CPC together with the objections raised by the Respondents on their own merits.
The Bench observed, “the claim regarding right, title and interest in respect of their respective shares in the decretal property, as raised by the Respondents, cannot be thrown out at the threshold since it is well within their rights to contest the application under Order XXI Rule 97, CPC filed by the Appellants”.
Cause Title: Jini Dhanrajgir and Anr. v Shibu Mathew and Ors.
Date of Judgment: May 16, 2023
Coram: Justice AS Bopanna & Justice Dipankar Datta
9) In offence of corruption, criminal activity & generation of proceeds of crime are like siamese twins: SC allows ED probe against TN minister in cash-for-jobs scam: The Court allowed the ED to probe against a Tamil Nadu Minister in the jobs-for-cash scam.
The Court observed, "In the case of an offence of corruption, the criminal activity and the generation of the proceeds of crime are like Siamese twins."
In this case, the matter emerged from the jobs-for-cash scam of 2011-2015, wherein a Tamil Nadu Minister was also involved. In one case it is alleged that a sum of more than Rs 2 crores had been collected and in another case, a sum of Rs 95 lakhs had been collected.
Cause Title: Y Balaji v. Karthik Desari & Anr. Etc.
Date of Judgment: May 16, 2023
Coram: Justice Krishna Murari & Justice V Ramasubramanian
10) No judicial review is warranted in criminal trial once tampering of document stands established by disciplinary authority: Referring to the settled principles of law in the scope of judicial review, the Court held that the Division Bench of the High Court proceeded to reappreciate the entire evidence as if a conviction in a criminal trial was being re-examined by the next higher court.
The Bench observed, “When the changed form of quotation also contained signature of respondent no.1, it clearly established his involvement in the tampering of document. This fact has not even been noticed by the Division Bench of the High Court”.
Cause Title: The Indian Oil Corporation and Ors. v. Ajit Kumar Singh and Anr.
Date of Judgment: May 17, 2023
Coram: Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Rajesh Bindal
11) Failure to establish that insurance claim falls with purview of exclusionary clause of policy renders contract in favour of insured: Finding that there was no material to show that the entire incident and the resultant damage to the insured property was caused as a result of the malicious act of the Respondent (complainant), the Court held that even if allegations against Gaffar Molla and his associates are taken at their face value, it is difficult to accept that the damage caused by the frenzied mob which had chased said Gaffar Molla and his associates, was caused due to malicious act on the part of Respondent and therefore was excluded from the coverage in view of Clause V(d) of the subject Policy.
The Bench observed, “wherever such an exclusionary clause is contained in a policy, it would be for the insurer to show that the case falls within the purview of such clause. In case of ambiguity, the contract of insurance has to be construed in favour of the insured”.
Cause Title: National Insurance Company v. Vedic Resorts and Hotels Pvt Ltd.
Date of Judgment: May 17, 2023
Coram: Justice Ajay Rastogi & Justice Bela M. Trivedi
12) Blind murder case- High Court has committed error in discharging accused by referring to selective statements recorded during investigation: Observing that the fact cannot lose sight that present was a case of blind murder and the circumstances only could have nailed the accused through the material collected by the Investigating Agency, the Court said that the High Court had summed up the entire evidence in two paras without even referring to the Psychological Evaluation including Psychological Profiling, Polygraph Testing and Brain Electrical Oscillations Signature Profiling (BEOS) tests of the accused and the other aides of Respondent and ordered their discharge from the offence of murder.
The Court held, "If the facts of the case are examined in the light of law laid down by this Court on the subject, it is evident that the High Court has not even referred to the evidence collected by Investigating Agency produced alongwith chargesheet in its entirety. Rather there is selective reference to the statements of some of the persons recorded during investigation."
Cause Title: Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) v. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf and Ors.
Date of Judgment: May 18, 2023
Coram: Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Rajesh Bindal
13) Immaterial inconsistencies in statements of eye witnesses due to time lag is no reason to grant acquittal in case of death caused by negligence: Finding that minor contradictions or variations in statements of eyewitnesses are normal since the incident of death occurred more than four years ago, the Supreme Court held that the Trial Court has erred in basing the acquittal of the accused on these immaterial inconsistencies when factum of a dispute between the parties was even admitted by the accused in their statement recorded under section 313 CrPC.
