Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: Jan 30 – Feb 03, 2023
1) When civil dispute is given cloak of criminal offence, courts can quash criminal proceedings u/s. 482 CrPC
The Court held that criminal proceedings could be quashed in the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) when it was found that the dispute was given a cloak of a criminal offence in the issue which was essentially of civil nature and, was used as a weapon of harassment.
The Court quashed the criminal proceedings and observed that consequential investigation based on application under section 156(3) should specify the essential ingredients to attract the alleged offences. But the allegations made in the application were not only vague but also did not carry the essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences.
Cause Title- Usha Chakraborty & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Date of Judgment- January 30, 2023
Coram-Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice CT Ravikumar
2) Follow Section 277 CrPC, don’t record witness testimonies in English translations alone: SC to Trial Courts
The Court yeserday while allowing an appeal of a rape convict held that the Trial Courts must follow Section 277 of the Cr.PC. by not recording the witness testimonies in English translations alone.
The Court in this rape case held that each breach of a promise to marry as a false promise does not amount to rape. The Court acquitted the accused who was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment by the Sessions Court and the same got modified by the Delhi High Court by reducing the sentence to 7 years.
Cause Title- Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Date of Judgment- January 30, 2023
Coram-Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
3) Courts & Judicial forums must frame guidelines where amounts with registry be deposited in banks/financial institutions
The Court observed that all Courts and Judicial Forums should frame guidelines in cases where amounts are deposited with the office or registry of the Court or Tribunal, that such amounts should mandatorily be deposited in a bank or some financial institution, ensuring no loss in the future.
The Court was dealing with the appeals relating to the interest claimed by the complainant from the developer who had returned the Pay Order and the declining of the possession of the flat.
Cause Title- K.L. Suneja & Anr. v. Dr. (Mrs.) Manjeet Kaur Monga (D) through her LR & Anr.
Date of Judgment- January 31, 2023
Coram- Justice MR Shah and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
4) Being short of funds to pay court fees is not sufficient reason to condone delay in filing appeal
The Court observed that being short of funds to pay the court fees is not a ground for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and that the appeal can be filed under Section 149 CPC. The Court held that the defect could have been removed by paying the deficit court fees within the time given by the Court.
In this case, a suit for specific performance was filed, which was dismissed by the Trial Court and later appeal was filed before the High Court which was dismissed on the grounds of delay of 254 days. The reason assigned by the appellant for the delay was that he was not having sufficient funds to pay the court fee.
Cause Title- Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram & Ors.
Date of Judgment- January 31, 2023
Coram- Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
5) Availability of alternative remedy does not operate as absolute bar to maintainability of writ petition
The Court in an appeal filed by the Godrej Sara Lee Limited held that the availability of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to the “maintainability” of a writ petition.
The Court considered a matter in which the Punjab and Haryana High Court relegated the assessee to the alternative remedy in a challenge made to the jurisdiction of the revisional authority to reopen the proceedings under Section 34 of the Value Added Tax Act.
The Bench noted that the High Courts should normally not entertain a writ petition, where an effective and efficacious alternative remedy is available.
Cause Title- M/S Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. The Excise And Taxation Officer-Cum-Assessing Authority & Ors.
Date of Judgment- February 01, 2023
Coram- Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta
6) Every port under port act may not become customs port, words ‘within’ ‘in’ cannot include what is outside port
The Court recently observed that every port falling under the Indian Port Act and the Major Port Act may not on its own become a customs port. The Court while dealing with the two connected appeals further reiterated that the words ‘within’ and ‘in’ cannot include what is outside the port.
The Bench said that under CRZ III, the facility of storage of non-hazardous materials including edible oil is permitted only at a distance between 200-500 meters and that the storage tanks in question are not works executed by the port.
Cause Title- K.T.V. Health Food Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.
Date of Judgment- February 01, 2023
Coram- Justice K.M. Joseph, Justice B.V. Nagarathna, and Justice P.B. Pardiwala
7) High Court cannot override and impose its will when offence u/s. 138 ni act has been compounded
The Court observed that when offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was already compounded, the Telangana High Court could not have upheld the Trial Court's conviction and overridden such compounding.
In this case the Apex Court noted that parties were bound by the terms of the settlement entered into between them and in such circumstances the appellants could not have been convicted as the offence was already compounded.
Cause Title- B V Seshaiah v. The State of Telangana & Anr.
Date of Judgment- February 01, 2023
Coram- Justice Krishna Murari and Justice V. Ramasubramanian
8) Squarely pertains to legislative domain: SC refuses to restrain candidates from contesting elections in two constituencies
The Court disposed of the plea filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay that sought to restrict people from contesting election for the same office from two constituencies simultaneously.
The Apex Court refused to entertain the plea saying that the Parliament may step in and it is not for the Court to pass such a direction to the Centre and ECI (Election Commission of India) to restrict a person from contesting from multiple constituencies.
Cause Title- Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment- February 02, 2023
Coram- CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice JB Pardiwala
9) Mere delay in instituting suit for recovery of possession, which is well within limitation cannot amount to acquiescence
The Court observed that the mere delay in instituting the suit for recovery of possession, especially when it was filed well within the period of limitation prescribed, the doctrine of laches or acquiescence had no place to defeat the right of the plaintiff to obtain the relief on his establishing his title.
In this case the Apex Court said that the underlying principles in Section 51, TP Act and the principle of estoppel under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are converse and cannot co-exist and further noted that it was proved that the appellant had no title over the property and had encroached upon the land belonging to the respondent and had effected construction without any bonafide.
Cause Title- Baini Prasad (D) Thr. LRs. V. Durga Devi
Date of Judgment- February 02, 2023
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
10) State & public employers under obligation to revise wages periodically in public interest
The Court held that the State and public employers shall consider the ill effects of the rise in the cost of living and accordingly revise the wages periodically in the public interest.
The Court said that the periodic revision of pay will help the workers in dealing with price hikes and keep them from resorting to other inducements to supplement their income.
The Bench observed that Article 43 of the Constitution obliges the State to ensure that all workers, industrial or otherwise, are provided with a living wage and assured of a decent standard of living.
Cause Title- Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ex-Employees Association & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Date of Judgment- February 02, 2023
Coram- Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
11) Notification barring OCI students from general seats is applicable only to those who register as OCI after March 4, 2021
The Court held that the 2021 notification taking away the rights of Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) students to apply for general seats in All India Examinations will apply only prospectively from the date of the notification.
In this case, a batch of petitions was filed by OCI students, challenging a 2021 notification issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The notification stated that OCI students could only apply to NRI seats or supernumerary seats for all India entrance tests, which barred them from applying to seats exclusively reserved for Indian students.
Cause Title- Anushka Rengunthwar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment- February 03, 2023
Coram- Justice AS Bopanna and Justice CT Ravikumar
12) SC directs AO to examine documents to ascertain whether respondent is charitable trust entitled to benefit of exemption
The Court while dealing with an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax against the judgment of the Delhi High Court has directed the Assessing Officer to examine the documents and remitted back the matter for fresh consideration.
The High Court had earlier upheld the decision of the ITAT i.e., Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in which the respondent organization i.e., the assessee was regarded as a charitable trust entitled to the benefit of exemption and that it is registered under Section 12AA and 80G of the Income Tax Act.
Cause Title- Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi v. Servants of People Society
Date of Judgment- Jan 31, 2023
Coram-Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta
