Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: November 6 – November 10, 2023
|1) UP VAT Act | If exempt goods are produced as by-products or waste products during manufacturing of taxable goods, they are deemed to have been used in manufacture of taxable goods
The Court held that per Explanation 3 of Section 13 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act (Act), an Assessee is entitled to claim full input tax credit (ITC) on by-products or waste products if they are being used to manufacture taxable goods. The Court has also held that if exempt goods are produced as a by-product or waste product during the manufacturing of taxable goods, then the purchased goods are deemed to have been used in the manufacture of taxable goods, per the legal fiction enshrined under Explanation 3 Section 13 of the Act.
The Court allowed a set of Civil Appeals filed by Modi Naturals Ltd challenging the judgment and order whereby it was held that the assessee was not entitled to the full benefit of ITC claimed on the goods purchased by it for manufacturing its final product.
Cause Title- M/S Modi Naturals Ltd v The Commissioner Of Commercial Tax UP
Date of Judgment- November 6, 2023
Coram- Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
2) While considering application seeking appointment of arbitrator, court can examine whether condition stipulated in arbitration clause is arbitrary & violates Article 14 of Constitution
The Court observed that while considering an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, the Court can examine if the condition stipulated in arbitration clause is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
In this case, a Swiss design consultancy firm, had initially contracted with Uttarakhand Project Development and Construction Corporation Limited (UPDCC) to provide consulting services for a hydroelectric project.
Cause Title- Lombardi Engineering Limited vs Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited
Date of Judgment- November 6, 2023
Coram- Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
3) "Man won't meet his maker with a lie in his mouth": Supreme Court summarizes principles regarding dying declarations
The Court summarized some important principles with regard to the dying declaration in its judgment. The Bench also cautioned that if the dying declaration does not inspire confidence in the court’s mind, the same should not be acted upon.
It was deciding an appeal against the judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court convicting six accused in a criminal case.
Cause Title- Manjunath & Ors. v. State of Karnataka
Date of Judgment- November 6, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol
4) Sexual harassment at workplace must be viewed seriously & harasser should not be allowed to escape from clutches of law
The Court observed that sexual harassment in any form at the work place must be viewed seriously and the harasser should not be allowed to escape from the clutches of law.
The Court added that the veracity and genuineness of such complaints should be scrutinised to prevent any misuse.
Cause Title- Union of India & Ors. vs Dilip Paul
Date of Judgment- November 6, 2023
Coram- Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
5) Delay in lodging FIR by itself would not be fatal to prosecution case: Supreme Court
The Court observed that delay in lodging FIR by itself would not be fatal to the case of prosecution.
In this case, the appellant i.e., the accused had filed an appeal against the judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court which had confirmed his conviction in a murder case. The Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused.
Cause Title- Hariprasad @ Kishan Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh
Date of Judgment- November 7, 2023
Coram- Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Dipankar Datta
6) Section 1(3)(B) Of EPF Act| Central Government can bring any class establishments within preview of the Act, including factories engaged in industry not mentioned in Schedule I
The Court held that the Central Government, under Section 1 Subsection 3 Clause b of the Employees’ Provident Fund And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Act) has the vested power to designate a class to the establishments including factories engaged in any industry which is not specified in Schedule I of the Act.
The Court dismissed a Civil Appeal challenging the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Commissioner) which had been upheld by the Appellate Tribunal, a Single Judge and a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. The Commissioner had concluded that the Appellant establishment, dealing in the manufacturing and sale of umbrellas, fell in the category of trading and commercial establishments.
Cause Title- Thankamma Baby v The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Kochi, Kerala
Date of Judgment- November 7, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol
7) Supreme Court orders rehabilitation or compensation within three months for legal representatives of occupant under Town Planning Scheme
The Court held that the legal representatives of the original occupant, who had been in possession of the disputed property since 1976, were entitled to consideration under the Town Planning Scheme notified in 1994 and subsequent circulars issued by the Municipal Corporation. The Court emphasized that any occupant of the property, as per the scheme, was eligible for rehabilitation or compensation.
In the appeal, the main issue before the court was the rights of the legal representatives of the original occupant concerning their claim for either allotment of an alternative site or compensation for the premises they occupied. They had been in possession of the disputed property since 1976 and had even been assessed for taxes by the Municipal Corporation.
Cause Title- Jaffar Ali Nawab Ali Chaudhari & Ors. v. The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai
Date of Judgment- November 6, 2023
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal
8) Direction for demolition of already constructed buildings in preliminary decree may not be in interest of any party: SC modifies preliminary decree, orders expeditious disposal of suit
The Court modified a Trial Court's preliminary decree in a partition suit which was slightly modified by the Bombay High Court holding that demolition of the already constructed buildings may not be in the interest of any of the parties as the same can be considered at the time of passing of final decree. The Court also held that there was no justification to interfere in the matter as the final decree for partition, which would divide the property by metes and bounds, was yet to be passed.
These orders pertained to a civil suit filed by widow of appellant, seeking declaration, partition, and separate possession of the family property. In the suit, counterclaims were filed by defendant nos. 1, 4 to 8.