The Bench observed hat one-liner statement of the doctor in his cross-examination who examined the deceased that the injuries suffered by the deceased could be caused by a fall on a hard surface, may not be of any help to demolish the case of the prosecution which finds corroboration with the eye witnesses’ account.
Cause Title: Gian Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Date of Judgment: May 18, 2023
Coram: Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Rajesh Bindal
14) Whether a particular practice or event is the part of culture or tradition has to be determined by legislature- SC in Jallikattu Case: The Court upheld the validity of amendment acts of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka which allowed the bull-taming sport 'Jallikattu', bullock-cart races, and buffalo racing sport 'Kambala', saying they are "valid legislations".
The Bench observed, "Ordinarily, whether a particular practice or event is part of culture or tradition is to be decided by the custom and usage of a particular community or a geographical region which can be translated into an enactment by the appropriate legislature..."
Cause Title: The Animal Welfare Board of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
Date of Judgment: May 18, 2023
Coram: Justice KM Joseph, Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, and Justice CT Ravikumar
15) Global spiritual leaders using court proceedings to settle personal scores: sc imposes ₹1 lakh cost on ISKCON Kolkata manager: The Court imposed Rs. 1 lakh cost on ISKCON (International Society for Krishna Consciousness) Kolkata Manager for filing a frivolous case against ISKCON Bengaluru officials, while quashing the criminal proceedings arising out an FIR registered in West Bengal.
The Bench observed that the complaint filed by the Respondent-Complainant after an inordinate unexplained delay of eight years was nothing but sheer misuse and abuse of the process of law.
Cause Title: Chanchalpati Das v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Date of Judgment: May 18, 2023
Coram: Justice Ajay Rastogi & Justice Bela M. Trivedi
16) Mere negotiations will not postpone cause of action for the purpose of limitation- SC while holding suit as "hopelessly time-barred": The Court denied relief to a Switzerland-based company by holding that its claim was hopelessly time-barred. It was further held that mere negotiations will not postpone the “cause of action” for the purpose of limitation.
In this case, a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed at the instance of a company based in Switzerland and engaged in the business of manufacturing of arms etc., praying for appointment of an arbitrator for the adjudication of disputes and claims arising out of a contract executed with the Government of India in its Ministry of Defence.
The grievance of the petitioner revolved around the deduction of liquidated damages by encashment of a bank guarantee. The petitioner issued a notice invoking arbitration in accordance with the contract. However, the State contended that the claim was time-barred.
Cause Title: M/s B And T AG v. Ministry of Defence
Date of Judgment: May 18, 2023
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud & Justice JB Pardiwala
17) "Compelling circumstances left unanswered by courts below, our hands are tied"- SC while remanding land dispute case to HC: The Court remanded a matter back to the High Court on observing that "There are indeed compelling circumstances which have been left unanswered by the courts below, because of which determination of several factual issues have been left in limbo".
The Apex Court observed that the stand of the respondents that the Sale Deed actually pertained to the sale of leasehold rights and not of title per se was inconsistent, and that the High Court while deciding the issue of ownership in favour of respondents on the strength of the Sale Deed, has come to different conclusions as such to the nature of the instrument.
Cause Title: State of Uttarakhand and Anr. v. Ravi Kumar (Deceased) through LRs and others
Date of Judgment: May 18, 2023
Coram: Justice Surya Kant & Justice JK Maheshwari
18) Government cannot seek immunity from legal provisions just because contract is in president's name: The Court while interpreting the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution has observed that Government cannot seek immunity from legal provisions just because a contract has been entered in President's name.
The Bench observed, "Having considered the purpose and object of Article 299, we are of the clear opinion that a contract entered into in the name of the President of India, cannot and will not create an immunity against the application of any statutory prescription imposing conditions on parties to an agreement, when the Government chooses to enter into a contract."
Cause Title: M/s. Glock Asia Pacific Ltd. v. Union of India
Date of Judgment: May 19, 2023
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha & Justice JB Pardiwala
19) Judicial officers can’t be left in lurch for alleged financial paucity: SC directs States & UTs to clear dues of district judges: The Court while noting that more than 17 years have passed since the judicial officers received a pay revision, directed all states and the union territories to clear salary arrears and other dues to district judicial officers across the country in compliance with the recommendations of the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC).
