Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: Mar 20 – Mar 24, 2023
1) SEBI Regulations: Company failed to fulfill conditions under para 4 schedule iii- SC dismisses appeal against SEBI
The Court dismissed an appeal preferred against SEBI (Securities and Exchange Board of India) on the ground that a company failed to fulfill conditions under Para 4, Schedule III of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Regulations, 1992 i.e., SEBI Regulations.
In this case, an appeal was filed assailing the judgment passed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal affirming the order of the SEBI holding that the appellant did not satisfy the conditions of clause (4) of Schedule III of the SEBI Regulations hence the exemption from payment of fees for the period for which the erstwhile individual Srikant Mantri has paid to the SEBI cannot be converted to the corporate entity MFL (Mantri Finance Limited).
Cause Title- GPSK Capital Private Limited (Formerly known as Mantri Finance Limited) v. The Securities and Exchange Board of India
Date of Judgment- March 20, 2023
Coram- Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
2) Practice of courts to remand accused to custody the moment they appear in response to summoning order has to be tested
The Court said that the practice followed by Courts to remand the accused to custody, the moment they appear in response to the summoning order has to be tested in an appropriate case. The Court granted Anticipatory Bail to the appellant as the CBI was not seeking their custody for further investigation.
In this case, the appellants had approached the Apex Court against the orders of the Allahabad High Court wherein their Anticipatory Bail applications were rejected. A FIR was registered for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Cause Title- Mahdoom Bava v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Date of Judgment- March 20, 2023
Coram- Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal
3) Death penalty can only be awarded in rarest of rare cases with no possibility of reformation- SC commutes sentence in murder case
The Court commuted the death sentence awarded for the kidnapping and murder of a 7-year-old child to life imprisonment for not less than 20 years, without remission.
In this case, the applicant was a convict on death row, who moved to the Supreme Court for a fresh look at his petition seeking a review of his conviction for the offence of murder and the award of the death sentence. The petitioner had kidnapped and murdered a 7-year-old child.
Cause Title- Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of Police
Date of Judgment- March 21, 2023
Coram- Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Hima Kohli, and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
4) Provisions of constitution do not preclude centre from abolishing state administrative tribunal
The Court said that provisions of the Constitution do not preclude the Centre from abolishing a state administrative tribunal (SAT) and upheld a decision to abolish Odisha Administrative Tribunal.
The Court ruled that the Centre acted in valid exercise of its powers when it invoked Section 21 of the General Clauses Act read with Section 4(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act to rescind the notification establishing the Odisha Administrative Tribunal (OAT) because the decision to establish the tribunal was an administrative decision and not a quasi-judicial decision.
Cause Title- Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India & others
Date of Judgment- March 21, 2023
Coram- Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli
5) Bombay Rent Control Act| Unless contract permits sub-letting, it won’t be lawful after coming into operation of statute
The Court held that unless the contract itself permits sub-letting, it shall not be lawful, after coming into operation of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947, for a tenant to sub-let the premises let out to him.
The Court noted that there was a clear interdiction against transfer or assignment by the tenant of the business being run in the leasehold premises in favour of a third person.
Cause Title- Yuvraj @ Munna Pralhad Jagdale & Ors. v. Janardan Subajirao Wide
Date of Judgment- March 21, 2023
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Sanjay Kumar
6) SC reduces sentence of man accused of murdering his relative on ground that he was only son of old parents
The Court reduced the sentence imposed upon a man from seven years to five years who was accused of murdering his relative on the ground that he was the only son of his old parents.
In this case, an appeal was preferred against the judgment passed by the Madras High Court whereby it confirmed the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Court. The Sessions Court while acquitting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, had convicted him for the offences under Sections 304(ii) and 506(i) of IPC and had directed him to undergo 7 years of rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.
Cause Title- Panneer Selvam v. State of Tamil Nadu
Date of Judgment- March 21, 2023
Coram- Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
7) Kidnapping Case| SC sets aside conviction of man who suffered ordeal of pendency of criminal prosecution for 26 years
The Court set aside the conviction of a man, accused of kidnapping the respondent and marrying her against her will, after suffering the ordeal of pendency of the criminal prosecution for 26 years.
In this case, the appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 366, 342 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years, 3 months and 2 years respectively. The appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court, which was dismissed. Aggrieved of the said order, the appellant approached the Apex Court.
Cause Title- K.H. Balakrishna v. The State of Karnataka
Date of Judgment- March 21, 2023
Coram- Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal
8) Affixation of MRP along with mandate of law is required for claiming benefit u/s. 4(a) of Central Excise Act
The Court held that mere affixation of MRP does not make the goods eligible to claim benefit under Section 4(A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and what is required is a mandate of law that directed the seller to affix MRP along with the affirmation.
The Apex Court noted that as per Rule 3(b) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules,2011, the sale to institutional consumers was exempted from its purview and the entire process from the sale of the goods to the goods being used by the end consumer, the purchaser military and paramilitary institutions became industrial consumers, as they served as an intermediary between the end consumer and the original purchaser.
Cause Title- Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Kanpur v. M/s. A.R. Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Etc.
Date of Judgment- March 21, 2023
Coram- Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
9) Essential for courts to be extremely cautious while passing adverse remarks against parties involved without proper justification
The Supreme Court while allowing a batch of appeals has observed that the Courts must be extremely cautious while passing adverse remarks against the parties involved, and must do so with proper justification, in the right forum, and only if it is necessary to meet the ends of justice.
The Court in this matter said that the actions of the Karnataka High Court during the bail proceedings of a third party are manifestly arbitrary and unjust and that it must have confined itself to the issues relevant to it for the purposes of deciding the bail.
Cause Title- Seemant Kumar Singh v. Mahesh PS & Ors.
Date of Judgment- March 21, 2023
Coram- Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
10) Orders passed by armed forces tribunal can be challenged under article 226 before HCs: SC overrules its earlier judgment
The Court held that the orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal can be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Courts.
The Court overruled its judgment in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Major General Shri Kant Sharma & Anr. (2015) 6 SCC 773 wherein it created a complete bar to the High Court’s power to review decisions arising from the Armed Forces Tribunal under Article 226.
Cause Title- Union of India & Ors. v. Parashotam Dass
Date of Judgment- March 21, 2023
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Abhay S. Oka, and Justice B.V. Nagarathna
11) Acquisition of land cannot lapse if ingredients of section 24(2) of land acquisition act 2013 are not fulfilled- Reiterates SC
The Court reiterated that the acquisition of land could not lapse if the ingredients of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) were not fulfilled.
In this case, Writ Petition was preferred by the respondent in the year 2015 under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and had claimed that the possession of land having not been taken and the compensation not paid, the acquisition had lapsed.
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition and held that the acquisition in question had lapsed as the compensation was not paid. But the issue of entitlement of compensation was kept open as the title of the land was disputed. Aggrieved by the order, the appellants approached the Apex Court.
Cause Title- Delhi Development Authority v. Batti & Ors.
Date of Judgment- March 22, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal
12) Smugglers & foreign exchange manipulators act| major part of investment remains unexplained- SC dismisses plea against authority
The Supreme Court has recently dismissed an appeal preferred against the Competent Authority under the Smugglers & Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 holding that the major part of the investment still remains unexplained by the appellant.
The Court was dealing with an appeal that was directed against the judgment passed by a Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court upholding the order passed by the competent authority under Section 7 read with 19(1) of the aforesaid Act.
Cause Title- M/s. Platinum Theatre and Others v. Competent Authority Smugglers & Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 and Another
Date of Judgment- March 22, 2023
Coram- Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
13) Parties are bound by principle of finality, which results in a decree by a competent court
The Court reiterated that parties are bound by the principle of finality, which results in a decree by a competent court, acquiring a final and binding nature, especially where it was confirmed concurrently and upheld by the highest court of the land.
The Court directed the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to hear the parties, after the report of inspection by the committee was submitted and then pass the final order.
Cause Title- Shramjeevi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Dinesh Joshi & Ors
Date of Judgment- March 22, 2023
Coram- Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta
14) Revenue’s decision in rejecting value at which goods were sold by treating assessee as related person was erroneous
The Court while dealing with the appeals filed by a company held that the revenue’s decision in rejecting the value at which the goods were sold, by treating the assessee as a related person, was erroneous.
In this case, the question which arose for consideration before the Apex Court in the appeals, directed against an order of the CESTAT was whether the price at which the appellant company sold its products to the buyer, should be treated as a transaction with a “related person” under Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Cause Title- M/s. Bilag Industries P. Ltd. & Anr. v. Commr. of Cen. Exc. Daman & Anr.
Date of Judgment- March 22, 2023
Coram- Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta
15) SCBA can’t assert right to the entirety of land allotted by union: SC while rejecting plea
The Court rejected the writ petition filed by the SCBA (Supreme Court Bar Association) holding that the SCBA cannot assert a right to the entirety of the land admeasuring 1.33 acres allotted by the Union Government for housing the Supreme Court Archives for converting it into a chamber block for lawyers
The Bench said that such matters cannot be resolved by the application of judicial standards and have to be taken up on the administrative side of the Supreme Court and the administrative functioning and decision-making cannot be moved to the judicial side.
Cause Title- Supreme Court Bar Association v. Ministry of Urban Development & Ors.
Date of Judgment- March 23, 2023
Coram- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice S.K. Kaul, and Justice P.S. Narasimha
16) Institution of litigation cannot be permitted to confer any advantage on a suitor by act of the court
The Court observed that the institution of litigation cannot be permitted to confer any advantage on a suitor by the act of the Court and any undeserved or unfair advantage gained by a party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must be neutralized.
In this case the dispute was with respect to the sale consideration in respect of 26 acres and 19 guntas of land which was owned by Unitech Limited in favour of M/s Devas Global Services LLP.
Cause Title- Bhupinder Singh v. Unitech Limited
Date of Judgment- March 23, 2023
Coram- Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice MR Shah
17) No circumstantial evidence to prove demand: SC acquits man who was convicted of taking ₹300 bribe in 2003
The Court acquitted a man who was convicted of taking a bribe of Rs. 300/- in the year 2003 on the ground that there was no circumstantial evidence to prove the demand.
In this case, the appellant was working as a cleaner in an office. A demand of Rs. 500/- was made as illegal gratification and the appellant accepted a sum of Rs. 300/- for supplying a copy of the death certificate of a deceased person. The appellant had challenged his conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was convicted by the Trial Court and his conviction was upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Cause Title- Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment- March 23, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal
18) Proceedings initiated by an officer in absence of authority would have to be struck down
The Court reiterated that in absence of any authority and power with the officer to take any action as per the order, the proceedings initiated by such an officer would be totally unauthorized and would have to be struck down.
In this case, the appellants were alleged to have been involved in selling gas cylinders in black. The appellants had assailed the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and were sentenced to six months of imprisonment for unauthorized possession of gas cylinders.
Cause Title- Avtar Singh & Anr. V. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment- March 23, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal
19) UAPA| Mere membership of unlawful organization is an offence- SC overrules 2011 precedents
The Court overruled its 2011 judgments to hold that mere membership of a banned association is sufficient to constitute an offence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967.
The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether the judgments in Raneef and Arup Bhuyan had been correctly decided and whether "active membership" must be proven over and above the membership of a banned organization under the UAPA, 1967.
Cause Title- Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam & Anr.
Date of Judgment- March 24, 2023
Coram- Justice MR Shah, Justice CT Ravikumar, and Justice Sanjay Karol
20) Period of emergency or interim parole shall not be counted towards the total period of sentence
The Court reiterated that a convict undergoing imprisonment sentence if released on emergency/interim parole, the said period of parole has to be excluded for the purpose of actual imprisonment subject to any rule/policy in respect of remission.
Before the Court was a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India filed by a convict seeking consideration of parole granted during the Covid-19 period to be counted and adjusted towards the part of his actual sentence, as the parole was involuntarily imposed as per the decision taken by a high-powered committee constituted under the Supreme Court's direction in Re: contagion of covid 19 virus in prisons.
Cause Title- Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Date of Judgment- March 24, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar
21) SC directs Delhi prisoners released on interim bail during covid-19 to surrender before prison authorities within 15 days
The Court directed the prisoners of Delhi jails who were released on emergency parole or interim bail during the period of COVID-19 to surrender before the concerned prison authorities within fifteen days.
The Bench said that the COVID-19 situation has now been normalized and hence, all those prisoners/inmates/undertrial prisoners/convicts who are/were released on emergency parole/interim bail must surrender before the concerned prison authorities.
Cause Title- Contagion of Covid-19 Virus in Prisons and Director General (Prisons)
Date of Judgment- March 24, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar
22) Opportunity of being heard should be given to other party before penalty is levied for extension of time granted
The Court held that before the penalty is levied while the extension of time was granted, the opportunity of being heard should have been given to the contractor as to why the penalty should not be imposed.
The issue dealt with was- whether the State Government was justified in levying the penalty while granting extension of time in favour of the contractor when the contractor failed to complete the work within stipulated time under the contract and subsequently, completed the work beyond the period prescribed under the contract.
Cause Title- The State of Odisha & Ors. v. Radheshyam Agrawal
Date of Judgment- March 24, 2023
Coram- Justice MR Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna
23) SC permits Maharashtra co-operative bank to withdraw balance amount after payment of employees' dues
The Court directed the Collector, Bhandara to distribute the amount deposited as per the entitlement of every employee of the sugar factory in liquidation after proper identification of the claims, proportionately, along with interest of 7.5% on their respective dues and also permitted the Maharashtra Co-operative Bank to withdraw balance surplus amount.
The Apex Court by a detailed judgment in 2019, had upheld the right of the employees of the sugar factory to receive the amount from the appellant - bank and has held that the applicant/appellant bank must pay the employees' dues out of the sale proceeds from the auctioned property.
Cause Title- The Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Babulal Lade & Ors.
Date of Judgment- March 24, 2023
Coram- Justice MR Shah and Justice Krishna Murari
24) Central Excise Act: Once order sanctioning refund is set aside & proceedings initiated, no question of further notice arises
The Court held that once the order sanctioning the refund is set aside in a proceeding under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the proceedings were initiated within the prescribed time, there is no question of any further notice under Section 11A of the said Act.
The questions before the Apex Court were whether a Notice under Section 11A of the Act is necessary for the recovery of the amount when the refund granted is reviewed under Section 35E, and whether a separate notice under Section 11A is to be issued within the time limit prescribed under Section 11A and before the proceedings under Section 35E are initiated and/or the notice under Section 11A shall precede the proceedings under Section 35E.
Cause Title- Commissioner Of Central Excise, Mumbai - 1 v. M/s. Morarjee Gokuldas SPG. & WVG. Co. Ltd.
Date of Judgment- March 24, 2023
Coram- Justice MR Shah and Justice Krishna Murari
25) Rule 3A(2) Of Tripura Sales Tax Rules 1976 does not change chargeability of tax or liability to pay tax- SC upholds validity of Rule 3a(2)
The Court upheld the validity of Rule 3A(2) of the Tripura Sales Tax Rules, 1976 (TST Rules) as the same not being ultra vires to Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 (TST Act).
The Court held that Rule 3A(2) did not in any manner changed the chargeability of the tax or liability to pay the tax and the Tripura High Court had misinterpreted and erred in declaring Rule 3A(2) of the TST Rules ultra vires to TST Act.
Cause Title- The State of Tripura & Anr v. Chandan Deb & Ors.
Date of Judgment- March 24, 2023
Coram- Justice MR Shah and Justice Krishna Murari
26) CCS Rules- Services rendered as contractual employee cannot be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits
The Court held that since the proviso to Rule 13 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 was not applicable, the services rendered by a contractual employee cannot be counted for the purposes of pensionary benefits.
The Court held that neither the rules nor the regularization scheme provide that services rendered as casual/contractual shall be treated as temporary services and the same shall be counted for the purposes of pensionary/service benefits.
Cause Title- Director General, Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation of India & Anr. v. Smt. Magi H Desai
Date of Judgment- March 24, 2023
Coram- Justice MR Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
27) Affinity test is not a litmus test to decide a caste claim
The Court held that an affinity test is not a litmus test to decide a caste claim and is not an essential part in the process of the determination of correctness of a caste or tribe claim in every case. The Court disagreed with the fact that the affinity test is an integral part of the determination of the correctness of the claim.
The Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 was brought by the State which deals with regulating the issue and verification of caste certificates to persons belonging to various categories of backward classes. The Scrutiny Committee constituted under Section 6 of the said Act has a power to verify the correctness of the caste certificates issued by the Competent Authority and the Competent Authority and the Scrutiny Committee have powers of a civil court under Section 9 with regard to the summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses, discovery and inspection of documents, etc.
Cause Title- Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.
Date of Judgment- March 24, 2023
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Abhay S. Oka, and Justice Manoj Misra
28) Date of last drawn panchnama would be relevant for computing period of limitation u/s.158BE of Income Tax Act
The Court upheld the Delhi High Court decision and observed that the date of Panchnama last drawn would be the relevant date for considering the period of limitation of two years under Section 158BE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act).
In this case, the appeals were preferred and the asssessment orders issued were challenged on the ground that the assessment was time barred. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeals. However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the appeals. Assailing the order of ITAT, the Revenue had preferred the appeal before the High Court.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, and this judgment of High Court was the subject matter of appeal before Apex Court. It was alleged by the assessees that as per Section 158BE of the Act, limitation of two years was to be computed when Panchnama in respect of the second authorization was executed, i.e., on March 26, 2001 and the assessment order was passed in April 2003 which was time barred.
Cause Title- Anil Minda and others v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Date of Judgment- March 24, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
29) Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings in a dispute of forgery between mother and son
The Court exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, has quashed criminal proceedings initiated in a dispute of forgery between the mother on one side and the son and grandson on the other side.
In this case, the appeal was preferred against the order of the Gujarat High Court whereby the High Court had refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellants accused. It was alleged that appellant no.1, who was the son of the original complainant, had forged the signature of the complainant and had included the name of appellant No.2 – grandson in the joint bank account of appellant No.1 and the complainant and thereafter appellant No.2 based on the bank slips withdrew a total sum of Rs. 10,50,000/- from the said joint bank account.
Cause Title- Hemantbhai Balvantbhai Patel and Another v. The State of Gujarat and Another
Date of Judgment- March 24, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Justice Krishna Murari
