JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Unilateral Cancellation Of Registered Sale Deed Can't Be An Anticipatory Bail Condition: Supreme CourtCase: Syed Afsar Pasha Quadri v The State of TelanganaCitation : LL 2021 SC 474The Supreme Court has observed that a registered sale deed cannot be cancelled unilaterally by one party to the said document in purported compliance of the direction given by the High...
JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK
Case: Syed Afsar Pasha Quadri v The State of Telangana
Citation : LL 2021 SC 474
The Supreme Court has observed that a registered sale deed cannot be cancelled unilaterally by one party to the said document in purported compliance of the direction given by the High Court, since that adversely affects the rights of the purchasers who are not a party before the High Court.
The bench of Chief Justice NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli in the present matter was hearing a special leave petition filed assailing the order dated June 8, 2021 by the High Court of Telangana wherein the High Court while granting anticipatory bail had directed the accused to cancel the registered sale deed executed by him and return the money received from the complainant.
Case: George Mangalapilly vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: LL 2021 SC 473
The Supreme Court quashed criminal case against a man accused of forcibly converting a person to Christianity.
According to the prosecution, the George Mangalapilly had converted one Dharmendar Dohar to Christianity. He was charged for offences punishable under Sections 153(B)(1) and 295-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the M.P. Freedom of Religion Act, 1968.
In the trial that followed, Dharmendar Dohar in his examination-in chief denied that he was converted by the accused. He stated that his signatures were obtained on a piece of paper by certain persons, on the basis of which the prosecution was launched against the accused. The witness was declared hostile and was extensively cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor.
The Apex Court bench of Justices UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and CT Ravikumar, in appeal filed by the accused, held that the testimony of the witness is significant in this case.
Case name: M.A Khaliq vs. Ashok Kumar
Citation : LL 2021 SC 472
The Supreme Court observed that summoning and detaining a person without there being any crime registered against him would be violative of basic principles.
The directions issued in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, would be applicable even if no crime was registered, the bench of Justices UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela M. Trivedi observed.
"The mere fact that no crime was registered, could not be a defence, nor would it be an escape from the rigour of the decisions rendered by this Court. As a matter of fact, summoning the person without there being any crime registered against him and detaining him would itself be violative of basic principles", the court observed.
Case name: UFLEX Ltd. Vs. Govt. Of Tamil Nadu
Citation: LL 2021 SC 465
The Supreme Court observed that costs must follow the cause in commercial matters including writ petitions.
The court added that it is not a correct approach to presume that imposition of costs is a reflection on the counsel.
The bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy observed that tender jurisdiction was created for scrutiny of commercial matters and, thus, where continuously parties seek to challenge award of tenders, we are of the view that the succeeding party must get costs and the party which loses must pay costs.
Case: Ramesh Chandra Srivastava vs. State of UP
Citation : LL 2021 SC 468
The Supreme Court observed that the power under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be exercised only when strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence.
The bench of Justices KM Joseph and PS Narasimha reiterated that the power under Section 319 CrPC cannot be exercised in a casual and cavalier manner. The test to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case which is applied at the time of framing of charge, the bench added.
Case name: Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited vs. Anil Kanwariya
Citation: LL 2021 SC 466
The Supreme Court observed that an employee who made a false declaration and/or suppressed the material fact of his involvement in a criminal case shall not be entitled to an appointment or to continue in service as a matter of right.
"Where the employer feels that an employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the material facts and therefore he cannot be continued in service because such an employee cannot be relied upon even in future, the employer cannot be forced to continue such an employee. The choice/option whether to continue or not to continue such an employee always must be given to the employer", the bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna observed.
Case name: Neha @ Pooja Alizad Vs. Vaibhav Kumar @ Chetan Sancheti
Citation: LL 2021 SC 469
The Supreme Court observed that a single bench hearing Transfer petition cannot pass a decree divorce by mutual consent under Section under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
In a recent order, Justice Abhay S. Oka, referring to Supreme Court Rules 2013, said he could not pass a decree of divorce 'sitting singly'.
Before the single bench, the parties to a transfer petition submitted that in terms of the settlement arrived before the Mediator, they have complied with all the agreed terms and conditions.
Case name: Anjali Rathi VS s Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: LL 2021 SC 462
The Supreme Court observed that the moratorium ordered under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code does not apply in respect of the directors/management of the Corporate Debtor.
It applies only in relation to the Corporate Debtor and against its directors/management, proceedings could continue, the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and Hima Kohli observed.
Case name: Sudhir Kumar @ S. Baliyan vs. Vinay Kumar G.B.
Citation: LL 2021 SC 458
The Supreme Court observed that the requirement under Order XI Rule 1(4) of Code of Civil Procedure (as applicable to commercial suits) of establishing the reasonable cause for non disclosure of the documents along with the plaint under shall not be applicable if it is averred and it is the case of the plaintiff that those documents have been found subsequently and in fact were not in the plaintiff's power, possession, control or custody at the time when the plaint was filed.
The court observed that a further thirty days time is provided to the plaintiff to place on record or file such additional documents in court and a declaration on oath is required to be filed by the plaintiff as was required as per Order XI Rule 1 (3) if for any reasonable cause for non disclosure along with the plaint, the documents, which were in the plaintiff's power, possession, control or custody and not disclosed along with plaint. Therefore plaintiff has to satisfy and establish a reasonable cause for non disclosure along with plaint.
Case: Union of India vs. VKC Footsteps India Pvt Ltd. ; CA 4810 of 2021
Citation: LL 2021 SC 446
In its judgment delivered this week, the Supreme Court observed that One Hundred and First Amendment to the Constitution, which introduced Goods and Service Tax regime, is a watershed moment in the evolution of cooperative federalism.
It brought about a significant merger by contemplating a fiscal umbrella comprehending GST, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed.
The court noted that the constitutional scheme embodying GST is facilitated through the composition of the GST Council under Article 279A.
IMPORTANT APEX COURT UPDATES
1. Supreme Court Allows Kerala Govt To Hold Plus One Exams Offline; Dismisses Plea Against It
The Supreme Court this week dismissed a petition filed against the decision of the Kerala Government to hold Plus One (Class XI) exams in offline mode.
A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar observed that the reasons given by the State Government in its affidavit were convincing and hence the petition was liable to be dismissed.
"We hope and trust that the authorities will take necessary precautions", the bench observed in the order.
The petitioner approached the Supreme Court challenging the judgment of the Kerala High Court which refused to interfere with the decision of the Government to conduct Plus One exams.
The Supreme Court directed the State of Gujarat to prepare a draft mechanism to consider requests for bona fide transfers of property allotted to MLAs, MPs, and Government Officials by the State Government.
A Bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli has issued direction in an application filed by BJP MLA Sunil Oza aggrieved by High Court orders. The applicant said that he is desirous to transfer his property, a plot in Gandhinagar Gujarat.
The Bench recorded, "We direct State Government to prepare a draft as sought by the petitioner in this relief. List the matter after one week."
The application has been filed by Oza to intervene in the special leave petition filed before Supreme Court a decade ago in relation to the scheme and policy of the state regarding allotment of residential plots at concessional rates in Gandhinagar to MPs, MLAs, government officials and employees.
Extremely upset with the manner in which the Central Government terminated the services of Justice Ashok Iqbal Singh Cheema as the Acting Chairperson of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, the Supreme Court orally said that it will suo motu stay the Tribunals Reforms Act 2021.
The Tribunals Reforms Act 2021 has become a point of friction between the Supreme Court and the Central Government, as the Court is unhappy that the Act has been passed with the very same provisions which were struck down in the Madras Bar Association case.
A Bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli were hearing Justice Ashok Iqbal Singh Cheema's plea against his premature retirement as acting Chairperson of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on 10th September by Centre, whereas he was due to retire on 20th September as per his initial appointment order.
The Attorney General for India KK Venugopal vide letter dated September 14, 2021 has granted consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Ajeet Bharti for his "scurrilous" and "highlighly derogatory" words in YouTube video dated June 24, 2021 against Supreme Court and its judges.
"I find that the contents of the video which has been watched by about 1.7 lakh viewers are vituperative, gross and highly derogatory to the Supreme Court of India and the judiciary as a whole being clearly intended to denigrate the courts. The allegations made by Mr Ajeet Bharti against the Supreme Court are, among other things, of bribery, favouritism and abuse of power," the AG said.
The Supreme Court stayed the Himachal Pradesh High Court's order of constituting a District Monitoring Committee for each district to monitor the situation of CoVID.
The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna while staying the order took note of the fact that the Committee constituted by the High Court was not an expert Committee consisting of domain experts.
While issuing notice in the special leave petition filed by the Himachal Pradesh Government assailing Himachal Pradesh High Court's order dated July 7, 2021 passed by the division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, the Top Court said that the pendency of proceedings before the Supreme Court would not restrain the High Court from monitoring the steps taken by the Government with regards to COVID.
6. Centre, States Urge Supreme Court To Settle Confusion In Reservation Norms For Promotions
The Central Government and various state governments have urged the Supreme Court to urgently hear the issues relating to reservation in promotions as several appointments have been stalled due to the ambiguities in the norms for applying reservation in promotions.
A total number of 133 petitions arising from various states were listed before a bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna and BR Gavai.
The Attorney General for India KK Vengupal and senior advocates appearing for different states told the Court that several appointments in governments posts have been stalled due to unsettled issues relating to reservation in promotions.
The Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation which sought for ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to kin of an advocate who has died within 60 years of age due to CoVID or in any other manner.
A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna termed the PIL bogus and warned the petitioner, Advocate Pradeep Kumar Yadav, of costs.
"If you are in black coat, doesn't mean your life is more precious", Justice Chandrachud said.
The Supreme Court this week reserved interim orders on a batch of petitions seeking investigation into the alleged illegal use of Pegasus spyware to snoop civilians, journalists, etc.
The development comes as the Centre has expressed unwillingness to file an affidavit in the matter, citing concerns over national security.
"We thought the Government will file a counter-affidavit and will decide further course of action. Now the only issue to be considered is the interim orders to be passed," the CJI said at the outset.
The Supreme Court asked the Department of Child and Welfare, State of Maharashtra to come up with a concrete plan on how it intends to spend a sum of Rs 25 crore for the welfare of children who had lost both their parents to CoVID 19 pandemic.
Division bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna in its order noted that about 19,000 children had lost at least one parent due to the CoVID 19 pandemic and it was estimated that 593 children had lost both their parents due to the pandemic.