It is thus directed that the High Courts and the competent authorities, wherever applicable, bring the rules in conformity with the recommendations accepted by this Court above within a period of 3 months.
Cause Title: All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment: May 19, 2023
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice V Ramasubramanian & Justice PS Narasimha
20) User development fee collected by airport development entities being statutory levy is not liable to service tax: While elaborating that undoubtedly in the present case, neither is there any compulsion to levy development fee nor is the collection conditional upon its deposit in the government treasury, the Court held that simply because the User Development Fee (UDF) is not deposited in a government treasury, per se, does not make it any less a statutory levy.
The Bench held, “the fact that the amount is not deposited in a government treasury, per se, does not make it any less a statutory levy or compulsory exaction. Nor does its discretionary nature, (in the sense that it may not be necessarily levied always) render it any less a statutory levy”.
Cause Title: Central GST Delhi – III v. Delhi International Airport Ltd.
Date of Judgment: May 19, 2023
Coram: Justice S. Ravindra Bhat & Justice Dipankar Datta
21) Supreme Court delivers split verdict vis-à-vis OBC and EWS candidates for the post of civil judge in Rajasthan: The Court elivered a split verdict pertaining to a matter where Other Backward Classes (Non-Creamy Layer) (OBC-NCL), More Backward Class (MBC) and Economically Weaker Section (EWS), who were qualified in the selection process held for the post of Civil Judge, were not considered in the category to which they belonged for the reason that the certificate of the category which was furnished by each of the Appellants was subsequent to the last date indicated in the advertisement i.e., Aug 31, 2021.
“When the rules are silent and no date is notified to satisfy the eligibility requirement under the advertisement, the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date of application by which applications are to be received by the recruiting authority”, added the Bench.
Cause Title: Sakshi Arha v. Rajasthan High Court and Ors.
Date of Judgment: May 18, 2023
Coram: Justice Ajay Rastogi & Justice Bela M. Trivedi
22) Distribution licensee insisting on clearance of arreas of previous consumer before resuming electricity supply is valid- SC confirms: The Court observed, "a distribution licensee can stipulate such terms necessary for supply of electricity, including that the arrears due in regard to the supply of electricity made to the premises when they were in the occupation of the previous owner or occupant, should be cleared before the electricity supply is restored or a fresh connection is provided to the premises. Therefore, a condition enabling the distribution licensee to insist on the clearance of the arrears of electricity dues of the previous consumer before resuming electricity supply to the premises is valid and permissible under the scheme of the 2003 Act".
The Court directed the Electric Utilities to waive the outstanding interest accrued on the principal dues from the date of application for supply of electricity by the auction purchasers.
Cause Title: KC Ninan v. Kerala State Electricity Board & Ors.
Date of Judgment: May 19, 2023
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice Hima Kohli & Justice PS Narasimha
23) SC exercises power under article 142 to grant divorce by mutual consent on irretrievable breakdown of marriage: While considering a transfer petition seeking divorce under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), the Court quashed an FIR filed under Section 125 of the CrPC which was pending before the Family Court, Lucknow.
Observing that the parties, husband and wife have suffered an irretrievable breakdown of marriage, the Bench noted that this “is a fit case to exercise the power vested under Article 142 of the Constitution of India by closing all cases filed by the parties against each other and also granting a decree of mutual consent divorce”.
Cause Title: Mansi Khatri v. Gaurav Khatri
Date of Judgment: May 19, 2023
Coram: Justice SK Kaul & Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
24) Service Jurisprudence: Mere publication of additional list does not confer any right for appointment: While deciding on the application filed by the Respondent seeking appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in the Government Primary School in the State of Rajasthan, the Court held that the duty to fill up vacancies from the Additional List (waiting list) can arise only on the basis of a mandatory rule, and in the absence of such a mandate, the decision to fill all the vacancies from the Additional List is left to the wisdom of the State.
The Bench observed, “there is no obligation on the State to make appointments. Mere publication of the Additional List does not create any right to be appointed”.
Cause Title: State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Bharathi S.
Date of Judgment: May 19, 2023
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud & Justice PS Narasimha
25) Suit property cannot continue as wakf irrespective of its use or disuse as burial ground in absence of evidence: Finding that there is no evidence on record that before issuing notification under Section 5 of the Wakf Act, 1954, any procedure or the survey was conducted as contemplated by Section 4 of the 1954 Act, the Court held that in the absence of such a material, the mere issuance of the notification under Section 5 of the 1954 Act would not constitute a valid wakf in respect of the suit land.
The Bench observed, “In the absence of any evidence of valid creation of a wakf in respect of the suit property, it cannot be recognized as a wakf so as to allow it to be continued as a wakf property irrespective of its use or disuse as a burial ground”.
Cause Title: Salem Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
Date of Judgment: May 18, 2023
Coram: Justice V. Ramasubramanian & Justice Pankaj Mithal
26) Principles of natural justice stay at a distance in commercial matters: SC upholds Bombay HC’s order disqualifying tata motors: The Court giving a major blow to TATA Motors, dismissed its plea challenging the impugned order of the Bombay High Court, which had rejected its claim to be an eligible bidder, as it was disqualified. However, the Court has set aside that part of the judgment and order through which the decisions of the Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST) to accept the tender of EVEY was set aside. The bench further left it to the discretion of BEST to undertake a fresh tender process.
The process was for an E-buses Tender for supplying 1,400 electric buses worth Rs. 2,450 crores. As per the Tender, the first and foremost requirement was the prescribed operating range of the single-decker buses which would operate for around and average of 200 Kms in a single charge in “actual conditions” with 80% SoC without any interruption.
Cause Title: Tata Motors Limited v. The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (Best) And Others
Date of Judgment: May 19, 2023
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha & Justice JB Pardiwala-
27) Granting 100% reservation to scheduled tribes was an illegal exercise: SC reiterates over infructuous appeals: The Court on the basis of its earlier judgment in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao and Ors v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (2021) 11 SCC 401, where an impugned Government Office Memorandum (G.O.) granting 100% reservation to the Scheduled Tribes was held to be unconstitutional, opined that since the matter stands settled, therefore the appeals are infructuous.
The issue that was challenged was, that through the memorandum, the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh had provided 100% reservation to the Scheduled Tribe candidates out of whom 33.1/3% ought to be women for the post of teachers in the schools in the scheduled areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Cause Title: The Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors v. M. Rama Rao & Ors. etc
Date of Judgment: May 19, 2023
Coram: Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
28) In quintessential case of solving a blind murder, strict scrutiny of evidence is warranted before convicting accused: While hearing an appeal against the conviction order based mainly on the last seen together theory, the Supreme Court held that in cases of conviction related to blind murders where there are its and bits of evidence, the conviction should be based only after strict scrutiny of evidence.
The Bench observed, “the case in hand is a quintessential case where to solve out a blind murder, occurring in a forest in the darkness of night, bits and pieces of evidence were collected which warranted a strict scrutiny before basing a conviction thereupon. On putting the prosecution evidence to strict scrutiny and testing the same on the anvil of settled legal principles as discussed above, we find the evidence not confidence inspiring as to uphold the conviction of the accused appellants”.
Cause Title: Ravi Mandal and Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand
Date of Judgment: May 18, 2023
Coram: Justice Hrishikesh Roy & Justice Manoj Misra
29) Desirable that utterances made in public are outlined before subjecting accused to trial: SC in a case under SC-ST Act: The Court n a matter pertaining to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has observed that it is desirable that utterances made by an accused within public view are outlined at least in the charge sheet before the person is subjected to trial under a provision of the Act.
The Bench observed, "... it is desirable that before an accused is subjected to a trial for alleged commission of offence under section 3(1)(x), the utterances made by him in any place within public view are outlined, if not in the F.I.R. (which is not required to be an encyclopaedia of all facts and events), but at least in the charge-sheet (which is prepared based either on statements of witnesses recorded in course of investigation or otherwise) so as to enable the court to ascertain whether the charge sheet makes out a case of an offence under the SC/ST Act having been committed for forming a proper opinion in the conspectus of the situation before it, prior to taking cognisance of the offence."
Cause Title: Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Date of Judgment: May 19, 2023
Coram: Justice S. Ravindra Bhat & Justice Dipankar Datta
30) Evidence not so dependable as to send someone to gallows: SC reprimands shoddy investigation, acquits rape accused: The Court while setting aside an order of conviction with a death sentence by the Sessions Court, affirmed by the Bombay High Court, acquitted the appellant (also the accused) as the Prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The appellant was accused of rape and murder of a 6-year-old girl, who sustained injuries on both her private parts. It was further alleged that in an attempt to destroy the evidence the accused had then thrown her into a ‘nala’ (drain). The Sessions Court had convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 376, 377, and 201 IPC, sentencing him to death and life imprisonment and other punishments.
Cause Title: Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad v. State of Maharashtra
Date of Judgment: May 19, 2023
Coram: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Karol
31) Election petition does not disclose cause of action: SC rejects allegation of corrupt practices in TN’s election for aravakurichi assembly constituency: Finding that the ground of improper acceptance of the nomination paper is no longer relevant as the term of the Appellant has already expired, the Court has allowed the applications filed by the Appellant for rejection of the election petition and/or for deletion of irrelevant paragraphs.
The Bench observed, “as material facts regarding allegations of corrupt practice have not been pleaded, the election petition does not disclose any cause of action as far as the ground of corrupt practice is concerned.”
Cause Title: Senthilbalaji V. v. A.P. Geetha and Ors.
Date of Judgment: May 19, 2023
Coram: Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Rajesh Bindal
32) "Gold would not be precious if we all had gold to spare": Bitumen not a valuable good u/s. 69a it act, holds apex court: The Court while setting aside an impugned judgment of the Patna High Court has observed that the assessee in the matter was not the owner of the concerned bitumen for the purpose of section 69A of the Income Tax Act,1961 (Act), as it had no rights and powers that an owner ordinarily has among other things.
The Court further held that bitumen cannot be treated as a ‘valuable article’ under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Cause Title: M/s.D.N. Singh v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central, Patna And Another
Date of Judgment: May 16, 2023
Coram: Justice KM Joseph & Justice Hrishikesh Roy
33) Simply because co-accused who was released on bail has not surrendered is no reason to deny bail to other accused: Finding that the attempt to secure bail at the hands of the High Court has failed because the co-accused who had since been released on bail has not surrendered, the Supreme Court said that the matter must have reconsideration again at the hands of the High Court.
The Bench observed, “the fact that the co-accused who was released on bail has not surrendered cannot be a germane factor to decline bail to the co-accused, namely, the appellant”.
Cause Title: Sebil Elanjimpally v. State of Odisha
Date of Judgment: May 18, 2023
Coram: Justice KM Joseph & Justice Aravind Kumar
34) SC directs medical college alleging void ab initio appointments to compensate terminated lecturers, refuses to reinstate: The Court has directed the K.J. Somaiya Medical College and Research Centre, Maharashtra to compensate the three lecturers whom it had terminated in 2004, stating that their appointments were void ab initio, as they were not qualified. However, the Court refused to reinstate the lecturers into service.
The Court, however, denying reinstatement observed, "We must note here that the stand of 3rd respondent – the Medical Council of India, all along, is that the said three lecturers were not qualified to teach in the Medical College. Considering the passage of time and the stand of the 3rd respondent – the Medical Council of India, we are of the view that it will not be appropriate at this stage to grant reinstatement. Moreover, after June 21, 2004 till date, none of the three lecturers have worked as a teacher".
Cause Title: K.J. Somaiya Medical College and Research Centre & Anr. v. Maharashtra University of Health Sciences & Ors. etc.
Date of Judgment: May 19, 2023
Coram: Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Rajesh Bindal
35) Credit note issued by manufacturer to dealer is valuable consideration within definition of sale, hence exigible to sales tax: The Court held that a transaction between manufacturer & dealer while acting pursuant to warranty, must be construed as sale within the meaning and definition of sale under Sales Tax Acts.
While reiterating that a credit note issued by a manufacturer to the dealer, is a valuable consideration within the meaning of the definition of sale and hence, exigible to sales tax under the respective State enactments of the States under consideration, the Bench held, “dealers are liable to pay sales tax under the respective State enactments under consideration”.
Cause Title: Tata Motors Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax and Anr.
Date of Judgment: May 15, 2023
Coram: Justice K M Joseph, Justice B V Nagarathna & Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah