Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: Sep 26 - Sep 30, 2022
|1) Leave encashment is part of salary- Supreme Court reiterates: The Court held that leave encashment is a part of salary while placing reliance on the judgment of State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Senior Higher Secondary School, Lachhmangarh.
The Court was dealing with an appeal challenging the Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dismissing the Appellant's application, seeking enforcement of the Supreme Court's previous judgment. In the case, the appellants-employees were appointed against sanctioned posts by a senior secondary school, established and controlled by the respondent trust (establishment) in 1993. The appellants had to fight for their entitlements. The State initially refused them the benefit of regularization. Their petitions for relief were unsuccessful.
Cause Title – Jagdish Prasad Saini & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Date of Judgment – September 26, 2022
Coram – CJI UU Lalit & Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
2) No effective decree can be passed in absence of co-owner who is necessary party- SC in suit for specific performance: In a suit for specific performance, the Court observed that no effective decree can be passed in the absence of co-owner who is a necessary party.
For being a necessary party, the Court observed that the twin test needs to be satisfied- a) there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings; b) no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such a party.
Cause Title – Moreshar Yadaorao Mahajan v. Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi (D) Thr. LRs. and Others
Date of Judgment – September 27, 2022
Coram – Justice BR Gavai & Justice CT Ravikumar
3) Investigation not properly conducted, injustice done to family- SC acquits man convicted of murder and rape of 6-year-old: The Court acquitted a man who was sentenced to death for allegedly murdering and raping a six-year-old girl.
The Court held at the investigation of the case was not conducted properly due to which injustice has been done to the family of the victim. The Court also held that by fixing the culpability upon the Appellant-Accused without any shred of evidence that will stand the scrutiny, the prosecution has done injustice to the accused.
Cause Title – Chotkau v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Date of Judgment – September 28, 2022
Coram – Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice A.S. Bopanna & Justice V. Ramasubramanian
4) Husband required to earn money even by physical labour, cannot avoid obligation to maintain wife and children: The Court observed that the husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute.
The Court held, ""The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute."
Cause Title – Anju Garg & Anr. v. Deepak Kumar Garg
Date of Judgment – September 28, 2022
Coram – Justice Dinesh Maheshwari & Justice Bela M. Trivedi
5) Marital Rape would form part of 'rape' under MTP Act, wife conceiving out of forced sex can seek abortion: In a significant judgment, the Court observed marital rape would also form a part of 'Rape' for the purpose of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and Rules. The Court also held hat unmarried women can also seek abortion of pregnancy during the term of 20-24 weeks arising out of a consensual relationship.
The Court held that married woman may also form part of the class of survivors of sexual assault or rape. The Bench also highlighted that a woman need not prove the commission of rape or sexual assault to seek termination of pregnancy under the MTP Act
Cause Title – X v. The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Date of Judgment – September 29, 2022
Coram – Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice AS Bopanna, & Justice J.B. Pardiwala
Read further... (Report 1)
Read further... (Report 2)
6) Litigant cannot be expected to wait indefinitely for Court's order after pronouncement- SC in matter related to election petition: In a matter related to Election Petition, the Court observed that a litigant cannot be expected to wait indefinitely for the availability of reasons for the order of the Court.
It was contended before the Apex Court that the order was orally pronounced by the High Court but no reasoned order was supplied to the parties. It was also submitted that even after more than three months, the reasoned order is still not available to the parties.
Cause Title – K. Madan Mohan Rao v. Bheemrao Baswanthrao Patil & Ors.
Date of Judgment – September 26, 2022
Coram – Justice Dinesh Maheshwari & Justice Bela M. Trivedi
7) Supreme Court sets aside order cancelling electricity distribution license granted to Jindal Steel Power Ltd.: The Court set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity cancelling the electricity distribution license granted to Jindal Steel Power Ltd.
While allowing the appeal of Jindal Steel Power Ltd. – Appellant, the Court observed that under the Electricity Act 2003, the appropriate Commission may grant a licence to two or more persons for the distribution of electricity through their own distribution system within the same area.
Cause Title – M/s. Jindal Steel and Power Limited & Ors. v. The Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors.
Date of Judgment – September 29, 2022
Coram – Justice Ajay Rastogi & Justice BV Nagarathna
8) Suppressing and making false statement in employment verification form can lead to termination from service: In a service matter, the Court observed that suppression of material information and making a false statement in the verification form relating to arrest, prosecution, conviction, etc., has a clear bearing on the character, conduct, and antecedents of the employee.
The Court also held that if it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regards to the matter having a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he can be terminated from service.
Cause Title – Satish Chandra Yadav & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment – September 26, 2022
Coram – Justice Surya Kant & Justice J.B. Pardiwala
9) Judgment or Decree obtained by fraud is to be treated as a nullity- Supreme Court reiterates: The Court has reiterated that a judgment or decree obtained by fraud is to be treated as a nullity.
The Court also observed that that if a "necessary party" is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed.
Cause Title – Ram Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
Date of Judgment – September 28, 2022
Coram – Justice BR Gavai & Justice CT Ravikumar
10) Not entitled to compassionate appointment after 24 years from father's death- SC sets aside Kerala HC's order: The Court set aside the order of the Kerala High Court directing reconsideration of a woman's plea for appointment on compassionate grounds 24 years after the death of her father.
In this case, after a period of 14 years, after the death of the deceased employee, the daughter of the deceased employee made a representation seeking appointment on compassionate basis. However, her application was rejected.
Cause Title – Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. & Ors. v. Anusree K.B.
Date of Judgment – September 30, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice Krishna Murari
11) Order XIV Rule 2(2)(b) CPC- Limitation issue can be framed as preliminary issue where it can be decided on admitted facts: The Court observed that in a case where the question of limitation could be decided based on admitted facts, it could be decided as a preliminary issue under Order XIV, Rule 2(2)(b) of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
The Court noted that though, limitation is a mixed question of law and facts it will shed the said character and would get confined to one of question of law when the foundational fact(s), determining the starting point of limitation is vividly and specifically made in the plaint averments.
Cause Title – Sukhbiri Devi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment – September 29, 2022
Coram – Justice Ajay Rastogi & Justice CT Ravikumar
12) Married daughter cannot be said to be dependent on deceased mother for purpose of compassionate appointment: In a case of compassionate appointment, the Court observed that a married daughter cannot be considered dependent on her mother for the purpose of granting of appointment on compassionate grounds.
The Bench was hearing a plea by the State of Maharashtra assailing the judgment of the Bombay High Court which had directed the State to consider the case of the married daughter for the grant of compassionate appointment after a period of seven years from the death of her mother.
Cause Title – The State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (Since after marriage Smt. Madhuri Santosh Koli)
Date of Judgment – September 30, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice Krishna Murari
13) Motor Accident Claim- Income tax returns and audit reports are reliable evidence to determine income of deceased: While adjudicating upon a matter involving motor accident claim, the Court reiterated that documents such as income tax returns and audit reports are reliable evidence to determine the income of the deceased.
The Court held that it was obliged to modify the compensation, especially when neither any additional evidence has been produced to showcase that the income of the Deceased was contrary to the amount mentioned in the audit reports nor it is the stand taken by the Insurance Company that the said reports inflated the income.
Cause Title – K. Ramya & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Date of Judgment – September 30, 2022
Coram – Justice Surya Kant & Justice V. Ramasubramanian
14) Once order of termination is proved by Industrial Tribunal thereafter it cannot be challenged by fresh reference: The Court observed that once an order of termination is proved by the industrial tribunal, thereafter a fresh reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act challenging the order of termination is not permissible.
In this case, a workman was serving on the post of Conductor. A departmental enquiry was initiated against him alleging not issuing the tickets to 10 passengers though he collected the amount of tickets. In the department inquiry he was found guilty for the misconduct alleged. The employer Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation terminated his services.
Cause Title – Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Bharat Singh Jhala (Dead) Son of Shri Nathu Singh, through Legal Heirs & Anr.
Date of Judgment – September 30, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice Krishna Murari
15) Duty cast upon CMM or DM to assist secured creditor in obtaining possession & documents related to secured assets: The Court observed that when all the requirements under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act are complied with by the secured creditor, it is the duty cast upon the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) or District Magistrate (DM) to assist the secured creditor in obtaining the possession and documents related to the secured assets.
The Court further noted that at that stage, the CMM or DM is not required to adjudicate the dispute between the borrower and the secured creditor and or between any other third party and the secured creditor with respect to the secured assets.
Cause Title – Balkrishna Rama Tarle Dead Thr LRS & Anr v. Phoenix ARC Private Limited & Ors.
