Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: September 11 – September 15, 2023
|1) New credit claims cannot be admitted when resolution plan is approved by COC and is pending approval from adjudicating authority
The Court held that a new creditor claim cannot be considered once the Committee of Creditors (CoC) has approved a resolution plan but is awaiting approval from the Adjudicating Authority (AA).
The Court emphasised that allowing such claims would put the time-bound Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) at risk. The Court dismissed a Civil Appeal filed by a creditor who had submitted a late claim of Rs. 35,67,05,337 against the Corporate Debtor. This claim was rejected by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), even though the AA had approved his late submission of the claim.
Cause Title- M/S. RPS Infrastructure Ltd. v Mukul Kumar & Anr.
Date of Judgment- September 11, 2023
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
2) Law which is declared unconstitutional being violative of Part-III will be unenforceable since its very inception
The Court ruled that the declaration made by its Constitution Bench in the case of Subramanian Swamy vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, and another [(2014) 8 SCC 682], that Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1942 (DSPE Act) being unconstitutional, will have retrospective application, and therefore, Section 6A of the DSPE Act is held to be not in force from the date of its insertion i.e., Sep 11, 2003.
In this case, the appellant (CBI) after registering the FIR for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 laid a trap in the evening on the same day wherein the respondent is said to have accepted bribe to set the things right for the radiologist conducting Pre-Natal test to determine the sex of the foetus in contravention of the Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994. The Special Judge, CBI, rejected the application for discharge, which was carried in revision before the High Court, wherein it was held that the CBI acted in contravention of Section 6A(1) of the DSPE Act.
Cause Title- CBI v. R.R Kishore
Date of Judgment- September 11, 2023
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Vikram Nath, and Justice J.K Maheshwari
3) DBS Bank cannot be held responsible for criminal acts committed by former officials of Lakshmi Vilas Bank prior to amalgamation
The Court held that DBS Bank cannot be held responsible for any of the criminal acts committed by the former employees of the Lakshmi Vilas Bank prior to amalgamation. It further held that as per Clause 3(3) of the amalgamation scheme (scheme), only directors and other individuals could face criminal proceedings, not DBS Bank India Limited (DBS) or its directors appointed after the amalgamation process for criminal acts committed by the former employee of Lakshmi Vilas Bank.
The Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal filed by Religare Finvest Limited (RFL) against the order of the Delhi High Court, whereby RFL contended that the High Court should not have deferred the issue for consideration by RBI.
Cause Title- Religare Finvest Limited v State of NCT of Delhi & Anr
Date of Judgment- September 11, 2023
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Vikram Nath, and Justice J.K Maheshwari
4) Shared common intention despite limited direct participation: Supreme Court upholds conviction in murder case
The Court upheld the conviction of appellants in a murder case as the evidence supported the finding of a common intention to kill, beyond reasonable doubt.
In this case, five were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for murder of a woman in Purulia, West Bengal. The incident occurred in 1993, and they were charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code.
Cause Title- Bhaktu Gorain & Anr. v. The State Of West Bengal
Date of Judgment- September 12, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal
5) If no time is fixed for performance, court will have to determine date on which plaintiff had notice of refusal on part of defendant to perform contract
The Court held that under Article 54 of Part II of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 (LA), a suit for specific performance must be filed within three years from the date of performance or from the date when the plaintiff is notified of performance refusal if no specific date is fixed.
The Court disposed of multiple appeals filed by the Appellant and subsequent purchasers of the Suit Property against the order of the Madras High Court, wherein the order of the Trial Court was affirmed. The Trial Court had allowed for specific performance against the Appellant, on the grounds that the Respondent had shown a willingness to purchase.
Cause Title- A. Valliammai v. K.P Murali And Others
Date of Judgment- September 12, 2023
Coram- Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
6) ‘Raiyat’ land is not for mining, grant & classification of same land as ‘Dungri’ is contradictory: SC directs WB govt to execute mining lease
The Court directed the West Bengal Government to execute a mining lease in favour of M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih (respondent) saying that ‘Raiyat’ land is not for mining and grant and classification of the same land as ‘Dungri’ is contradictory.
The Court was deciding a civil appeal filed by the State and Joint Secretary, Department of Industries, Commerce and Enterprises, West Bengal against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court whereby the intra-court appeal of the State was dismissed with the direction to execute a mining lease in favour of the respondent.
Cause Title- State of West Bengal and Another v. M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih and Another
Date of Judgment- September 12, 2023
Coram- Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Aravind Kumar
7) Appellant's behaviour was abnormal, indicating that he was suffering from insanity at time of incident: SC acquits a man who allegedly killed his grandfather
The Court acquitted a man who allegedly killed his grandfather. While referring to Section 84 IPC, the Court observed that the Appellant's behavior was abnormal and indicated that he was suffering from insanity at the time of the incident. The Court observed that the Appellant was prescribed the tablet Lorazepam, a psychotropic substance apart from being an anxiolytic agent.
Further, the Court also reiterated that the judgment of acquittal can be reversed by the Appellate Court only when there is perversity and not by taking a different view on reappreciation of evidence. The Court set aside the High Court's conviction order against the Appellant under Section 302 IPC and restored the Trial Court's order of acquittal.
Cause Title- Rupesh Manger v State of Sikkim
Date of Judgment- September 13, 2023
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
8) Benefit was also granted to similarly placed employees: SC directs for extension of revised pay scale benefits to retd. physical instructors of govt college
While observing that earlier the similarly placed employees were granted the benefit of revised pay scales, the Court directed the Karnataka Government to extend the benefits of the University Grants Commission (UGC) pay scales under the Government Order of November 15 1999, to the Appellants within three months.
The Appellants were retired physical instructors who were employed in a Government College. The Court set aside the judgment of the High Court whereby a writ petition challenging the order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (KAT) was filed.
Cause Title- B.C. Nagaraj & Anr. v The State of Karnataka & Ors.
Date of Judgment- September 13, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal
9) When there’s similar evidence of eyewitnesses against 2 accused ascribing them same role, court can’t convict one & acquit other: SC
The Court in an unlawful assembly related case has held that when there is similar or identical evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing them the same or similar role, the Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other.
The Court was deciding a criminal appeal preferred by one of the accused who was convicted based on an occurrence in the year 2003. It said that the case of the appellant/accused stands on the same footing as other accused persons who were acquitted by the Apex Court and hence, the said accused must get the benefit of parity.
Cause Title- Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat
Date of Judgment- September 13, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol
10) No litigant should be allowed to misuse process of law by filing multiple appeals after first was dismissed for lack of prosecution
The Court observed that no litigant should be allowed to misuse the process of law by repeatedly filing appeals, after the first appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution, without specific permission of the Court to seek a review of the judgment.
The Court dismissed a Civil Appeal and noted that the High Court had committed gross error in allowing such vexatious applications without assigning any reason.
acquitted by the Apex Court and hence, the said accused must get the benefit of parity.
Cause Title- Vasant Nature Cure Hospital & Pratibha Maternity Hospital Trust & Ors. v Ukaji Ramaji (Deceased thr His Legal Heirs) & Anr.
Date of Judgment- September 13, 2023
Coram- Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Dipankar Datta
11) Registrar of Society can cancel own order under WB Registration Act: SC in a dispute between 2 groups of Chinese tannery owners over school control
The Court held that the Registrar of Society is empowered to grant registration under West Bengal Registration Act, 1961 and has power to cancel such registration.
In this case, a dispute arose between two groups of Chinese Tannery owners in Kolkata over the control of a school and the appellant i.e., the secretary of the school operated by the Chinese Tannery Owners’ Association had filed a civil appeal.
Cause Title- Chen Khoi Kui v. Liang Miao Sheng & Ors.
