Weekly Overview | Supreme Court Judgments: Aug 22 - Aug 26, 2022
1. SC Declares Sections 3(2) And 5 Of Benami Transactions Prohibition Act Unconstitutional, Holds 2016 Amendment Act To Have Prospective Effect – The Court declared Section 3(2) of the Benami Transactions Prohibition Act 1988 and Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Amendment Act 2016 to be unconstitutional. The Court has also held that Section 5 of the 1988 Act is unconstitutional.
The Court also held that the concerned authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to the coming into force of the 2016 Act.
Cause Title – Union of India & Anr. v. M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.
Date of Judgment – August 23, 2022
Coram – CJI NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari, & Justice Hima Kohli
2. No Lapse Of Acquisition Proceedings, If Award Not Made As On Commencement Of LA Act 2013 – The Court reiterated that if the award is not made as on the date of commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, there is no lapse of land acquisition proceedings.
The Bench was dealing with an appeal challenging the Delhi High Court's Order whereby the High Court declared that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the subject land had lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act).
Cause Title – Union of India & Anr. v. Subhash Chander Sehgal & Ors.
Date of Judgment – August 22, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice BV Nagarathna
3. MACP Scheme – Fulfilment Of Pre-Promotional Norms For Grant Of Financial Upgradation Not Applicable On CAPF – The Court while adjudicating upon issues involved in the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) has observed that the fulfillment of pre-promotional norms for the grant of financial upgradation to the Central Armed Forces is not applicable on them, hence they are entitled to financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme.
The Court also held that financial upgradation is granted to only those employees who have not received actual or functional promotion even after the completion of the requisite service period, though otherwise they fulfil the prescribed conditions for promotion.
Cause Title – Union of India & Others v. Ex. HC/GD Virender Singh
Date of Judgment – August 22, 2022
Coram – Justice Sanjiv Khanna & Justice Bela M. Trivedi
4. Bihar Electricity Board Autonomous Undertaking, State Notification Not Applicable On Former When Expressly Excluded – The Court while adjudicating upon the issue of applicability of the Assured Career Progression Scheme to the employees of the Bihar Electricity board has observed that the Board is an autonomous undertaking, hence the notification of the State of Bihar relating to the ACP scheme will not apply to it.
The Bench also noted that the notification of the State has especially excluded autonomous institutions from its ambit, hence it will not create any right in favour of employees of the Board.
Cause Title – Md. Islam & Ors. & The Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors.
Date of Judgment – August 23, 2022
Coram – Justice DY Chandrachud & Justice AS Bopanna
5. Power Generation Co. Entitled To Carrying Cost On Restitutionary Principles From Date Of Change In Law Event – The Court while upholding the findings of the Appellate Tribunal in favor of Adani Power Ltd. (Respondent No. 1), a power generating company observed Adani Power Ltd. s entitled to carrying cost on restitutionary principles from the date of change in law event took place.
The Court held that the entire concept of restitutionary principles engrained in Article 13 of the Purchase Power Agreement (PPA) has to be read in the correct perspective. The said principle that governs compensating a party for the time value for money, is the very same principle that would be invoked and applied for grant of interest on carrying cost on account of a Change in Law event.
Cause Title – Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Another v. Adani Power (Mundra) Limited and Another
Date of Judgment – August 24, 2022
Coram – CJI NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari, & Justice Hima Kohli
6. High Courts Cannot Entertain Plea Of Executing Award Passed By Arbitral Tribunal – The Court held that High Courts cannot entertain plea seeking execution of the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal/Court, when such award is to be executed by initiating an execution proceeding before the concerned Executing Court.
The Bench observed, "We disapprove the entertaining of such writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to execute the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal/Court, without relegating the judgment creditor in whose favour the award is passed to file an execution proceeding before the competent Executing Court."
Cause Title – National Highways Authority of India v. Sheetal Jaidev Vade & Ors.
Date of Judgment – August 24, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & BV Nagarathna
7. Mere Suspicion, However Strong, Cannot Replace Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt – SC While Acquitting Murder Accused – While acquitting a murder accused, the Court held that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court thus held it is more than evident that the chain of events has many missing and weak links and none of the ingredients to record conviction in a case of circumstantial evidence and that of poisoning case are made out. Prosecution has thus failed to bring home the guilt.
Cause Title – Rajbir Singh v. The State of Punjab
Date of Judgment – August 24, 2022
Coram – Justice Hemant Gupta & Justice Vikram Nath
8. Financial Constraint Can Be Valid Ground To Fix Cutoff Date For Granting Benefit Of Revision Of Pension/Pay – The Court observed that financial constraint can be a valid ground for introducing a cutoff date while introducing a pension scheme on revised basis.
The Tripura High Court had refused to accept the plea of financial crunch raised by the State and consequently struck down Rule 3(3) of the Pension Rules, 2009. The High Court directed the State to pay the original writ petitioner the arrears of pension (revised pension) from the date of her retirement to the end of 2008.
Cause Title – The State of Tripura & Ors. v. Anjana Bhattacharjee & Ors.
