Weekly Overview | Supreme Court Judgments: July 11- July 15, 2022
Weekly Overview | Supreme Court Judgments: July 11- July 15, 2022
1) Likelihood Of Divergent Views Cannot Be Ground For Transfer: SC Declines Centre's Plea To Transfer Cases Challenging Bonus Act – The Supreme Court declined Centre's plea transfer over 140 cases challenging the constitutional validity of the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015, filed in as many as 18 High Courts to the Supreme Court or any one High Court saying the likelihood of divergence of views, cannot be a ground for transfer.
The Bench said that having regard to the subject matter and the variety of questions likely to arise in the matter, it does appear appropriate to have the benefit of the views of the jurisdictional High Courts before the questions of law are taken up for consideration in this Court if occasion so arises.
Cause Title – Union of India Etc. v. The United Planters Association Of Southern India Etc. Etc. & Ors.
Date Of Order – July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice Dinesh Maheshwari & Justice Vikram Nath
2) Consider Introducing Separate Enactment To Streamline Grant Of Bails, Dispose Bail Applications Within Two Weeks – SC To Government – The Apex Court recommended the Government to consider introducing separate enactment in the nature of 'Bail Act' so as to streamline the grants of bails.
The Court also referred to the UK's Bail Act which deals with bails by following a simple procedure. The Act takes into consideration clogging of the prisons with the undertrial prisoners, cases involving the issuance of warrants, granting of bail both before and after conviction, exercise of the power by the investigating agency and the court, violation of the bail conditions, execution of bond and sureties on the unassailable principle of presumption and right to get bail.
Cause Title – Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice SK Kaul and Justice MM Sundresh
3) Govt Bound To Act In Terms Of Its Solemn Assurance- SC While Directing Abu Salem's Release On Completion Of 25 Years Of Sentence - "The corresponding principle of comity of courts, thus, has to be observed such that the Government of India having given the solemn assurance, and having accepted the same before us, is bound to act in terms of the aforesaid", the Supreme Court has held while directing that the sentence of life imprisonment on Abu Salem, a convict in the Bombay Blast Case, be commuted on completion of the period of 25 years of his sentence.
The Court also ordered that the necessary papers be forwarded within a month of the period of completion of 25 years sentence of the appellant-Abu Salem.
Abu Salem was involved in the 1993 Bombay Bomb Blast Case.
Cause Title – Abu Salem Abdul Kayyum Ansari v. The State of Maharashtra
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2022
4) Evidence Of Hostile Witness Cannot Be Rejected In Toto – SC Upholds Conviction Of Members Of LeT In 2005 IISC Terror Attack – The Apex Court upheld the conviction of members of Lasker-e-Toiba (LeT) involved in the 2005 IISC terror attack.
The Bench while holding the conviction observed that even if some of the witnesses had turned hostile, their testimonies cannot be rejected.
The Court observed –
"It is thus clear that though these witnesses did not support the Prosecution case fully, some of the features of the Prosecution case were substantiated through the testimony of these witnesses. The law on the point is clear that even if a witness is declared hostile, the evidence of such witness cannot be rejected in toto but the correct approach is to accept it to the extent his version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof."
Cause Title – Mohammad Irfan v. State of Karnataka
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice UU Lalit, Justice Hemant Gupta, & Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
5) Adherence To Law By Police Officers Should Be More Stringent Than Common Man: SC Sets Aside Anticipatory Bail Granted To SHO – The Supreme Court while setting anticipatory bail granted to a SHO observed that a police officer's adherence to the law should be more stringent than expected in general by a common man.
The Bench made this observation while adjudicating upon an appeal by the victim challenging Rajasthan High Court's order granting anticipatory bail.
Cause Title – Sadhna Chaudhary v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Date of Judgment – July 12, 2022
Coram – Justice Ajay Rastogi & Justice Vikram Nath
6) Merely By Denying Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant, Defendant Cannot Enjoy Property During Pendency Of Suit Without Depositing Rent/Damages – The Supreme Court held that merely denying the title of the plaintiff or relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant, cannot absolve the lessee/tenant to deposit the due amount of rent/damages for use and occupation.
The Bench had also observed that it was imperative for the defendant, who had not denied his status as being the lessee, to have scrupulously complied with the requirements of law and to have deposited the arrears of rent due.
Cause Title – Asha Rani Gupta v. Sri Vineet Kumar
Date of Judgment -July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice Dinesh Maheshwari & Justice Aniruddha Bose
7) "Wrongful Appointment" - SC Holds OBC Person Disentitled To Claim Right To Continue In Post Earmarked For ST Category - The Supreme Court while terming the appointment of a person belonging to Other Backward Classes (OBC) to a post earmarked for the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category as wrongful appointment, has held that the OBC category person cannot be retained in an ST category post.
Senior Advocate Maninder Singh appeared for the Appellant while Senior Advocate Anupam Lal Das appeared for the Respondent before the Apex Court.