Cause Title- M/s Multicon Builders v. Sumandevi & Ors.
Date of Judgment- November 6, 2023
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal
9) Certificate u/s 65b Evidence Act can be produced at any stage if the trial is not over
The Court reiterated that the certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act can be produced at any stage if the trial is not over. The court, in Bangalore bomb blasts case, said that the fair trial in a criminal case does not mean that it should be fair to one of the parties. Rather, the object is that no guilty should go scot-free and no innocent should be punished, the court said.
The Court was dealing with a case wherein the appellant/State had filed an appeal before the Karnataka High Court which upheld the order of the Trial Court. Vide this order, the applications filed by the prosecution under Section 311 of the Cr.PC. was rejected.
Cause Title- State of Karnataka v. T. Naseer @Nasir @Thandiantavida Naseer @Umarhazi @Hazi & Ors.
Date of Judgment- November 6, 2023
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal
10) Sections 15 & 16 HSA | Wife of pre-deceased son does not have first right to claim share in her mother-in-law’s share in joint family property
The Court held that the widow of pre-deceased son does not have the first right to claim a share in her mother-in-law's share of the joint family property, as per Sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act (HSA).
The Court was considering an appeal filed against High Court judgment that had held that wife of a pre-deceased son was entitled to 1/7th share out of 1/8th and 1/16th of her mother-in-law’s share in the disputed properties.
Cause Title- Sachidhanandam (Through His LRs) v E. Vanaja And Ors.
Date of Judgment- November 6, 2023
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
11) When can gratuity be withheld from a retired employee? Supreme Court explains
The Court observed that gratuity cannot be withheld from a retired employee when it is not a case of his riotous behaviour/criminal case involvement. The court, in this case, emphasised that the denial of the employer’s contribution of Provident Fund (PF) and non-payment of gratuity because of the order of compulsory retirement is not justified.
The Court observed thus in an appeal filed by a man who was compulsorily retired as Sr. Manager, was denied the benefit of leave encashment, employer’s contribution of provident fund, gratuity and pension by the Punjab National Bank.
Cause Title- Jyotirmay Ray v. The Field General Manager, Punjab National Bank & Ors.
Date of Judgment- November 6, 2023
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
12) Supreme Court expresses concern over judges not following guidelines in maintenance proceedings, directs circulation of its judgment in Rajnesh v Neha to all judicial officers
The Court directed the Court’s Secretary General to circulate the Judgment of Rajnesh v Neha and Another, [(2021) 2 SCC 324] to all Judicial Officers as well as the National and State Judicial Academies.
The Court expressed concern over the Trial Court’s approach of fixing maintenance without there being an affidavit on record, disclosing the assets and liabilities of the Parties. The Court noted that the cases that ought to have been concluded at the Trial Court have been taken up to the Apex Court.
Cause Title- Aditi Alias Mithi v Jitesh Sharma
Date of Judgment- November 6, 2023
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal
13) Relaxation of eligibility criteria cannot be done mid-stream without giving wide publicity of such change
The Court observed that even though the State has power to relax the eligibility criteria, the same cannot be done mid-stream without giving wide publicity of such change and opportunity to similarly situated candidates to apply and compete with others. The court also added that if the extant Rules provide for the power to relax the eligibility criteria, the same could be exercised only if such power is reserved in the advertisement.
The bench was considering an appeal that raised the issue of recruitment on the post of Junior Office Assistant, a Class III (Non-gazetted) post, under the Government of Himachal Pradesh.
Cause Title- Ankita Thakur & Ors. v. The H.P. Staff Selection Commission & Ors.
Date of Judgment- November 9, 2023
Coram- Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Manoj Mishra
14) A commercial document cannot be interpreted in a way that contradicts the parties' original intent and purpose
The Court observed that a commercial document cannot be interpreted in a way that it contradicts the original purpose and intent of the parties to the document.
The Court observed thus in an appeal against the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) at New Delhi by which it dismissed the appeal against an order of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC).
Cause Title- Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited v. Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited & Ors.
Date of Judgment- November 9, 2023
Coram- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
15) Can't deny relief to employees when their entitlement is denied due to irrational consideration by employer
The Court observed that the relief cannot be denied to the employees when the entitlement is denied due to irrational consideration without application of mind by the employer.
The court observed thus while dismissing an appeal was filed against the order passed by the Delhi High Court by which it set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). CAT had declined the relief sought by the D.G.O.F. Employees Association for parity in pay scales.
Cause Title- Union of India & Ors. v. D.G.O.F. Employees Association and Anr.
Date of Judgment- November 9, 2023
Coram- Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice P.S. Narasimha
16) "Possibility of reformation": Supreme Court commutes death penalty awarded to a murder accused
The Court, in a judgment delivered yesterday, commuted death sentence awarded to a murder accused. The court observed that, though the crime shocked the collective conscience of the society and fall in the category of rarest of rare cases, there is a possibility of the accused being reformed.