Date of Judgment – September 26, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice Krishna Murari
16) If two views are possible in paying compensation to land losers, prefer view advancing cause of justice: The Court held that the orders passed by the Courts should be understood on their pith and substance. It added that if two views are possible in matters of payment of compensation amount to land losers, the view advancing the cause of justice is always to be preferred rather than the other view, which may draw its strength only from technicalities.
The Bench made this observation while dealing with an appeal challenging the Order of Bombay High Court whereby the High Court allowed the applicant-Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation ('MTDC') to withdraw an amount of Rs. 1,37,50,547/-, which was deposited by them towards enhanced amount of compensation.
Cause Title – Kazi Moinuddin Kazi Bashiroddin & Ors. v. The Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation, Through Its Senior Regional Manager Regional Office, Mtdc, Aurangabad, Maharashtra & Anr.
Date of Judgment – September 30, 2022
Coram – Justice Dinesh Maheshwari & Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
17) Non-Bailable warrant issued against accused was also not considered- SC quashes HC's order granting bail: While setting aside and quashing Allahabad High Court's order granting bail to the murder accused, the Supreme Court observed that amongst the other factors, the High Court also did not consider that a non-bailable warrant was issued against the accused and thereafter he was arrested.
In this case, the State of UP had preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court assailing the judgment of the High Court by which the Court had released the Respondent No. 2 was released on bail in connection with the offences under Section 302 and Section 120B IPC.
Cause Title – Bohatti Devi. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Date of Judgment – September 30, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice Krishna Murari
18) Court should hold preliminary inquiry about arbitrability of issue before appointing arbitrator- SC reiterates: The Court reiterated that if a clause stipulates that under certain circumstances there can be no arbitration and they are demonstrably clear then the controversy pertaining to the appointment of Arbitrator has to be put to rest.
The Bench was dealing with an appeal challenging the Judgment and Order passed by Delhi High Court by which, the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 appointed arbitrators to resolve the dispute between the parties.
Cause Title – M/s. Emaar India Ltd v. Tarun Aggarwal Projects LLP & Anr.
Date of Judgment – September 30, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice Krishna Murari
19) Court must consider time limit in agreement to determine whether discretion to grant specific performance should be exercised: The Court in a specific performance suit observed that Court should look at all the relevant circumstances including the time limit(s) specified in the agreement and determine whether its discretion to grant specific performance should be exercised.
The Apex Court had noted that it was almost after two years since Defendant obtained permission after the cancellation of the earlier agreement, the Plaintiff chose to file the suit.
Cause Title – Kolli Satyanarayana (Dead) By Lrs. v. Valuripalli Kesava Rao Chowdary (Dead) Thr. Lrs. and Others
Date of Judgment – September 27, 2022
Coram – Justice BR Gavai & Justice CT Ravikumar
20) NDPS Act| Unreasonable And Unexplained Delay In Securing Detenu For Detention Vitiates Detention Order: The Court in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances case observed that unreasonable and unexplained delay in securing a detenu and detaining him vitiates the detention order.
The Bench also held that it becomes imperative on the part of the detaining authority as well as the executing authorities to remain vigilant and keep their eyes skinned but not to turn blind eye in passing the detention order.
Cause Title – Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura & Ors.
Date of Judgment – September 30, 2022
Coram – CJI UU Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, & Justice J.B. Pardiwala
21) Specific averments of fraud must be made in plaint- SC while condemning 'clever drafting': The Court heard an appeal against a judgment passed by the Madras High Court.
The Court set aside the judgment, holding that "by such vague allegations with respect to the date of knowledge, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to challenge the documents after a period of 10 years. By such a clever drafting and using the word "fraud", the plaintiffs have tried to bring the suits within the period of limitation invoking Section 17 of the limitation Act. The plaintiffs cannot be permitted to bring the suits within the period of limitation by clever drafting, which otherwise is barred by limitation."
The Court noted that the averments and allegations in the plaint with respect to fraud were not supported by any further averments and allegations of how the fraud has been committed.
Cause Title – C.S. Ramaswamy v. V.K. Senthil & Ors.
Date of Judgment – September 30, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice Krishna Murari
22) RBI's direction to disclose confidential information- SC rejects preliminary objection against writ petition filed by banks: The Court rejected the preliminary objection raised against the maintainability of writ petitions filed by various banks challenging the action of the Reserve Bank in directing disclosure of confidential and sensitive information pertaining to their affairs, their employees and their customers under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The petitioners have challenged the action of the RBI, vide which the RBI issued directions to the Petitioners-Banks to disclose certain information, which according to the petitioners is not only contrary to the provisions as contained in the RTI Act, the RBI Act and the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, but also adversely affects the right to privacy of such Banks and their consumers.