Cause Title – The Chief Executive Officer Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai v. Mahesh Kumar Gonnade & Ors.
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice SK Kaul & Justice Hrishikesh Roy
8) Mere Referral Of Matter To Lok Adalat Does Not Affect Genuineness Of Consent Decree – The Supreme Court while setting aside the judgment of the Karnataka High Court opined, "Merely because the learned Trial Court, before whom the application was presented, referred the matter to the Lok Adalat, cannot be a ground to doubt the genuineness of the consent decree."
The Bench further held, ""Many a time, it happens that for whatever reason, instead of passing the decree/consent decree in the Court, the matter is referred to the Lok Adalat and directed to be placed before the Lok Adalat and therefore, a consent decree was passed as prayed by the parties. The aforesaid procedure adopted in the instant case cannot be a ground to doubt the genuineness of the consent decree. From the aforesaid, it cannot be said that there was a fraud committed and/or the counsel on behalf of the plaintiff to mislead the Court to refer the matter to the Lok Adalat."
Cause Title – Hemantha Kumar v. R. Mahadevaiah & Ors.
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice BV Nagarathna
9) Land Acquisition - Allottee Co. Can Neither Be 'Person Interested' Nor Entitled For Hearing Before Determination Of Compensation – While placing reliance on catena of Judgments, the Supreme Court observed that an allottee company can neither be 'person interested' nor entitled to hearing before determination of compensation.
The Court observed that an allottee company cannot be said to be a beneficiary or a "person interested" entitled for hearing before the determination of compensation.
Cause Title - Gregory Patrao and Ors. v. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited & Ors.
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice BV Nagarathna
10) Illegal Appointments - Decision Of Selection Committee Not Considered On Merits - SC Remands Matter To Single Judge – In a matter alleging illegal appointments, the Supreme Court held that the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court ought to have considered an appeal raised before it, on the grounds of merit and interfered with a wrongful decision made by the Selection Committee.
The Bench observed that – "the High Court was not justified in not deciding the same on merits on the ground that when the Selection Committee has taken a decision, in exercise of powers under judicial review, the High Court is not required to interfere with the same. Under the circumstances to the aforesaid extent the matter has to be remanded to the learned Single Judge. "
Cause Title – Biju K.K. v. Cochin University of Science and Technology, Kochi & Ors.
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice BV Nagarathna
11) Motive Assumes Significance When Accused Is Implicated Based Upon Circumstantial Evidence – The Supreme Court in a murder case held while dealing with a case of circumstantial evidence motive becomes significant.
"When we deal with a case of circumstantial evidence, as aforesaid, motive assumes significance. Though, the motive may pale into insignificance in a case involving eyewitnesses, it may not be so when an accused is implicated based upon the circumstantial evidence.", the Bench observed while setting aside the conviction of the accused.
Cause Title – Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice MM Sundresh
12) Accused May Not Be Convicted On Deposition Of Sole Witness – Supreme Court In Double Murder Case – The Supreme Court in a double murder case observed that the accused may not be convicted on the deposition of the sole witness, there must be further evidence to connect the accused with the commission of an offence.
In this case, aggrieved by the Order of the Gujarat High Court confirming the judgment and conviction passed by the Trial Court for offences under Sections 302 307 & 328 of IPC, the Appellant/Original Accused approached the Supreme Court.
Cause Title – Hajabhai Rajashibhai Odedara v. State of Gujarat
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice BV Nagarathna
13) High Courts Shouldn't Entertain Petitions Under Article 227 When Statutory Remedy Is Available Against Ex-Parte Decree – The Supreme Court while setting aside the order of the Madras High Court observed, "Once there was a statutory alternative remedy by way of an appeal available to the defendants, the High Court ought not to have entertained a writ petition or revision application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India."
In this case, the High Court had exercised powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and set aside an ex-parte judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.
Cause Title - Mohamed Ali v. V. Jaya & Ors.
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice BV Nagarathna
14) SC Dismisses Wife's Plea Seeking Husband's Regularization Of Services After 12 Years Of His Death For Grant Of Family Pension – The Supreme Court while dismissing a plea of a wife seeking husband's regularization of services after 12 years of his death for the grant of family pension, held that as per the Regularization Policy the services of the work-Âcharge employees should be regularized according to seniority only.
The case pertained to deceased husband of the respondent who was working as workÂcharge Jugali. He died in harness in 2005 as a workÂcharge employee. After a period of twelve years from the death of the deceased employee, the widow/wife of the deceased employee filed a writ petition before the Single Judge claiming that the services of her late husband ought to have been regularized and therefore, claimed that she was entitled to the family pension.
Cause Title - The State of Nagaland & Ors. v. Nishevi Achumi
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice BV Nagarathna
15) Critical To Maintain Boundaries Between Adult Problems And Children - Supreme Court In Child Custody Case - The Supreme Court while adjudicating upon a child custody case has held that the dominant consideration to which all other considerations must remain subordinate is the welfare of the child.
Further, the Bench also observed, The parties should try to do their best to remain relaxed and focused. It is critical to maintain boundaries between the adult problems and children. It is of utmost interest to protect the innocence of children and allow them to remain children. They must not be burdened by any adult problem. Minor children do not have the coping skills or the intellectual ability to understand any issues like the financial constraints, adult relationship issues or their parents unhappiness."
Cause Title – Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh v. The State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Date of Judgment – July 14, 2022
Coram – Justice AM Khanwilkar & Justice J.B. Pardiwala
16) For Claiming Benefit U/s. 10B(8) Of IT Act, Furnishing Declaration Before Due Date Of Filing Original Return Is Mandatory – While setting the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, the Supreme Court observed, that for claiming the benefit under Section 10B (8) of the IT Act, the twin conditions of furnishing a declaration before the assessing officer and that too before the due date of filing the original return of income under section 139(1) are to be satisfied and both are mandatorily to be complied with.
The Court also noted that the Assessee filed its original return under Section 139(1) and not under Section 139(3) and held that the revised return filed by the assessee under section 139(5) can only substitute its original return under Section 139(1) and cannot transform it into a return under Section 139(3), in order to avail the benefit of carrying forward or set-off of any loss under Section 80 of the IT Act.
Cause Title - Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Bangalore and another v. M/s Wipro Limited
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice BV Nagarathna
17) Section 34 IPC – Common Intention Has To Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt - SC While Setting Aside Conviction In Murder Case – While setting aside conviction awarded by the Delhi High Court in a murder case, the Supreme Court held, "Both the appellants have been charged only based upon the rule of evidence available under Section 34 of the IPC. Section 34 does not constitute an offence by itself, but creates a constructive liability. The foundational facts will have to be proved by the prosecution. Not only the occurrence, but the common intention, has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt."
The Court also held that there has to be adequate material to fasten the appellants on the basis of constructive liability as Section 34 is nothing but a rule of evidence.
Cause Title - Shishpal @ Shishu v. The State (NCT of Delhi)
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice MM Sundresh
18) Motor Accident Claim - Pecuniary Loss Suffered Cannot Be Computed Based On What Victim Earned Three Years Ago – The Apex Court while dealing with a case relating to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, held that the pecuniary loss that occurred due to the death of the victim cannot be computed based on the last drawn income which the victim had earned three years back.
The Bench set aside the judgment of the High Court to the extent of computation made of pecuniary loss on account of the death of the deceased for a sum of Rs.30,94,740/Â. The Court quantified the said sum to be Rs.44,10,000/Â.
Cause Title - S. Chandrasekharan & Ors. V. M. Dinakar & Anr.
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice Dinesh Maheshwari & Justice Aniruddha Bose
19) Removal From Service On Account Of Non-Collection Of Insurance Premium Disproportionate - SC Directs For Lesser Punishment – The Supreme Court held that the punishment of removal from service given to a Branch Manager of an Insurance Company for issuing insurance cover note without collecting premium was disproportionate to the charge and misconduct.
The Court also held, "The petitioner relied upon the assurance given by the insured that he will send the money and on that assurance the appellant issued the first cover note. However, at the same time when the second cover was issued with respect to the very vehicle, the appellant was required to cancel the earlier cover note which the appellant did not cancel, which has resulted in loss to the insurance company. However, at the same time it cannot be said that the appellant failed to maintain integrity. Therefore, this is a fit case to impose any other punishment lesser/other than the removal from service."
Cause Title - Dr. Gajendra Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice BV Nagarathna
20) Not Safe To Convict Accused Solely On Basis Of Their Identification For First Time In Court: SC Acquits Murder Accused - While observing that it was not safe/prudent to convict the accused solely based on their identification for the first time in the Court, the Supreme Court acquitted two persons accused of murder.
The Court also held that conducting TIP was necessary and that it was not safe to convict the accused solely on their identification by the complainant for the first time in the Court.
Cause Title - Amrik Singh v. The State of Punjab
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice Aniruddha Bose
21) Parties Can Participate In Proceedings Upon Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decree And Restoring Suit- The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Orissa High Court in a case related to declaration of title.
The Court held, "...on setting aside the exÂparte decree and on restoration of the suit the parties to the suit shall be put to the same position as they were at the time when the exÂparte judgment and decree was passed and the defendants may not be permitted to file the written statement as no written statement was filed. However, at the same time they can be permitted to participate in the suit proceedings and crossÂ-examine the witnesses."
Cause Title - Nanda Dulal Pradhan & Anr. v. Dibakar Pradhan & Anr.
Date of Judgment -July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice BV Nagarathna
22) Nature Of Misconduct Not So Unacceptable- Supreme Court Sets Aside Order Of Discharge From Assam Rifles For Four Red Entries – The Supreme Court set aside an order of the Guwahati High Court issued to a Rifleman in Assam Rifles on grounds that the Appellant had four Red-Ink Entries received during his service.
The Bench further issued directives that the Appellant shall be treated to have been in service and hence be eligible for pension.
Cause Title – Amarendra Kumar Pandey v. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment – July 14, 2022
Coram – Justice Suryakant & Justice J.B. Pardiwala
23) Property Dispute Of 1964: Supreme Court Remits Matter Back To High Court For Fresh Disposal – While remitting a 58 year old property dispute case to High Court for fresh disposal, the Supreme Court observed that he High Court had failed to take into consideration relevant material and held that it should have carefully scrutinized the evidence available on record.
"It is thus apparent that plaintiffÂrespondent led no evidence to establish that it was throughout in possession since 1930 after the resumption. The courts below have proceeded on assumptions and presumptions to hold in favour of the State on the question of possession and to decree the suit.", the Bench held.
Cause Title – Farooqi Begum (D) By LRS. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
Date of Judgment – July 12, 2022
Coram – Justice S. Abdul Nazeer & Justice Vikram Nath
24) Making Submissions Again Which Earlier Were Not Accepted By Court Tantamount To Contempt - While adjudicating over a contempt petition the Supreme Court observed that making repetitive submissions which have not been accepted earlier by Court is a wilful disobedience and tantamount to contempt.
"Repetitive submissions which have not been accepted earlier by court that itself is a wilful disobedience and tantamount to contempt and it shows the conduct on the part of the contemnors.", the Bench held.
Cause Title – HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Limited v. Pradeep Shantipershad Jain & Ors.
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice Aniruddha Bose
25) Educational Consultancy Not Vicariously Liable For Policy Decision Made By Foreign Nation – In an appeal challenging the order of NCDRC which had directed the Appellant – Educational Consultancy to compensate the Respondent for having to discontinue his MBBS course in the Philippines, the Supreme Court held that Educational Consultancies cannot be held vicariously liable when a student is forced to discontinue a course in a foreign nation due to change in policy/policies made by the Government of that foreign nation.
The Bench observed that – "As there is no vicarious liability that can be fastened on the appellant, the appellant's role cannot be stretched to the policy decision of the Republic of Philippines."
Cause Title – HCMI Education v. Narendra Pal Singh
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice MM Sundresh
26) In Dispute Originating From Consumers' Grievance, Role Of Court Has To Be Beyond Just Being Adjudicatory Forum – In a dispute originating from a consumer grievance, the Supreme Court held that the role of the Court must be beyond being an adjudicatory forum.
"Moreover, the nature of the dispute having originated from a consumers' grievance, the role of the Court has to be beyond just being an adjudicatory forum in an adversarial cause, and must have an element of proactivity in public interest.", the Bench held while determining the rate of delayed compensation.
Cause Title – Utpal Trehan v. DLF Home Developers Ltd.
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice Dinesh Maheshwari & Justice Aniruddha Bose
27) Article 136 Of Constitution Is Extraordinary Jurisdiction, Can Only Be Exercised Sparingly- Supreme Court Reiterates – While considering a criminal appeal, the Supreme Court reiterated that Article 136 of the Constitution of India is an extraordinary jurisdiction that has to be exercised sparingly.
The Bench dismissed an appeal filed challenging the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court whereby the High Court had upheld the judgment by the Sessions Court judge and convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 500 failing which he would undergo a simple imprisonment for three months.
Cause Title – Mekala Sivaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Date of Judgment – July 15, 2022
Coram – Justice Dinesh Maheshwari & Justice Krishna Murari
28) Advisable That High Courts Deliver Judgment At Earliest After Arguments Are Concluded – The Apex Court while considering a criminal appeal filed under Section 482 CrPC noted that the High Court had delivered the impugned judgment and order after a period of 6 months after the matter was reserved for judgment and held, "Though the judgment and order passed by the High Court may not be set aside on the aforesaid ground only, however it is always advisable that the High Court delivers the judgment at the earliest after the arguments are concluded and the judgment is reserved."
The Court in this context placed reliance on Bhagwandas Fatechand Daswani and Ors. vs. HPA International and Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 13 where it was held that a long delay in delivery of the judgment gives rise to unnecessary speculations in the minds of the parties in a case.
Cause Title - State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Akhil Sharda & Ors.
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice BV Nagarathna
29) Statement In Favour Of Accused By Prosecution Witnesses Not Declared Hostile Would Inure To Accused's Benefit- While overturning life imprisonment into acquittal in a murder case, the Apex Court held –
"No attempt whatsoever was made either to treat them as hostile or to re-examine them except that of PW10. Not even a suggestion was put to them on the presence of PW15. In such a scenario, the statement made by the prosecution witnesses in favour of the accused would certainly inure to his benefit."
The Court also held that the Prosecution had failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant committed the offence, thereby acquitting the accused.
Cause Title – Virendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice SK Kaul & Justice MM Sundresh
30) While Appreciating Ocular Evidence Approach Must Be To See If Read As A Whole It Has A Ring Of Truth- The Apex Court while deliberating upon the principles for appreciation of ocular evidence held that while appreciating such evidence, the approach must be to see whether the evidence of witness read as a whole form a ring of truth.
The Court also observed that if the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court shall attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court.
Cause Title – Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra
Date of Judgment – July 14, 2022
Coram – Justice Surya Kant and Justice J.B. Pardiwala
31) For Preliminary Assessment Of Trying Juvenile As Adult JJB Shall Take Assistance Of Psychologists, Physio-Social Workers – The Supreme Court while interpreting the proviso Section 15(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has held that the said proviso is mandatory in nature.
The Court held, "...where the Board is not comprising of a practicing professional with a degree in child psychology or child psychiatry, the expression "may" in the proviso to section 15(1) would operate in mandatory form and the Board would be obliged to take assistance of experienced psychologists or psychoÂsocial workers or other experts."
The Court upheld the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the murder case of a class II student to the extent of remanding the matter-whether the murder-accused should be tried as adult, back to the Juvenile Justice Board (the board) for fresh consideration.
Cause Title – Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu & Anr.
Date of Judgment – July 13, 2022
Coram – Justice Dinesh Maheshwari & Justice Vikram Nath
32) Prices In Ready Reckoner Cannot Form Basis For Determining Compensation Under Land Acquisition Act – The Supreme Court held that uniform rates for all the lands in the area as mentioned in the Ready Reckoner cannot be the basis for determination of compensation for the lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act.
"Therefore, the rates mentioned in the Ready Reckoner, which are basically for the purpose of collection of stamp duty and as observed hereinabove, which are the uniform rates for all the lands in the area, cannot be the basis for determination of the compensation for the lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act.", the Bench observed.
Cause Title - Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. M/s. Nemichand Damodardas & Anr.
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice BV Nagarathna
33) No Pre-Meditation - SC Modifies Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide Not Amounting To Murder - While holding that the case falls into the category of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the Supreme Court held that there was no pre-meditation of minds to commit murder.
The Bench modified a judgment passed by the Kerala High Court to hold that "the appellants would be entitled for acquittal under section 302 IPC but would be liable to be convicted under section 304 Part-II IPC. Rest of the conviction upheld by the High Court and the sentence for the charges under sections 341, 323, 324 and 427 read with section 34 IPC is maintained."
Cause Title – Ajmal v. The State of Kerala
Date of Judgment – July 12, 2022
Coram – Justice Ajay Rastogi & Justice Vikram Nath
34) Lacks InÂ-Depth Examination Of Facts - SC On Gujarat HC's Order Classifying "KADIPROL" As Poultry Feed - On the Gujarat High Court's decision classifying Kadiprol as Poultry feed, the Supreme Court observed that the aforesaid decision lacked detailed and an inÂdepth examination of the facts.
"It merely quotes and relies upon the two decisions in the case of Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd. (supra) and M/s. Pfizer (India) Ltd. (Supra) without a detailed and an inÂdepth examination of the facts as found.", the Bench observed.
Cause Title – State of Gujarat v. Cadila Healthcare Ltd.
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice Sanjiv Khanna
35) S 374(2) CrPC – Appeal Against Conviction Cannot Be Dismissed On Ground That Accused Is Absconding - The Supreme Court held Appeal against conviction filed by an Accused under Section 374(2) of the CrPC cannot be dismissed on the ground that the Accused is absconding.
The Bench opined that the action of absconding is not a ground for dismissing an Appeal against a conviction that was already admitted for final hearing, for non-prosecution without adverting to merits.
Cause Title – Dhananjay Rai @ Guddu Rai v. State of Bihar
Date of Judgment – July 14, 2022
Coram – Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice MM Sundresh
36) Evidence Of Hostile Witness Can Be Considered To The Extent It Supports Prosecution's Case – The Supreme Court has held that the evidence of a hostile witness can be considered to the extent, it supports the case of the prosecution.
"As per the settled position of law, even the evidence of a hostile witness can be considered to the extent, it supports the case of the prosecution.", the Bench held.
In this case, the Complainant's daughter and son were found with their throats slit, at their residence. One of the prosecution witnesses had spotted the Accused with the Deceased that day, prior to the murder. Based on the Accused's disclosure statement u/s 27 of Evidence Act, a bag containing blood-stained clothes was recovered. The statement of the Doctor that carried out first aid on the Accused after he sustained injuries while committing the offence was also obtained. The shopkeeper who sold the knife that was used to commit the offence to the Accused, testified and identified both the weapon and the Accused.
Cause Title – Malti Sahu v. Rahul & Anr.
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice BV Nagarathna
37) SC Upholds Bail Granted To Man Accused Of Financing Illicit Trafficking In Contrabands – The Apex Court upheld the bail granted to a man accused of financing illicit trafficking in contrabands and harbouring offenders.
The Bench dismissed an appeal filed by the State and upheld the Bail granted to the Accused charged with offence under Sections 21(b)/29/27A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.
In this case the respondent-accused was arrested for the offence under Section 27A of the NDPS Act, i.e., financing illicit trafficking in contrabands and harbouring offenders; and with the allegations that he got the contraband procured and then got it planted in a vehicle for falsely implicating the occupants of that vehicle.
Cause Title – State of West Bengal v. Rakesh Singh @ Rakesh Kumar Singh
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice Dinesh Maheshwari & Justice Aniruddha Bose
38) Customs Tariff Act, 1975 – "Anardana" to Be Classified Under Heading 1209 of Tariff Entries - The Bench heard Appeals which raised a common question - should dried pomegranate seeds, domestically known as "anardana", be classified under Heading 0813 of the Tariff entries issued under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, or under Heading 1209?
The Court observed, "we accept the finding of fact recorded by the CESTAT that 'anardana' is a dried product of local 'daru' or wild pomegranate, which grows in mid hill conditions and which fruit in its fresh form is different from the pomegranate included in clause 7 to Heading 08.10, as this wild pomegranate is not consumed as a fresh fruit".
Cause Title – Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Amritsar (Punjab) v. M/S D.L. Steels Etc.
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice Sanjiv Khanna & Justice Bela M. Trivedi
39) Appeal As Whole Doesn't Abate Solely Due To Failure To Bring On Record Legal Representatives Of Some Deceased Parties – The Bench heard a case where it was considered whether the suit had abated due to the non-bringing of the legal representatives of the deceased parties.
The Bench observed that the Court must examine if the right to sue survives against the surviving Respondents and that an appeal as a whole cannot be treated as abated merely for failing to bring on record the legal representative of some of the Respondents who died during pendency.
Cause Title - Delhi Development Authority v. Diwan Chand Anand & Ors.
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice BV Nagarathna
40) Parties Not Entitled To Specific Relief If Readiness And Willingness To Perform Contract Not Proved – While setting aside order of Madras High Court in a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of suit property holding that the Respondent-Plaintiff was not entitled to specific relief on failing to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract.
In this case, the original Defendant had agreed to sell the suit property to the Respondent Plaintiff for consideration of Rs.15,10,000/- out of which sum of Rs.10,001/- was paid by the Respondent Plaintiff in advance. The Respondent Plaintiff was to get the sale deed registered on or before15th March 2003, upon payment of the full sale consideration. The Respondent Plaintiff approached the original Defendant with the balance consideration but to his dismay, the original Defendant denied having entered into any oral sale agreement for the sale of the suit property.
Cause Title – U.N. Krishnamurthy (Since Deceased) THR LRS. v. A.M. Krishnamurthy
Date of Judgment – July 12, 2022
Coram – Justice Indira Banerjee & Justice Hrishikesh Roy
41) Fuel Throughput Charge Collected Till 2019 Was Aeronautical Service – Supreme Court Upholds TDSAT's Decision - The Supreme Court in the case of Delhi International Airport Ltd. v. Airport Economic Regulatory Authority of India & Ors. adjudicated upon the issue of whether the Fuel throughput charge (FTC) which was a fee collected by the airport operators from Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs) till 2019 for providing fuel to the aircraft, was a service or an access fee and if FTC was a service, whether FTC fell within the category of aeronautical services.
The Bench concurred with the findings of the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India (AERA) and Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) to hold that FTC was a part of the 'Aeronautical Service.'
Cause Title – Delhi International Airport Ltd. v. Airport Economic Regulatory Authority Of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice SK Kaul & Justice MM Sundresh
42) Not Mandatory To Admit CIRP Application Filed By Financial Creditor U/s. 7(5)(A) IBC Even Incase Of Default – The Bench while reversing the finding of NCLT and NCLAT that an application u/s 7(5)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) must be mandatorily admitted if a debt exists and the Corporate Debtor is in default of payment, held that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) should exercise discretion before admitting an application to initiate insolvency proceedings against a Corporate Debtor.
Senior Advocate Mr. Jaideep Gupta appeared for the Appellant while Senior Advocate Mr. Dhruv Mehta appeared for the Financial Creditor before the Apex Court.
Cause Title – Vidarbha Industries Power Limited v. Axis Bank Limited
Date of Judgment – July 12, 2022
Coram – Justice Indira Banerjee & Justice JK Maheshwari
43) Powers Conferred On SAT U/s. 15-T Confined To Examination Of Correctness And Legality Of Impugned Order Only – The Bench while dismissing the appeals preferred by the Securities Exchange Board of India has held that the powers conferred on the Securities Appellate Tribunal under Section 15-T of Chapter VI-A of the Act is confined to an examination of correctness and legality of the order under challenge.
The Court noted that when a statutory enactment consciously defines a word or expression by enlarging or restricting the ordinary meaning then in the absence of clear indication to the contrary, the defined term would cover what is proposed, authorized, done or referred in the enactment.
Cause Title – Securities And Exchange Board Of India V. Sunil Krishna Khaitan And Others
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice Sanjiv Khanna & Justice Bela M. Trivedi
44) On Patent Illegality Committed By Arbitrator, Court Can Only Set Aside Award And Allow Arbitrator To Reconsider Matter – The Bench held that when the Court is of the opinion that the Arbitrator has committed patent illegality in applying two different notifications in determining the market value, keeping in view the scope available under Section 34 of Act, 1996 it would not be open for the Court to substitute its view to that of the Arbitrator and modify the award.
The Court noted that the only course open is to set aside the award and allow the Arbitrator to reconsider the matter on that aspect.
Cause Title - National Highways Authority of India v. Sri P. Nagaraju @ Cheluvaiah & Anr.
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2021
Coram – Justice Indira Banerjee & Justice AS Bopanna
45) Subsequent Amendment By State Cannot Be Applicable When Nobody Applied For IEM For Setting New Sugar Factory – The Supreme Court in a case observed that revised parameters by the State Government cannot be applicable when no other entrepreneur has applied for IEM to set up a sugar factory in the area in question.
"Since no other entrepreneur has applied for IEM to set up a sugar factory in the area in question, it is not open to the existing sugar factory to contend that the revised parameters by the State Government should be made applicable. IEM fixes the timeline from the date of issuance of the same and the subsequent amendment in the Control Order would not have any application towards the IEM already issued.", the Bench observed.
Cause Title - Swami Samarth Sugars And Agro Industries Ltd. V. Loknete Marutrao Ghule Patil Dnyaneshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd & Ors.
Date of Judgment – July 13, 2022
Coram – Justice Hemant Gupta & Justice V. Ramasubramanian
46) Burning In Hot Oil To Chopping Of Breast Of 70 Year Old Tribal- Here Is Why SC Took Serious View On False Allegations Against Armed Forces - The Supreme Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed in the year 2009 by Himanshu Kumar, who claimed to be a tribal activist and 12 tribals who claimed to be relatives of victims of an alleged massacre that took place on September 17 and October 1, 2009, in Dantewada district of Chhattisgarh.
The Court dismissed the Writ Petition where the Petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves and imposed a cost of ₹ 5 Lakhs on Himanshu Kumar and also allowed an application filed by the Union of India by asking the Chhattisgarh police or the CBI to take appropriate action against the Petitioners for conspiring to deter security agencies from acting against the Left Wing (Naxal) militia.
Cause Title - Himanshu Kumar & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Date of Judgment – July 14, 2022
Coram – Justice AM Khanwilkar & Justice JB Pardiwala
47) Supreme Court Sentences Vijay Mallya To Four Months Imprisonment For Contempt Of Court – The Court sentenced Vijay Mallya to four months imprisonment for committing contempt of Court. The Court has also imposed a fine of Rs.2000 on Mallya.
The Court also directed Mallya to deposit the 40 Million US Dollar with eight percent interest, within four weeks.
The Bench also held that Mallya did not show any remorse for his conduct and that it is necessary to impose the sentence to uphold the majesty of law.
The Supreme Court had, on a petition filed by the banks alleging that Vijay Mallaya was not disclosing his assets and that while he owed money to the tune of Rs. 9000 crores and had transferred an amount of $40 million to his children, held that Vijay Mallya was guilty of disobeying the orders passed by the Court.
Cause Title – State Bank of India & Ors. v. Dr. Vijay Mallya
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice UU Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat & Justice PS Narasimha
48) Person Who Makes False Statement And Deceives Court Is Guilty Of Contempt – The Supreme Court in a Suo Moto Contempt Petition has held that a person who makes a false statement and deceives the Court is guilty of contempt of Court.
The Bench observed –
"It is thus well settled that a person who makes a false statement before the Court and makes an attempt to deceive the Court, interferes with the administration of justice and is guilty of contempt of Court. The extracted portion above clearly shows that in such circumstances, the Court not only has the inherent power but it would be failing in its duty if the alleged contemnor is not dealt with in contempt jurisdiction for abusing the process of the Court."
Cause Title – In RE: Perry Kansagra
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice UU Lalit & Justice PS Narasimha
49) Finance Act, 1994 Mandated Body Corporate Providing Services As Consulting Engineer To Pay Service Tax - The Supreme Court has recently observed that the definition of "consulting engineer" under the Finance Act, 1994, included "body corporate" within its sweep prior to the amendment in 2005.
The Court was adjudicating upon the issue of whether the definition of "consulting engineer" under Section 65(31) of the Finance Act, 1994, included "body corporate" within its sweep prior to the amendment in 2005.
Cause Title – Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur v. M/s Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice Sanjiv Khanna
50) Sufficiency/Inadequacy Of Reasons Cannot Be Gone Into While Considering Validity Of Act Of Authorization – The Supreme Court has observed that the sufficiency or inadequacy of the reasons to believe recorded cannot be gone into while considering the validity of an act of authorization to conduct search and seizure.
The Bench opined that "…the sufficiency or inadequacy of the reasons to believe recorded cannot be gone into while considering the validity of an act of authorization to conduct search and seizure. The belief recorded alone is justiciable but only while keeping in view the Wednesbury Principle of Reasonableness. Such reasonableness is not a power to act as an appellate authority over the reasons to believe recorded."
Cause Title – Principle Director of Income Tax (Investigation) & Ors.v. Laljibhai Kanjibhai Mandalia
Date of Judgment – July 13, 2022
Coram – Justice Hemant Gupta & Justice V. Ramasubramanian
51) Delegated Legislation Must Be In Conformity With Enactment Of Legislature Which Authorises Its Making – The Supreme Court reiterated the settled principle that delegated legislation must be in conformity with the enactment of the legislature which authorises its making.
"This must however, be understood in the perspective of the fact that the Attorney General had placed a solemn assurance before the Court that the rule would be rectified to bring it in conformity with the parent enactment and the decisions of this Court. Implicit in this is the settled principle that delegated legislation must be in conformity with the enactment of the legislature which authorises its making. A rule cannot rise above the source of power.", the Bench held.
Cause Title – Talli Gram Panchayat v. Union of India and Ors.
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice DY Chandrachud & Justice AS Bopanna
52) Supreme Court Acquits Bus Conductors Accused In Scam Worth Crores On Lack Of Evidence – The Supreme Court in this case acquitted 3 bus conductors accused of a scandal that caused losses to the Government amounting to crores of rupees - as it found that there was not enough evidence against the accused.
In this case, a driver of the Punjab Roadways Depot made a complaint to the higher officers alleging that the General Manager of the Depot – in connivance with the conductor and others – had been selling and using tickets got printed on his own and sold through his own persons, who used to collect money for him and caused loss to the tune of crores of rupees to the Depot.
Cause Title – Jarnail Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment – July 12, 2022
Coram – Justice Ajay Rastogi & Justice Vikram Nath
53) Dedication Of Property For Religious Purposes Does Not Require Express Dedication Or Document – The Supreme Court while restraining the Appellant from interfering in any manner with the right of the Temple authorities to take out the suit jewellery from the Kudavarai whenever the occasion demands has held, "The dedication of the suit jewellery does not require an express dedication or document, and can be inferred from the circumstances, especially the uninterrupted and long possession of the suit jewellery by the respondent/Temple."
The Apex Court also passed a decree ordering the Appellant to cooperate with the requests made by the Temple to open the Kudavarai doors and take out the jewellery from the iron safe whenever required.
Cause Title – R.M. Sundaram @ Meenakshisundaram V. Sri Kayarohanasamy And Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple (Through Its Executive Officer) Nagapattinam, Tamil Nadu
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice Ajay Rastogi & Justice Sanjiv Khanna
54) Right Available To Judgment Debtor To Save Property Shouldn't Be Affected Because Of Bonafide Mistake – The Supreme Court has observed that the right available to the judgment debtor to save his property should not be affected on technical ground and/or bonafide mistake for which he was not responsible.
"Thus, the right which is available to the judgment debtor under Rule 60 is a most valuable right available and the same shall not be permitted to be affected on the technical ground and/or bona fide mistake for which he cannot be said to be at fault.", the Bench held.
Cause Title – M/s. R.S. Infra-Transmission Ltd. v. Saurinindubhai Patel and Ors.
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice BV Nagarathna
55) SC Interprets Contract Clause For Conciliation Attempt Before Arbitration In 'Practical Manner' To Allow NHAI To Raise Counter Claim – The Supreme Court held that the counterclaim of a party cannot be rejected simply on the ground that the claims were not notified before the invocation of arbitral proceedings.
"Clauses 26.1 and 26.2 have to be interpreted in a pragmatic and practical manner, as they require that the parties must at first try to settle, resolve and even try conciliation but when the procedure under Clauses 26.1 and 26.2 fails to yield desired result, in the form of settlement within the period specified in Clause 26.2, the Dispute can be resolved through arbitration in terms of Clause 26.3", the Court held.
Cause Title – National Highway Authority of India v. Transstroy (India) Limited
Date of Judgment – July 11, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice Sanjiv Khanna
56) In Suit By Licensee Challenging Revocation Of License, Mortgage Created Prior To License Cannot Be Challenged – The Supreme Court while setting aside a Delhi High Court order has observed, "in a suit challenging revocation of the respective licenses, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to challenge the respective mortgages /charges created on the entire premises as void abÂinitio."
Further, the Court also held, "As per the settled proposition of law, if, by permitting plaintiffs to amend the plaint including a prayer clause nature of the suit is likely to be changed, in that case, the Court would not be justified in allowing the amendment. It would also result in misjoinder of causes of action."
Cause Title – Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. v. Alok Kumar Lodha & Ors.
Date of Judgment – July 12, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice BV Nagarathna
