Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: October 2 – October 6, 2023
1) Supreme Court affirms extension of limitation periods during Covid-19, including condonable delays
The Court held that the High Court's decision to reject the defendants' applications for an extension of time to file their written statements was not justified directing the written statements filed on January 20, 2021, to be taken on record.
The High Court had dismissed the applications filed by the defendants on January 20, 2021 seeking an extension of time to file their written statements in a suit filed by the plaintiff. The defendants had failed to file their written statements within the original 30-day period, which expired on March 08, 2020, and the subsequent condonable period of 90 days, which expired on June 06, 2020.
Cause Title- Aditya Khaitan & Ors. v. IL and FS Financial Services Limited
Date of Judgment- October 3, 2023
Coram- Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
2) Acquittal from criminal proceedings does not automatically discharge employee from departmental proceedings as both are separate and distinct: SC reiterates
The Court held that acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically discharge a delinquent employee as these are separate and distinct.
The Court set aside the restoration order of a Bank Employee who was discharged from his services after three FIRs were filed against him, and the Departmental proceedings established the allegations.
Cause Title- State Bank of India & Ors. v P. Zadenga
Date of Judgment- October 3, 2023
Coram- Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Sanjay Karol
3) Mere non-cooperation of witness in response to ED summons won't be enough to render him liable to be arrested u/s. 19 of PMLA
The Court held that mere non-cooperation of a witness in response to the summons issued under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) would not be enough to render him/her liable to be arrested under Section 19 of PMLA. It has set aside the arrest of persons saying that the same was not as per Section 19(1) of PMLA and that the clandestine conduct of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) did not commend acceptance.
The Court was dealing with a batch of appeals challenging the orders passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby it dismissed the plea of the accused. By the order, the Division Bench observed that as the constitutional validity of Section 19 of PMLA had been upheld by the Supreme Court, the challenge to the same by the writ petitioners could not be considered only because a review petition was pending before the Supreme Court.
Cause Title- Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment- October 3, 2023
Coram- Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar
4) Plenary powers under Article 142 can’t be used to supplant substantive law applicable to case or to cause under consideration of court
The Court held that the plenary powers of the Apex Court under Article 142 cannot be used to supplant the substantive law applicable to the case or the cause under consideration of the court.
A miscellaneous application was filed in the civil appeal by the applicant seeking directions to the Union Bank of India to issue Sale letter in favour of the applicant in respect of the property on the ground that the applicant/auction purchaser had made the full and final payment of the auction amount along with interest in terms of the order passed by the Apex Court.
Cause Title- Union Bank of India v. Rajat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Date of Judgment- October 4, 2023
Coram- Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
5) Court ought not to have considered delay of 459 days without satisfactory explanation: SC while allowing appeal of Karnataka State Electronics Corp
The Court allowed the appeal of Karnataka State Electronics Development Corporation saying that the High Court ought not to have considered the delay of 459 days without satisfactory explanation.
The Court was dealing with an appeal against the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court whereby the appeal of the appellant was dismissed, thereby confirming the judgment of the Single Judge allowing the writ petition of the respondent and dismissing the review petition respectively.
Cause Title- Karnataka State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. v. Kumaon Entertainment and Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd.
Date of Judgment- October 4, 2023
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
6) Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission’s subsequent order cancelling licenses of distribution companies will have no bearing on tariff fixation of earlier years
The Court held that the subsequent orders of the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission (Commission) canceling licenses of distribution companies (DISCOM) will have no bearing on the tariff fixation of earlier years.
A number of Civil Appeals were filed by the Government of Orissa Undertaking (GRIDCO), Western Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd. (WESCO), North-Eastern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd. (NESCO), Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd. (SESCO), and the Orissa Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. (OPTCL) against the orders of the Appellate Tribunal of electricity. The Appeals concerned the annual revenue requirement (ARR) and bulk supply tariff (BST) for the years 2006-07 to 2012-13.
Cause Title- GRIDCO Ltd. v Western Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd. & Ors.
Date of Judgment- October 5, 2023
Coram- Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Abhay S. Oka
7) Onus is on tenant to disclose such facts as would disentitle summary eviction u/s. 13-b of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act
The Court upheld the eviction order issued under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, stating that the respondent, as the owner of the property, had met all legal requirements for eviction and that the appellant failed to provide valid grounds to contest the eviction, as mandated by Section 18-A of the Act.
In this case, the appellant challenged an eviction order from a shop at Guru Amardas Chowk, Model Town, Jalandhar, filed by the respondent. The eviction was sought on the grounds that the respondent, who inherited the property, needed it for business purposes.