Date of Judgment – August 24, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice BV Nagarathna
9. Party Cannot Claim Equity To Escape Consequences Ensuing Out Of Breach Of Contract – The Court has observed that a party cannot claim equity to escape the consequences ensuing out of a breach of a contract.
The case pertains to a civil suit whereby the purchaser had sought specific performance of an agreement directing the vendors to execute a registered sale deed in favor of the purchaser in respect of the suit land.
Cause Title – Katta Sujatha Reddy & Anr v. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.& Ors.
Date of Judgment – August 25, 2022
Coram – Chief Justice NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari & Justice Hima Kohli
10. Services Like Erection/Installation/Commissioning Of Goods At Customers' Site Not Services Rendered By Consulting Engineer – The Court held that services rendered in the nature of erection/installation/commissioning of goods at customers' site cannot be said to be services rendered by a consulting engineer.
The Court was dealing with an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise challenging the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal whereby the Tribunal had held that the services rendered by the assessee-respondent cannot be said to be services rendered as Consulting Engineer.
Cause Title – Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Vadodara v. M/s Jyoti Limited and Ors.
Date of Judgment – August 24, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice BV Nagarathna
11. Supreme Court Directs State Of Rajasthan To Process Allotment Of Land To Ultratech Cement Ltd. For Setting Up Cement Plant – The Court directed the State of Rajasthan to process the allotment of land to Ultratech Cement Ltd. for setting up a cement plant.
The Court held that Ultratech Cement Ltd. had applied through proper channel for allotment of land for mining purpose, it had received requisite environmental clearances followed by Letters of Intent issued by the Appellant – State. Thus, armed with necessary approvals from the State Government for reservation and allocation of land falling under mining lease area, the respondent–Company had approached the revenue authorities for setting up a plant on the subject land and requested that necessary changes be made in the revenue records pertaining to land described as 'Johad' at certain spots, where in fact, no 'Johad' actually existed.
Cause Title – The State of Rajasthan & Another v. Ultratech Cement Ltd.
Date of Judgment – August 26, 2022
Coram – CJI NV Ramana, Justice Hima Kohli, & Justice CT Ravikumar
12. Agreement U/s. 120B Forms Core Of Offence Of Conspiracy, Must Surface In Evidence Through Physical Manifestation - The Supreme Court in a theft case has observed that the principal ingredient of offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC is an agreement to commit an offence.
The Court also held that such an agreement must be proved through direct or circumstantial evidence.
Cause Title – Ram Sharan Chaturvedi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Date of Judgment – August 25, 2022
Coram – Justice PS Narasimha & Justice BR Gavai
13. SC Directs State Of Maharashtra To Return Acquired Land To Owners After 18 Years Since TDR Rate Could Not Be Fixed – The Court directed the State of Maharashtra to return the acquired land to the original landowners after eighteen years since the rate at which Transferable Development Rights were to be granted could not be fixed by the State.
The Bench observed that the land was acquired in 2004 and it was not utilized since then by the State and even the Appellants were in continuous litigation for the fixation of the rate of TDR which was earlier fixed at 100% Floor Space Index (FSI) and later was reduced to 4% FSI.
Cause Title – Rajhan Narendra Rout and Others v. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Urban Development Departments & Ors.
Date of Judgment – August 25, 2022
Coram – CJI NV Ramana & Justice Hima Kohli
14. Before Framing Charge, Court Must Apply Judicial Mind To Satisfy Itself About Commission Of Offence By Accused – The Court observed that before framing of the charge in criminal proceedings, the Court must apply its judicial mind to satisfy itself that the commission of the offence by the accused was possible.
While discharging the Appellant of the corruption charges, the Bench observed, ""It is a well settled law that at the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing of charge the Court must apply it's judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible."
Cause Title – Pushpendra Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand
Date of Judgment – August 24, 2022
Coram – CJI NV Ramana, Justice JK Maheshwari, & Justice Hima Kohli
15. State Not Justified In Ordering Recovery Of Benefit Granted By It Due To Its Own Mistake – The Court observed that the State is not justified in ordering recovery of the benefit granted by it because of its own mistake.
The Bench made this observation while dealing with the appeals filed by M.P. Medical Officers Association and other individual members of the Association.
Cause Title – M.P. Medical Officers Association v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Date of Judgment – August 26, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice BV Nagarathna
16. Writ Not Maintainable Against Private Educational Institute If There Is No Public Law Element Involved – The Court observed that a Writ Petition against a private educational institute will be maintainable only if there is a public law element involved.
The Court pointed out that Individual wrongs or breach of mutual contracts without having any public element as its integral part cannot be rectified through a writ petition under Article 226.
Cause Title – St. Mary's Education Society & Anr. v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava & Ors.
Date of Judgment – August 24, 2022
Coram – Justice Aniruddha Bose & Justice JB Pardiwala
17. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code Will Prevail Over The Customs Act – The Apex Court observed that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code will prevail over the Customs Act, to the extent that once moratorium is imposed in terms of Sections 14 or 33(5) IBC, the Respondent-Authority only has a limited jurisdiction to assess/determine the quantum of customs duty and other levies.
The appeal arose under Section 62(1) IBC from the impugned judgment of the NCLAT which had allowed the appeal filed by Respondent – Authority against the order of NCLT by which he Adjudicating Authority directed the release of certain goods lying in the Customs Bonded Warehouses without payment of custom duty and other levies.
Cause Title – Sundaresh Bhatt, Liquidator of ABG Shipyard v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs
Date of Judgment – August 26, 2022
Coram – CJI NV Ramana, Justice JK Maheshwari & Justice Hima Kohli
18. Punctuation Marks By Themselves Do Not Control Meaning Of Statute When Its Meaning Is Otherwise Obvious – The Court held that punctuation mark is a minor element in the interpretation of a statute which cannot control the meaning of the statute when its meaning is otherwise obvious.
The Bench was dealing with a batch of appeals filed by the candidates who had qualified the Combined Civil Services Examination, 2016, but their appointments were cancelled later on.
Cause Title – Barun Kumar & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Date of Judgment – August 25, 2022
Coram – Justice Ajay Rastogi & Justice CT Ravikumar
19. FIR Recorded Under Dubitable Circumstances Cannot Be Considered Dying Declaration – The Court observed that an FIR that has been recorded under dubitable circumstances cannot be considered as a dying declaration.
The Court made this observation while acquitting the two murder accused.
The Trial Court had considered the FIR lodged by the deceased as his first dying declaration in which he had stated that he was witness in a case against one of the accused. However, the Apex Court held that such an FIR cannot be considered as a dying declaration.
Cause Title – Munuwa @ satish etc. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
Date of Judgment – August 26, 2022
Coram – Justice BR Gavai and Justice PS Narasimha
20. Supreme Court Enhances Compensation Payable To Landowners By Greater Mohali Area Development Authority - The Supreme Court has enhanced the compensation amount payable to landowners in respect of the land acquired in Punjab.
The Bench was adjudicating upon a plea by original landowners challenging the determination of compensation for the acquired lands in question.
Cause Title – Jagjit Singh and Others Etc. Etc. v. State of Punjab and Another Etc. Etc.
Date of Judgment – August 26, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice BV Nagarathna
21. IBC – Liquidator Can Exercise Discretion To Explore Best Method For Selling Assets – The Court observed that IBC has left it to the discretion of the Liquidator to explore the best possible method for selling the assets of the Corporate Debtor in liquidation, which includes Private Sale through direct negotiations with the object of maximizing the value of the assets offered for sale.
The Court was of the firm view that it is not for the court to question the judiciousness of the decision taken by the Liquidator with the idea of enhancing the value of the assets of the Corporate Debtor being put up for sale.
Cause Title – M/s. RK Industries (Unit - II) LLP v. M/s. H.R. Commercials Pvt. Ltd & Others
Date of Judgment – August 26, 2022
Coram – CJI NV Ramana, Justice JK Maheshwari & Justice Hima Kohli
22. IT Act 1961 - Proper Treatment In Accounts and Compliance with Act Necessary To Claim Deduction – The Court held at merely stating a bad and doubtful debt as an irrecoverable write-off without the appropriate treatment in the accounts, as well as non-compliance with the conditions in Section 36(1)(vii), 36(2), and Explanation to Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act 1961 would not entitle the assessee to claim a deduction.
The Court held that the amount could not be written off because the assessee's transaction was for acquiring immovable property, which is of the nature of capital expenditure and could not be treated as a business expenditure.
Cause Title – PR. Commissioner of Income Tax 6 v. Khyati Realtors Pvt. Ltd.
Date of Judgment – August 25, 2022
Coram – Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, & Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
23. 'Unsafe For Human Habitation' - SC Dismisses Appeal Challenging Demolition Of Mumbai's 55-Year-Old Building - The Court dismissed the plea challenging demolition of a 55-Year-old building in Mumbai while observing that the matter involved larger public interest.
The Bench noted that that the building in question was in a ruinous condition which needed to be repaired at the earliest for the reason that it was unsafe for human habitation.
Cause Title – Ratilal S. Pujara Thr. His Lrs. & Ors. v. Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai & Ors.
Date of Judgment – August 25, 2022
Coram – CJI NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari & Justice Hima Kohli
24. Addl. SP Is Of Same Rank As SP, Former Has Power To Record Confessions U/s. 18(1) Of MCOCA - The Court while defining the scope of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA) 1999 and its applicability to the case, observed that Additional Superintendent of Police is of the same rank as of Superintendent of Police, thus capable of recording confessions under Section 18(1) of MCOCA.
In this case, the Prosecution alleged that the Appellants were the members of an organized crime syndicate which has engaged in cheating members of the public by conducting 'Mumbai Matka.'
Cause Title – Zakir Abdul Mirajkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Date of Judgment – August 24, 2022
Coram – Justice DY Chandrachud & Justice Surya Kant