Cause Title – HDFC Bank Ltd. & Ors v. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment – September 30, 2022
Coram – Justice BR Gavai & Justice CT Ravikumar
23) Terms of invitation to tender not open to judicial scrutiny unless they are malafide- SC reiterates: The Court heard an appeal against a judgment passed by the Delhi High Court that set aside some tenders floated by the Airport Authority of India (AAI) in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Setting aside the order, the Supreme Court held that "the High Court has erred in quashing and setting aside the eligibility criteria/tender conditions mentioned in the respective RFPs, while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As per the settled position of law, the terms and conditions of the Invitation to Tender are within the domain of the tenderer/tender making authority and are not open to judicial scrutiny, unless they are arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide. As per the settled position of law, the terms of the Invitation to Tender are not open to judicial scrutiny, the same being in the realm of contract. The Government/tenderer/tender making authority must have a free hand in setting the terms of the tender."
Cause Title – Airport Authority of India v. Centre for Aviation Policy, Safety & Research
Date of Judgment – September 30, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice Krishna Murari
24) Balance of operations of rules of procedure should be ensured to avoid prejudice to parties: While dealing with a matter involving the filing of pleadings, the Supreme Court has observed that balance of the operations of the rules of procedure is required to be ensured, to avoid any likely prejudice to any of the parties.
The Bench observed, "…balance of the operations of the rules of procedure is also required to be ensured, so as to avoid any likely prejudice to any of the parties."
Cause Title – M/s. Prime Properties v. Sana Lakshmi Devi (Died) Through Her Lrs & Ors.
Date of Judgment – September 29, 2022
Coram – Justice Dinesh Maheshwari & Justice Bela M Trivedi
25) Section 9 Arbitration Act- Commercial Court cannot pass directions until pre-conditions under order xxxviii rule 5 cpc satisfied: The Court heard an appeal against a judgment passed by the Gujarat High Court by which the High Court had confirmed an order passed by the Commercial Court through an application of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Quashing the orders passed by the High Court and Commercial Court, the Court held that "It may be true that in a given case if all the conditions of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC are satisfied and the Commercial Court is satisfied on the conduct of opposite/opponent party that the opponent party is trying to sell its properties to defeat the award that may be passed and/or any other conduct on the part of the opposite/opponent party which may tantamount to any attempt on the part of the opponent/opposite party to defeat the award that may be passed in the arbitral proceedings, the Commercial Court may pass an appropriate order including the restrain order and/or any other appropriate order to secure the interest of the parties. However, unless and until the conditions mentioned in Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC are satisfied such an order could not have been passed by the Commercial Court which has been passed by the Commercial Court in the present case, which has been affirmed by the High Court."
Cause Title – Sanghi Industries Limited vs Ravin Cables Ltd., and Anr.
Date of Judgment – September 30, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice Krishna Murari
26) Prosecution's case based on confessional statements before the police- Supreme Court sets aside conviction of 4 persons accused of murdering a senior citizen: The Court set aside the order of conviction and life sentence imposed on four persons who were accused of murdering a 72-year-old man.
The Court had observed that the entire case of the prosecution was based on the so-called confessional statements or voluntary statements given by accused persons while they were in police custody.
The Court noted that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court went completely wrong in placing reliance on the voluntary statements of the accused and their videography statements.
Cause Title – Munikrishna @ Krishna Etc. v. State by Ulsoor PS
Date of Judgment – September 30, 2022
Coram – CJI UU Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat & Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
27) Duty of arbitral tribunal to give reasoning behind determination of rate of interest on award: The Court heard an appeal against an order passed by the Orissa High Court which confirmed an order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.
Allowing the appeal in part, the Court held that "When a discretion is vested to an arbitral tribunal to award interest at a rate which it deems reasonable, then a duty would be cast upon the arbitral tribunal to give reasons as to how it deems the rate of interest to be reasonable."
Cause Title – Executive Engineer (R and B) and others v. Gokul Chandra Kanungo (Dead) Thr. His Lrs.
Date of Judgment – September 30, 2022
Coram – Justice BR Gavai & Justice BV Nagarathna