Cause Title- Mukesh Kumar v. S. Kuldeep Singh
Date of Judgment- October 5, 2023
Coram- Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
8) Nothing prevents Magistrate to accord benefit of exception u/s. 499 IPC to prevent frivolous defamation complaint from triggering unnecessary trial
The Court held that the Magistrate, while considering a defamation complaint, has the authority to assess whether there is "sufficient ground for proceeding" based on the allegations and evidence provided. The Court held Magistrate can dismiss a defamation complaint by applying the exceptions under section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 even before even summoning the accused.
The appellant, a German company, challenged a summoning order issued by a Trial Court in India. The order was based on a complaint filed by the respondent, alleging defamation and its abetment against the appellant and others. The appellant's representative had issued letters of complaint making serious allegations against the respondent.
Cause Title- M/S Iveko Magirus Brandshutztechnik Gmbh v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya & Anr.
Date of Judgment- October 5, 2023
Coram- Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Dipankar Datta
9) Supreme Court holds inapplicability of Section 50 of NDPS act to search of bag carried by person; summarises principles
The Court summarised the principles relating to Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, which has prescribed the conditions under which a search of persons must be conducted. Further, the Court also reiterated that the conditions for personal search under the statute are only applicable for the search of the physical body of a person, and not for the search of any bag that the person is carrying.
In this case, the Court was hearing an appeal preferred against a Judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, wherein it was held that Section 50 of the Act was not applicable to the recovery from a bag.
Cause Title- Ranjan Kumar Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Date of Judgment- October 6, 2023
Coram- Justice MM Sundresh and Justice JB Pardiwala
10) Section 106 Evidence Act Does Not Inherently Impose Burden On Accused, Comes Into Play When Accused Fails To Provide Explanation About Facts They Should Know
The Court observed that Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not inherently impose a burden on the accused but comes into play when the accused fails to provide any explanation regarding facts that should be within their knowledge, facts that could support theories compatible with their innocence.
In this case, the Court was hearing an appeal against a Judgment passed by the Uttarakhand High Court, which upheld the conviction of the appellant-husband under Section 302 and Section 498A of the IPC, and the mother-in-law under Section 498A of the IPC.
Cause Title- Balvir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand
Date of Judgment- October 6, 2023
Coram- Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
11) In perpetual injunction for title claim where defendant is claiming title by adverse possession, plaintiff need not seek ownership declaration
The Court held that in a suit simpliciter for a perpetual injunction based on title if the defendant pleads perfection of his title by adverse possession, it cannot be said that there is any dispute about the title of the plaintiff and therefore seeking a declaration of ownership is not necessary.
The Court partly allowed an Appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court wherein the Court set aside the decree passed by the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court overturned the dismissal decree of the Trial Court for the suit for declaration of ownership.
Cause Title- KM Krishna Reddy v. Vinod Reddy and Anr
Date of Judgment- October 6, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal
12) Customs Valuation Rules| When transaction value under Rule 4 is rejected, value be determined by proceeding sequentially through Rules 5 to 8
The Court held that when transaction value under Rule 4 is rejected, the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially through Rules 5 to 8 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988.
The Court was deciding a batch of two appeals that arose out of a common judgment and final order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai.
Cause Title- Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai v. M/s Ganpati Overseas through its Proprietor Shri Yashpal Sharma & Anr.
Date of Judgment- October 6, 2023
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
13) Section 68 IEA | At least one attesting witness is required to prove execution of will for it to be valid u/s. 63 of Succession Act: SC reiterates
The Court reiterated that Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) requires at least one attesting witness to prove the Will's execution in line with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (ISA).
The Court dismissed the Appeal challenging the High Court’s order wherein the Will of Leela Devi (Appellant’s Maternal Aunt) was considered invalid.
Cause Title- Dhani Ram (deceased) (through LRs) & others v Shiv Singh
Date of Judgment- October 6, 2023
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar
14) NRI landlord does not need to be physically present in country to initiate eviction proceedings under East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act
The Court affirmed the Rent controller’s views that an NRI landlord can initiate eviction proceedings under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (Act) without being physically present in the country. The Court dismissed a Civil Appeal challenging the eviction order of the Rent Controller.
The Court emphasized that the circumstances stated were normal and correctly reviewed by the Rent Controller while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 13-B read with Section 18-A Sub-Sections (4) and (5) of the Act.
Cause Title- Shanta Rani v. Nasib Kaur
Date of Judgment- October 5, 2023
Coram- Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