Date of Judgment- September 13, 2023
Coram- Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
12) Acquiescence is defence available in action for infringement of copyright: SC affirms stay in passing-off dispute involving liquor labels
The Court upheld the decision of the High Court to grant a stay on the execution of a decree in a legal dispute revolving around alleged copyright infringement and passing-off related to labels used on country liquor bottles. The Court found that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish its reputation or goodwill in the market and that the withdrawal of objections to the respondent's labels suggested acquiescence.
The appellant (original plaintiff) filed an appeal to challenge a judgment issued by a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court which stayed the execution and operation of a judgment passed by the District Judge in a suit filed by the appellant.
Cause Title- Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private Limited v. Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Date of Judgment- September 14, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal
13) A co-operative credit society is eligible for deduction u/s. 80p(2) IT act unlike co-operative banks which are entitled to deduction u/s 80p(4)
While overruling the Kerala High Court judgment, the Court held that Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. is eligible for Section 80P deduction under the Income Tax Act.
After analysing the statutory framework and judicial precedents applicable to cooperatives including coordinate bench ruling in Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank, the Court clarified that the Assessee is an apex cooperative society under Kerala State Co-operative (Agricultural and Rural Development Banks) Act, 1984 but not a co-operative bank as per the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and therefore, will be entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 80P of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Cause Title- Kerala State Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. The Assessing Officer, Trivandrum and Ors.
Date of Judgment- September 14, 2023
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
14) Foreign counterpart of Indian entity treated as permanent establishment since incorporation: Apex Court maintains status quo on exemption of dividend tax earned by it
Finding that the Appellant/Revenue Department has failed to demonstrate why the provisions contained in Article 25 of DTAA and Article 8 (bis) of the Omani Tax Laws would not be applicable, the Court held that Article 8(bis) exempts dividend tax received by the assessee from its Permanent Establishment (PE) in Oman and by virtue of Article 25, the assessee is entitled to the same tax treatment in India as it received in Oman.
In this case, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) issued a show cause notice under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act on the ground that the reliance placed on Article 25(4) of DTAA was erroneous and no tax credit was due to the assessee under Section 90 of the Act. After considering Assessee’s reply, the PCIT held that Article 25 of Omani tax laws is not applicable in the instant case because there is tax payable on dividend in Oman and, accordingly, no tax has been paid and that assessee is not covered under the exemption. This order of PCIT was quashed by the ITAT.
Cause Title- Pr. CIT v. Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd.
Date of Judgment- September 15, 2023
Coram- Justice B.V Nagarathna and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
15) Police disclosures to media must not consist of subjective opinion pre-judging guilt of accused: SC directs MHA to frame guidelines
The Court directed the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to prepare comprehensive guidelines for media briefings by police, and further directed the Directors General of Police to provide their suggestions within a month in consultation with stakeholders, including media organizations and the National Human Rights Commission.
In this batch of cases, two significant issues were raised:
- the procedure for police investigation in police encounters, and
- the propriety and procedure of police personnel's media briefings during ongoing criminal investigations, especially in cases of public interest.
Cause Title- People’s Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Date of Judgment- September 13, 2023
Coram- Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra
16) IBC| OTS proposals by corporate debtor not questioned by suspended directors- SC dismisses appeal of Axis Bank, upholds condonation of delay by SBI in CIRP
The Court dismissed the appeal filed by Axis Bank Limited in an IBC (Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code) related case and has upheld the condonation of delay by SBI (State Bank of India) against the Corporate Debtor in CIRP (Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process) saying that OTS (One-Time Settlement) proposals by the Corporate Debtor were not questioned by the suspended Directors.
The Court was deciding an appeal under Section 62 of the IBC, 2016 against the judgment of the NCLAT (National Company Law Appellate Tribunal) whereby the Company Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed upholding the judgment passed by the Adjudicating Authority admitting the application under Section 7 of the IBC after condoning the delay.
Cause Title- Axis Bank Limited v. Naren Sheth & Anr.
Date of Judgment- September 12, 2023
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah