Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: Nov 28 – Dec 2, 2022
1) SC transfers Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy's murder case from Andhra Pradesh to Hyderabad CBI Court: The Court transferred the trial of the murder of former AP Minister YS Vivekananda Reddy from Andhra Pradesh to Special CBI Court Hyderabad, observing that the apprehensions raised by the wife and daughter of the deceased, that there may not be an independent and fair investigation and that fair trial will be derailed, are reasonable.
In this case, the transfer petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by the daughter and wife of the deceased, who was brutally murdered in his house. The deceased was the cousin of Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister YS Jaganmohan Reddy and was an opposition leader at the time of the incident.
Cause Title – Suneetha Narreddy & Anr. v. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.
Date of Judgment – November 29, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice MM Sundresh
2) Limitation period prescribed U/s. 11B of Central Excise Act is applicable to claims for rebate of duty: The Court observed that with respect to the claim of rebate of duty under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 (2002 Rules), the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1994 should be applied.
The Bench relied upon the decision of Everest Flavours Ltd. v. Union of India, 2012 (282) ELT 481 (Bombay) and observed that "since statutory provision for refund in Section 11B brings within its purview, a rebate of excise 22 duty, Rule 18 of the 2002 Rules cannot be read independent of requirement of limitation prescribed in Section 11B."
Cause Title – Sansera Engineering Limited v. Deputy Commissioner, Large Tax Payer Unit, Bengaluru
Date of Judgment – November 29, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice MM Sundresh
3) Duty of pharmacy council, state govt to see that hospitals/medical stores are not run by fake pharmacists: The Court observed that under the provisions of the Pharmacy Act, of 1948, it is the duty of the Pharmacy Council and State Government to see that hospitals/medical stores, etc., are not run by fake pharmacists and are run by a registered pharmacist only.
The Bench deprecated the practice of the High Court and held that the manner in which Court had disposed of the PIL ventilating the very serious grievance touching the health and life of the citizen is disapproved.
Cause Title – Mukesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Date of Judgment – November 29, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice MM Sundresh
4) Entitlement to concessional rate- Oxygen gas cannot be said to be "raw material" used in manufacture of steel: The Court while deciding an appeal filed by the State of Jharkhand and other authorities against Linde India Limited (erstwhile known as India Oxygen Limited) and Tata Iron and Steel Company held that the oxygen gas cannot be said to be a "raw material" used in the manufacture of the end product – steel.
The Bench was dealing with the matter in which the Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondents and had quashed and set aside the order passed by the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Ranchi holding that the respondents were entitled to benefit of concessional rate of duty at 2%.
Cause Title – State of Jharkhand and others v. Linde India Limited and Another
Date of Judgment – December 2, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice MM Sundresh
5) Application under order 33 rule 1 CPC to sue as indigent can be rejected if barred by res judicata: The Court while dealing with an appeal filed against the judgment and order passed by the Madras High Court by which the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting an application was confirmed held that the application filed under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code to sue as an indigent person can be rejected if the suit is found to be barred by Res Judicata.
In this case, the appellants (original plaintiffs) instituted a suit before the Trial Court for declaration of title and for recovery of possession. In the suit, they filed an application seeking permission to file the suit as indigent persons. Such an application was opposed by the respondents (original defendants) on the grounds that the suit is barred by res judicata and that there is no cause of action for filing the suit.
Cause Title – Solomon Selvaraj & Ors. v. Indirani Bhagawan Singh & Ors.
Date of Judgment – December 2, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice MM Sundresh
6) SC orders man's appointment as constable whose candidature was rejected as he was involved in criminal case: The Court directed the appointment of a man to the post of Police Constable whose candidature was cancelled as he was involved in a criminal case.
The Bench observed that the offence for which he was tried ultimately resulted into acquittal and had arisen out of the matrimonial dispute which ultimately ended in settlement out of the court.
Cause Title – Pramod Singh Kirar v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Date of Judgment – December 2, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice CT Ravikumar
7) Land acquisition proceedings shall not lapse if award not made as on commencement of LA Act 2013- SC reiterates: The Court by way of six different judgments in land acquisition matters reiterated that land acquisition proceedings shall not lapse if an award is not made as on the commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
In five out of the six matters, the Government of NCT Delhi had approached the Apex Court assailing the judgment of the Delhi High Court had declared that the land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 with regard to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 2013.
Cause Title – Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. v. Subhash Jain & Ors.
Date of Judgment – December 2, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice CT Ravikumar
8) HC didn't consider individual role played by each accused- SC while setting aside bail granted to accused in ISRO Espionage Case: The Court set aside the order of the Kerala High Court granting anticipatory bail to former police officials in the case related to the 1994 espionage case wherein ISRO scientist S. Nambi Narayanan was allegedly framed by the police officials.
The Apex Court, remanding the matter to the High Court, observed that "it appears that the High Court has made some observations without considering the individual role played by the respective accused when they were working in the Kerala Police/IB and without considering the nature of allegations against them, we are of the opinion that the matters need to be remanded to the High Court to consider the anticipatory bail applications afresh."
Cause Title – Central Bureau of Investigation v. P.S. Jayaprakash Etc. Etc.
Date of Judgment – December 2, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice CT Ravikumar