The court reiterated that, while sentencing, the Court is not required to apply only the ‘crime test’ but also the ‘criminal test’. It also referred to the judgment in case of Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 12 SCC 460] to reiterate that past conduct does not necessarily have to be taken into consideration while imposing death penalty.
Cause Title- Madan v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Date of Judgment- November 9, 2023
Coram- Justice B.R Gavai, Justice B.V Nagarathna and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
17) SAFEMA provisions apply to persons against whom detention order has been passed under COFEPOSA
The Court observed that the provisions of Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976, (SAFEMA) would apply to every person against whom an order of detention has been passed under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA).
The court was considering two appeals against the orders from the Delhi and Bombay High Courts related to property forfeiture under the SAFEMA.
Cause Title- Thanesar Singh Sodhi v. Union Of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment- November 9, 2023
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
18) HC Chief Justices shall register suo-motu case for swift disposal of criminal cases against MPs/MLAs: Supreme Court issues guidelines
The Court formulated guidelines to expedite case disposal against elected members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies. The court directed that the Chief Justices of High Courts should register a suo-motu case titled "In Re: designated courts for MPs/MLAs" to monitor the early disposal of criminal cases against elected representatives.
The Court issued some directions in an order passed in a petition filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. The petitioner sought two reliefs: expeditious disposal of criminal cases against elected members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies and the constitutional validity of Section 8 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.
Cause Title- Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union Of India & Anr.
Date of Judgment- November 9, 2023
Coram- CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra
19) Supreme Court disapproves practice of depositions of material witnesses not being placed on record; suggests amendment to SC rules
The Court disapproved the practice of depositions of material witnesses not being placed on record. The court also provided suggestions for amending the Supreme Court Rules 2013 to tackle this issue.
The Court was dealing with a case related to alcohol poisoning, resulting in death of seven innocent people, blindness in eleven people, and more than forty people sustaining injuries. In this case, the accused were convicted under Sections 302, 307 and 326 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 55(a), (h), (i) and Section 57 (A) (1) (ii) of the Abkari Act by the Kerala High Court and were awarded imprisonment for life.
Cause Title- Sajeev v. State of Kerala
Date of Judgment- November 9, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol
20) Supreme Court upholds NCDRC order directing Kuwait Airways to pay compensation for delay in delivery of consignment
The Court upheld an NCDRC order directing Kuwait Airways to compensate for delay in delivery of consignment. The Court held that once its agent had issued a time schedule for delivery of consignment, it cannot be argued that there is no material confirming an agreement for delivery on time.
The Court was deciding appeals preferred against the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in which the complaint filed by the appellant M/s. Rajasthan Art Emporium was disposed of. The Commission had directed the respondent i.e., Kuwait Airways to pay US$ 500750/- or Rs. 20 lakhs (whichever is less) with 9% per annum compensation.
Cause Title- M/s. Rajasthan Art Emporium v. Kuwait Airways & Anr.
Date of Judgment- November 9, 2023
Coram- Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
21) Establishments cannot approbate & reprobate after having acted upon ex-post facto CTE
The Court observed that an establishment cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate having acted upon the ex-post facto Consent to Establish (CTE).
The Court observed thus considering an appeal filed by Sweta Estates Ltd against National Green Tribunal Order.
Cause Title- M/s Sweta Estate Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon v Haryana State Pollution Control Board & Anr.
Date of Judgment- November 9, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol
22) 'Previous enmity' a double edged weapon; Can't rule out possibility of false implication: Supreme Court acquits murder accused
The Court observed that 'previous enmity' alleged by the prosecution in murder cases is a double edged weapon. "Though on the one hand it provides the motive, on the other hand, the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out.", the court said while acquitting a man in a murder case.
The man had challenged the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which dismissed his appeal and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court convicting him.
Cause Title- Balaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Date of Judgment- November 8, 2023
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice P.S. Narasimha, and Aravind Kumar
23) Unusual that accused would make confession before brother of the deceased: Supreme Court acquits man imprisoned for 11 years for murder
The Court acquitted a man convicted of murder based on extrajudicial confessions allegedly given to the Deceased’s brother.
The Court overturned the conviction while setting aside the judgment of the High Court, which affirmed the conviction judgment of the Trial Court. The Court emphasized that giving an extra-judicial confession to the brother of the deceased is unusual and raises doubt on its credibility.
Cause Title- Prabhatbhai Aatebhai Dabhi v State Of Gujarat
Date of Judgment- November 8, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S.Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal
24) Magistrate can't entertain protest petition against his own order taking cognizance to modify the order
The Court observed that the trial court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain a protest petition contesting its earlier order taking cognizance and modify the earlier order by taking cognizance against more accused.
The Trial Court had first taken cognizance only against one Accused and then against the rest of the Accused after the filing of the protest petition. The Supreme Court allowed the Criminal Appeal challenging the High Court's order upholding the Trial Court's order. The Supreme Court held that the further order of taking cognizance against the rest of the Accused was without due jurisdiction.
Cause Title- Ramakant Singh & Ors. v The State Of Jharkhand & Anr.
Date of Judgment- November 7, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S.Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal