As the end of year 2021 is nearing, LiveLaw brings to you an yearly Round-up of Supreme Court judgments. This yearly digest includes 766 orders and judgments, listed in the order of LiveLaw citation index.Due to the bulky size of the digest, it is being published in three parts. Part 1 covered citations from 1 to 250. Part two will cover citations from 250 to 500 and part three will...
As the end of year 2021 is nearing, LiveLaw brings to you an yearly Round-up of Supreme Court judgments. This yearly digest includes 766 orders and judgments, listed in the order of LiveLaw citation index.
Due to the bulky size of the digest, it is being published in three parts. Part 1 covered citations from 1 to 250. Part two will cover citations from 250 to 500 and part three will cover citations from 500 to 766. Part 3 is to be published. Part 1 can be read here. Part 3 can be read here.
251. Supreme Court Constitutes National Task Force To Formulate Methodology For Scientific Allocation Of Medical Oxygen To States, UTs
[Case: Union of India v. Rakesh Malhotra; Citation: LL 2021 SC 250]
A division bench comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah constituted a 12-member National Task Force to formulate a methodology for scientific allocation of liquid medical oxygen to all the States and Union Territories in order to deal with the dearth of oxygen supply amid the second Covid wave. The Task Force which will be at liberty to draw upon the human resources of the Union Government for consultation and information and may also constitute one or more sub-groups on specialised areas or regions for assisting it, before finalising its recommendations.
Also Read: Supreme Court Directs Audit Of Medical Oxygen Supplied To States/UTs To Ensure Accountability
252. Dying Declaration Can Be Sole Basis For Conviction Only When Court Is Satisfied That It Is True And Voluntary, Reiterates Supreme Court
[Case: Jayamma v. State of Karnataka; Citation: LL 2021 SC 251]
A Bench of CJI NV Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose reiterated that a Court must be satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary, and only then could it be the sole basis for conviction without corroboration. The court noted the following factors (i) interpolation in the dying declaration (ii) contradiction in the statements of prosecution witnesses regarding injuries on the palm, (iii) the victim with 80% injuries was apparently not in a situation to talk or give statement, (iv) PW-2, son of the deceased himself has stated that his mother committed suicide as she could not bear that her another son had been sent to jail, (v) there being no corroborative evidence to the statement , and (vi) there is no other evidence led by the prosecution to connect the appellants with the crime except the statement.
253. Motor Accident Compensation - Self-Employed Deceased Aged Below 40 Years Entitled To 40% Addition As Future Prospects: Supreme Court
[Case: Rahul Sharma & Anr. v. National Insurance Company Ltd & Ors.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 252]
A Bench comprising of CJI NV Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose reiterated that addition of 40% income must be given towards future prospects while computing motor accident compensation if the deceased was self-employed and was aged less than aged 40 years.
254. Mere Language Problem Of A Party Not A Ground To Transfer A Case U/s 406 CrPC: Supreme Court
[Case: Rajkumar Sabu v. Sabu Trade Private Limited; Citation: LL 2021 SC 253]
A Bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose held that a criminal case cannot be transferred under Section 406 CrPC merely because the party does not understand the language of the Court which has jurisdiction to hear the case. The court observed thus while dismissing a transfer petition filed by one Rajkumar Sabu, against whom a criminal case is pending in Salem Court, that he is not being able to understand Tamil language, and therefore the case ought to be transferred to a Court in Delhi.
255. Will Habeas Corpus Petition Lie Against Remand Order? Supreme Court Answers
[Case: Gautam Navlakha v. National Investigation Agency; Citation: LL 2021 SC 254]
A bench comprising Justices UU Lalit and KM Joseph observed that a Habeas Corpus petition challenging a remand order can be entertained only if the remand is absolutely illegal or the remand is afflicted with the vice of lack of jurisdiction, of if it is passed in an absolutely mechanical manner. The court noted that in Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat (2013) 1 SCC 314, it was held that a writ of habeas corpus is not to be entertained when a person is committed to judicial custody or police custody by the competent court by an order which prima facie does not appear to be without jurisdiction or passed in an absolutely mechanical manner or wholly illegal.
Also Read: Courts Can Order House Arrest U/s 167 CrPC In Appropriate Cases: Supreme Court
Also Read: Supreme Court Dismisses Gautam Navlakha's Plea For Default Bail In Bhima Koregaon Case
Also Read: Remand Power U/s 167 CrPC Can Also Be Exercised By Courts Superior To Magistrate: Supreme Court
256. Existence Of Arbitration Clause Does Not Debar Court From Entertaining A Writ Petition In Contractual Matter: Supreme Court
[Case: Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. CG Power And Industrial Solutions Limited; Citation: LL 2021 SC 255]
A Bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Indira Banerjee observed that the existence of an arbitration clause does not debar the court from entertaining a writ petition. It reiterated that relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be granted in a case arising out of contract.
"It is well settled that availability of an alternative remedy does not prohibit the High Court from entertaining a writ petition in an appropriate case. The High Court may entertain a writ petition, notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy, particularly (1) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of a fundamental right; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice or (iii) where the impugned orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or (iv) the vires of an Act is under challenge", the Court held.
257. Provide Dry Ration, Open Community Kitchens For Migrant Workers Stranded In NCR: Supreme Court Directs Delhi, UP, Haryana Govts
[Case: In Re Problems and Miseries of Migrant Labourers; Citation: LL 2021 SC 256]
A Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and MR Shah directed the Central Government and Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, States of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh to provide dry ration to migrant workers in National Capital Region. While doing so, the States shall not insist on an identity card for those migrant labourers who do not possess for the time being and on self-declaration made by the stranded migrant labourers dry ration be given to them.
258. IBC - Approval Of Resolution Plan Does Not By Itself Discharge Liabilities Of Personal Guarantor Of Corporate Debtor: Supreme Court
[Case: Lalit Kumar Jain v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 257]
A Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat held that the approval of a resolution plan does not ipso facto discharge a personal guarantor of a corporate debtor. The release or discharge of a principal borrower from the debt owed by it to its creditor, by an involuntary process, i.e. by operation of law, or due to liquidation or insolvency proceeding, does not absolve the surety/guarantor of his or her liability, which arises out of an independent contract, the Court observed in the judgment in which it upheld the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 which applies to personal guarantors of corporate debtors.
It referred to recent judgments in State Bank of India v. V. Ramakrishnan, Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel (I) Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta, and observed that the sanction of a resolution plan and finality imparted to it by Section 31 does not per se operate as a discharge of the guarantor's liability. It said that an involuntary act of the principal debtor leading to loss of security, would not absolve a guarantor of its liability.
Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds IBC Provisions Applicable To Personal Guarantors Of Corporate Debtors
259. Doctrine Of Impossibility Applicable To Court Orders; Possibility Of Implementation Should Be Considered: Supreme Court
[Case: State of Uttar Pradesh v. In Re Inhuman Condition at Quarantine Centres and for Providing Better Treatment to Corona Positive; Citation: LL 2021 SC 258]
"Doctrine of impossibility is applicable to Court orders as well", said the Supreme Court on Friday stayed the directions issued by Allahabad High Court on May 17 for upgradation of medical facilities in the State of Uttar Pradesh on a war-scale footing.
Stating that High Courts should avoid passing orders that are not capable of being implemented, a Bench of Justices Vineet Saran and BR Gavai noted, "…we are of the opinion that the High Court should normally consider the possibility of the implementation of the directions given by it, and such directions which are incapable of being implemented should be avoided".
260. States/UTs Should Provide Dry Ration, Community Kitchens For Stranded Migrants Workers: Supreme Court
[Case: In Re: Problems and Miseries of Migrant Workers; Citation: LL 2021 SC 259]
A Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and MR Shah directed for dry ration to be distributed to migrant workers stranded throughout the country under Atma Nirbhar Scheme or any other scheme found suitable by the States/Centre. Directions were given to the States to file Affidavits indicating the mechanism by which dry ration would be distributed to those who do not possess a ration card, and that it is for the States to decide which scheme would be utilized for the same.
261. Section 313 CrPC Examination Not A Mere Procedural Formality; Trial Court Has To Question Accused Fairly With Care And Caution: Supreme Court
[Case: Satbir Singh v. State Of Haryana; Citation: LL 2021 SC 260]
A bench comprising CJI NV Ramana and Justice Aniruddha Bose expressed its concern over recording of statements under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure in a very casual and cursory manner. The bench observed that the examination of an accused under Section 313, CrPC cannot be treated as a mere procedural formality, as it based on the fundamental principle of fairness.
262. High Courts Can Grant Protection To Accused While Dismissing Anticipatory Bail Plea In Exceptional Circumstances: Supreme Court
[Case: Nathu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 261]
A bench comprising of CJI Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose observed that a High Court, while dismissing anticipatory bail applications, can issue protective orders only when there are exceptional circumstances.
263. Phrase "Soon Before" Section 304B IPC Cannot Mean 'Immediately Before': Supreme Court Issues Guidelines For Trial In Dowry Death Cases
[Case: Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab; Citation: LL 2021 SC 262]
A Bench of CJI NV Ramana and Justice Aniruddha Bose observed that the phrase "soon before" as appearing in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be construed to mean 'immediately before'. The prosecution must establish existence of "proximate and live link" between the dowry death and cruelty or harassment for dowry demand by the husband or his relatives. It also observed that Section 304B, IPC does not take a pigeonhole approach in categorizing death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental.
264. 'Digital Divide Will Have Serious Implications On Right To Equality & Health': Supreme Court On CoWIN Portal
[Case: Re Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services During Pandemic; Citation: LL 2021 SC 263]
A Bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhatt flagged the digital divide afflicting the accessibility to the CoWIN portal by stating that it could have serious implications on right to equality and right to health. It observed, "A vaccination policy exclusively relying on a digital portal for vaccinating a significant population of this country between the ages of 18-44 years would be unable to meet its target of universal immunization owing to such a digital divide. It is the marginalized sections of the society who would bear the brunt of this accessibility barrier."
265. 'Name Is An Intrinsic Element Of Identity': Supreme Court Issues Guidelines For Recording Corrections & Changes In CBSE Certificates
[Case: Jigya Yadav v. C.B.S.E; Citation: LL 2021 SC 264]
A Bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari issued guidelines for the Central Board of Secondary Education to process the applications for correction or change in the certificates issued by it. The Court also directed CBSE to take immediate steps to amend its Byelaws so as to incorporate these guidelines for recording correction or change in the certificates already issued or to be issued by it.
266. Contempt Action Can Be Taken Only In Respect Of Established Willful Disobedience Of Court Order, Reiterates Supreme Court
[Case: Abhishek Kumar Singh v. G. Pattanaik; Citation: LL 2021 SC 265]
A Bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and BR Gavai reiterated the principle that a contempt action can be taken only in respect of established willful disobedience of the Court order. ""In exercising contempt jurisdiction, the primary concern must be whether the acts of commission or omission can be said to be contumacious conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed default in complying with the directions given in the judgment and order of the Court", it observed.
267. 'Every Journalist Entitled To Protection Of Kedar Nath Judgment': Supreme Court Quashes Sedition Case Against Journalist Vinod Dua
[Case: Vinod Dua v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 266]
A bench of Justices UU Lalit and Vineet Saran while quashing the FIR against senior journalist Vinod Dua for sedition observed, "Every Journalist will be entitled to protection in terms of Kedar Nath Singh , as every prosecution under Sections 124A and 505 of the IPC must be in strict conformity with the scope and ambit of said Sections as explained in, and completely in tune with the law laid down in Kedar Nath Singh." In the case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar(1962), the Supreme Court had read down Section 124A IPC and held that the application of the provision should be limited to "acts involving intention or tendency to create disorder, or disturbance of law and order; or incitement to violence".
268. Trial Courts Have To Clearly Specify Whether Sentences Would Run Concurrently Or Consecutively: Supreme Court
[Case: Sunil Kumar @ Sudhir Kumar v. State Of Uttar Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 267]
A bench comprising of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose observed that the Trial Courts, while awarding multiple punishments of imprisonment, have to specify in clear terms as to whether the sentences would run concurrently or consecutively. Any omission to carry out this obligation causes unnecessary and avoidable prejudice to the parties, the Court opined. It further reiterated that the omission to state whether the sentences awarded to the accused would run concurrently or would run consecutively essentially operates against the accused because, unless stated so by the Court.
269. Stop Illegal Adoption Of Children Orphaned By COVID; Public Advertisements For Adoptions Unlawful: Supreme Court
[Case: In Re Contagion of COVID Virus In Children Protection Homes; Citation: LL 2021 SC 268]
A bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose in the suo moto case initiated by the Court to deal with the problems of children affected by COVID observed "No adoption of affected children should be permitted contrary to the provisions of the JJ Act, 2015.Invitation to persons for adoption of orphans is contrary to law as no adoption of a child can be permitted without the involvement of CARA. Stringent action shall be taken by the State Governments/Union Territories against agencies/individuals who are responsible for indulging in this illegal activity."
270. Secured Creditor Can't Challenge Resolution Plan Insisting That Higher Amount Should Be Paid Based On Security Interest: Supreme Court
[Case: India Resurgence ARC Pvt Ltd v. Amit Metaliks Ltd; Citation: LL 2021 SC 269]
A division bench comprising Justices Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari held that a dissenting secured creditor cannot challenge a resolution plan approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code(IBC) with an argument that higher amount should have been paid to it on the basis of the security interest held by it over the corporate debtor. It observed that it is against the scheme of IBC to hold that a secured creditor is entitled to the amount in reference to its security interest.
271. CAG Report Can't Be Basis For Recovery Of Cess Without Statutory Adjudication: Supreme Court
[Case: Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Ltd and another v. CG Power and Industrial Solutions Ltd; Citation: LL 2021 SC 270]
A division bench comprising Justices UU Lalit and Indira Banerjee held that there cannot be a recovery of cess solely on the basis of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) without any statutory adjudication process. It upheld a judgment of Allahabad High Court which had quashed the orders issued by the Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Ltd (UPPTCL) directing a contractor to remit Labour Cess amounting to Rs.2,60,68,814.
272. Goods Imported Violating FTDR/DGFT Notifications Are 'Prohibited Goods' Liable For Confiscation Under Customs Act: Supreme Court
[Case: Union of India v. Raj Grow Impex LLP; Citation: LL 2021 SC 271]
A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari held that peas and pulses, which were imported in violation of the notifications of the Central Government and the Director General of Foreign Trade issued under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, are liable to absolute confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act as "prohibited goods". The Court granted a relaxation by allowing re-export of the goods on payment of the necessary redemption fine and subject to the importer discharging other statutory obligations.
273. Kidnapping For Ransom - Necessary To Prove Threat To Cause Death Or Harm For Conviction Under Section 364A IPC: Supreme Court
[Case: Shaik Ahmed v. State of Telangana; Citation: LL 2021 SC 272]
A bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhuhsan and R Subhash Reddy held that merely proving the kidnap of a person is not sufficient for conviction for the offence of 'kidnapping for ransom' under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code. It must also be proved that there was threat to cause death or harm to the kidnapped person or the kidnapper, by his conduct, which gave rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death.
274. Persons With Disabilities Have Right To Reservation In Promotions: Supreme Court
[Case: State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph; Citation: LL 2021 SC 273]
A Division bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R Subhash Reddy held that persons with physical disabilities have right to reservation in promotions also. It held so while dismissing an appeal filed by the State of Kerala against a judgment of the Kerala High Court (State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph). Further, the Apex Court directed the Kerala Government to implement reservation in promotion for disabled within 3 months.
275. States Must Implement 'One Nation, One Ration Card' Scheme By July 31; Run Community Kitchens For Migrants
[Case: Re: Problems and Miseries of Migrant Labourers ; Citation: LL 2021 SC 274]
A Division bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and MR Shah directed that all states must implement the "one nation, one ration card" scheme - which enables migrant workers to avail ration benefits from any part of the country - by July 31. It also passed a slew of other directions for the benefit and welfare of migrant workers. The Central government was directed to develop a portal in consultation with the National Informatics Centre (NIC) for registration of the unorganized labourers/migrant workers.
276. "Legitimate Legislative Exercise': Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws Act 2019
[Case: G. Mohan Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu; Citation: LL 2021 SC 275]
A Bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari held that the Tamil Nadu State legislature had legislative competence to enact Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019 and it is not inconsistent with Article 254 of the Constitution of India. It observed, "We hold the 2019 Act to be a legitimate legislative exercise and find it to be consistent with and within the four corners of Article 254 of the Constitution of India and also of the High Court judgment."
277. Limitation Act Provisions Will Apply To Arbitration Proceedings Initiated Under Section 18(3) MSMED Act: Supreme Court
[Case: M/s. Silpi Industries v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation; Citation: LL 2021 SC 276]
A bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy held that the provisions of Limitation Act will apply to to arbitration proceedings initiated under Section 18(3) of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act). It also observed that counter-claim is maintainable before the statutory authorities under MSMED Act.
278. COVID Victims Entitled to Ex-Gratia Compensation; Supreme Court Directs NDMA To Frame Guidelines Within 6 Weeks
[Case: Reepak Kansal v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 277]
A Bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and MR Shah held that Section 12 of the Disaster Management Act casts a statutory obligation on the part of the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) to recommend minimum relief for the victims of a national disaster. Such minimum relief will also include 'ex-gratia assistance' as per Section 12(iii) of the Act. Further, it observed, "No country or state has unlimited resources. Dispensation of the same is based on a number of circumstances and facts. Therefore, we don't think it is proper to direct the Union to pay a particular amount. This is to be fixed by the government. Ultimately, the priorities are also to be fixed by the government"
279. CA Exams -No RTPCR Needed For Opt-Out; Student Can Opt-Out For COVID Related Difficulties Of Oneself Or Family Members: Supreme Court
[Case: Anubha Shrivastava Saha v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 278]
A Bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose directed the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) to give "opt-out" option to a candidate in the CA exams, scheduled to start from July 5, on account of COVID-related difficulties for herself or her family members, on the basis of a medical certificate issued by a registered medical practitioner. The Court also did away with the ICAI's requirement of producing RT-PCR certificate for seeking "opt-out" option.
280. Accident By Rash Driving 26 Years Ago: Bus Driver Sentenced To Rs.2000 Fine
[Case: Surendran v. Sub Inspector of Police; Citation: LL 2021 SC 279]
A Bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, Vineet Saran and MR Shah sentenced a bus driver accused of causing accident by rash driving 26 years ago to a fine of Rs. 2000. "The conviction of appellant is affirmed, however, looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case specially the fact that 26 years have elapsed from the incident, we are inclined to substitute the sentence of six months imprisonment under Section 279 and 338 into fine. Six months sentence under Section 279 and 338 IPC are substituted by fine of Rs.1000/- each whereas sentence of fine under Section 337 IPC is maintained", the Bench observed.
281. Bar Under Order XXIII Rule 3A Attracted If Compromise On The Basis Of Which Decree Was Passed Was Void Or Voidable
[Case: R. Janakiammal v. SK Kumarasamy (Deceased); Citation: LL 2021 SC 280]
A bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy held that the Bar under Rule 3A shall be attracted if compromise on the basis of which decree was passed was void or voidable. It observed that only remedy available to a party to a consent decree to avoid such consent decree is to approach the court which recorded the compromise and separate suit is not maintainable.
282. Dismissal Of An Earlier Section 482 CPC Petition Does Not Bar Filing Of Subsequent Petition, If Facts So Justify
[Case: Vinod Kumar IAS v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 281]
Dismissal of an earlier Section 482 CrPC petition does not bar filing of subsequent petition under Section 482, in case the facts so justify, the Supreme Court reiterated while dismissing a writ petition filed by an IAS Officer. The Bench comprising Justice UU Lalit and Justices Indira Banerjee and Ajay Rastogi observed that it sees no reason to entertain the petition under Article 32. "The petitioner, if so advised, can always file appropriate applications under the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the individual criminal cases or complaints", the bench further opined.
283. Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Is Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction
[Case: Rakesh v. State of UP; Citation: LL 2021 SC 282]
For convicting an accused, recovery of the weapon used in commission of offence is not a sine qua non, the Supreme Court observed while upholding a conviction of a murder accused. The Bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed that minor contradictions which do not go to the root of the matter and/or such contradictions are not material contradictions, the evidence of such witnesses cannot be brushed aside and/or disbelieved.
284. Filing Of Caveat By Itself Does Not Entitle Caveators To Be Treated As A Party To The Proceeding
[Case: Sanjay Prakash v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 283]
The Supreme Court observed that filing of Caveat by itself does not entitle caveators to be treated as a party to the proceeding. Justice Aniruddha Bose observed thus while considering a plea of Central Indian Police Service Association to intervene in a Special Leave Petition on the strength of caveat applications lodged by them. However, the Association had not filed any application for impleadment or intervention before the High Court, but they were heard in the case.
285. Managements Of Colleges Acting Contrary To Law And Later Projecting Students To Claim Equities Is Deplorable
[Case: Anakha K. v. The Admission And Fee Regulatory Committee For Medical Education In Kerala; Citation: LL 2021 SC 284]
Managements of Colleges acting contrary to law and later projecting students to claim equities is deplorable, the Supreme Court observed while disposing of a special leave petition filed by a student. The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat, however, noted that the procedure that was contemplated for filling up the NRI seats through on-line counselling has not been followed by the Management. The Management should not have permitted the students to attend classes after the judgment of the High Court, especially, when there is no order passed by this Court staying the said judgment, it said.
286. 'Court Cannot Be Unmindful Of The Impact Of Covid': SC Refuses To Disturb Admission Of B-Tech Students Admitted Without Entrance Test
[Case: State of Odisha v. Orissa Private Engineering College Association (OPECA); Citation: LL 2021 SC 285]
The Court cannot be unmindful of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court observed while refusing to disturb the admission to the students for the B.Tech (Engineering) degree course for academic session 2020-21 on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examinations. The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, R. Subhash Reddy and S. Ravindra Bhatt observed, "The Court cannot be unmindful of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. The number of students who actually could appear for the entrance examination is a small proportion of the total number of seats available in the State. To displace such a body of students who have already been admitted would not be in the interests of justice. Hence, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, we are of the view that for the current year, the admission which has been granted by the institutions to 592 students under direct entry and 243 students under lateral entry to the B.Tech degree courses should not be disturbed. We are passing this direction having regard to the overwhelming hardship which has been faced during the course of the Covid-19 pandemic"
287. Trial Courts Cannot Order Denial Of Remission To Convicts While Imposing Life Imprisonment
[Case: Manohar @ Manu v. State of Karnataka; Citation: LL 2021 SC 286]
The Supreme Court reiterated that Trial Courts cannot, while imposing life imprisonment, order denial of remission to the convicts. "In view of the Constitution Bench judgment, the sentence denial remission for a period of 20 years is therefore unsustainable. The High Court failed to consider this aspect of the matter. We, therefore, allow the appeal only to the extent that the part of the sentence for denial of remission before expiry of 20 years is set aside. The conviction of the appellant under Sections 396 is not interfered with", the bench comprising Justices Navin Sinha and R. Subhash Reddy observed.
288. 'He Has Already Undergone More Than Half Of The Sentence Which Could Be Awarded To Him If Convicted: SC Grants Bail To Man Accused In A Corruption Case
[Case: Pawandeepsingh Mahendrasingh Kohli v. State of Maharashtra; Citation: LL 2021 SC 287]
The Supreme Court granted bail to an under trial in a corruption case on the ground that he has already undergone more than half of the sentence which could be awarded to him if convicted. The Bench comprising Justices Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari observed, "considering the facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in view that the petitioner has already undergone more than half of the sentence which could be awarded if convicted, and in view of the order dated 25.03.2021 passed in SLP(Crl.) No.6355/2020, we consider it to be a fit case for grant of bail."
289. 'Delhi Can Ill-Afford Another Riots; Role Of Facebook Must Be Looked Into': Supreme Court Upholds Delhi Assembly Summons
[Case: Ajit Mohan & Others v. Legislative Assembly, National Capital Territory of Delhi and others; Citation: LL 2021 SC 288]
The Supreme Court refused to quash the summons issued to Facebook India Managing Director Ajit Mohan by the Peace and Harmony committee of the Delhi Assembly Committee seeking his appearance in an enquiry related to Delhi Riots. A Bench comprising of Justice S.K. Kaul, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Hrishikesh Roy held that the Delhi Assembly's enquiry cannot encroach into "prohibited domains" of law and order and criminal prosecution, as they are subjects under the domain of the Union Government. Therefore, the Court held that any representative of the petitioner can deny answering any question by the committee if it falls within the prohibited domains.
290. 'Judges Must Not Behave Like Emperors': Supreme Court Strongly Condemns High Courts' Practice Of Summoning Of Public Officers Unnecessarily
[Case: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dr. Manoj Kumar Sharma; Citation: LL 2021 SC 289]
The Supreme Court reiterated that public officers should not be called to court unnecessarily. Summoning of officers frequently is not appreciable at all and is liable to be condemned in the strongest words, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta observed while disapproving the practice in certain High Courts to call officers at the drop of a hat and to exert direct or indirect pressure. The Bench was considering an appeal against Allahabad High Court judgment as it noticed that the High Court summoned the Secretary, Medical Health in the Court.
291. CB Judgment Which Held Delay Beyond 45 Days In Filing Written Statement Before NCDRC Can't Be Condoned Applies Only Prospectively
[Case: Dr. A Suresh Kumar v. Amit Agarwal; Citation: LL 2021 SC 290]
The Supreme Court reiterated that the Constitution Bench judgment in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited (2020) 5 SCC 757, which held that the delay beyond the period of 30+15 day (45 days) in filing the written statement cannot be condoned by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission operates only prospectively. The Bench comprising Justice Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari observed, "In our view, since the application for condonation of delay was filed prior to the judgment of the Constitution Bench, which was delivered on 04.03.2020, the said application for condonation of delay ought to have been considered on merits and should not have been dismissed on the basis of the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited (supra) because the said judgment was to operate prospectively and the written statement as well as the application for condonation of delay had been filed much prior to the said judgment."
292. Grant Of Benefits Of Higher Pay Scale To Central/State Govt Employees Stand On Different Footing Than That By An Instrumentality Of The State
[Case: Punjab State Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. v. Balbir Kumar Walia; Citation: LL 2021 SC 291]
The Supreme Court observed that the grant of benefits of higher pay scale to the Central/State Government employees stand on different footing than grant of pay scale by an instrumentality of the State. The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta allowed the appeal filed by Punjab State Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana which held that the Federation is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and that the employees are therefore entitled to pay scale equivalent to their counterparts in the State of Punjab from 1.1.1986, though the revised pay scale was allowed by the Federation w.e.f. 1.1.1994.
293. Bail Condition To Compensate Victims Cannot Be Imposed
[Case: Dharmesh @ Dharmendra @ Dhamo Jagdishbhai @ Jagabhai Bhagubhai Ratadia v. State Of Gujarat; Citation: LL 2021 SC 292]
The Supreme Court observed that a condition for payment of compensation to victims cannot be imposed at the stage of bail. In the instant case, the accused was granted bail by the High Court with a condition requiring them to deposit Rs.2.00 lakh each as compensation to the victims. The Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta observed, "we may hasten to add that we are not saying that no monetary condition can be imposed for grant of bail. We say so as there are cases of offences against property or otherwise but that cannot be a compensation to be deposited and disbursed as if that grant has to take place as a condition of the person being enlarged on bail."
[Case: Ripudaman Singh v. Tikka Maheshwar Chand; Citation: LL 2021 SC 293]
The Supreme Court has observed that a compromise decree in respect of land which is not the subject-matter of suit but is part of the settlement between the family members does not require compulsory registration. The Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta observed that a compromise decree entered into between the parties in respect of land which was not the subject matter of the suit is valid and a legal settlement. The issue in appeal was whether a compromise decree in respect of land which is not the subject-matter of suit but is part of the settlement between the family members requires compulsory registration in terms of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act.
295. Honour Killing: Supreme Court Cancels Bail Granted To Man Accused Of Conspiracy To Murder Brother-in-Law In front Of Pregnant Wife
[Case: Mamta Nair v. State of Rajasthan and others; Citation: LL 2021 SC 294]
The Supreme Court set aside an order of the Rajasthan High Court which granted bail to a man accused of conspiracy to murder in a case of honour killing. A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana set aside the High Court's order observing that the same was not sustainable and asked the accused Mukesh Choudhury to surrender. The trial court was directed to complete the trial within a period of one week. The Supreme Court also noted that the examination of 17 out of 47 witnesses were complete.
296. Franklin Templeton: Consent Of Majority Shareholders Needed For Winding Up Funds After Publication Of Notices
[Case: Franklin Templeton Trustee Services Private Limited v. Amruta Garg; Citation: LL 2021 SC 295]
A bench comprising Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna observed that when the trustees decide to wind up a scheme by majority, they are required to seek consent of the majority of the unit holders, present and voting, under Regulation 18(15)(c) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996. The use of the word "shall" in the provision is couched as a command. A harmonious construction of Regulation 18(15)(c) read with Regulations 39 to 42, would showcase that the even though the "opinion" of the trustees would stand, the consent of the unit holders would be a pre-requisite for winding up, the Bench opined
Also Read: SEBI Has Power To Regulate Winding-Up Of Mutual Fund Schemes To Protect Investors : Supreme Court
297. Tribunals Reforms Ordinance: Supreme Court Strikes Down Provisions Fixing Term Of Members As 4 Years
[Case: Madras Bar Association v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 296]
The Supreme Court by 2 :1 majority set aside the provisions in the Tribunals Reforms Ordinance 2021 which fixed the term of members of various tribunals as four years. The majority comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and S Ravindra Bhat held that this term violated the express direction given in the earlier judgments in Rojer Mathew and Madras Bar Association cases that the term of tribunal members should be 5 years. Accordingly, the bench set aside those provisions. Justice Hemant Gupta dissented saying that a law cannot be struck down merely for the reason of being contrary to judgments.
Also Read: Fill Up Vacancies In Tribunals Without Delay: Supreme Court Directs Centre
298. Enhancement Of Superannuation Age A Policy Matter': Supreme Court Sets Aside Allahabad HC Direction On Retirement Age In NOIDA
[Case: New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and others v. BD Singhal and others; Citation: LL 2021 SC 297]
The Supreme Court has set aside a judgment of the Allahabad High Court which directed that retrospective effect from September 2002 should be given to the decision taken by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) in September 2012 to enhance the retirement age of its employees from 58 to 60. Allowing an appeal filed by the NOIDA against the judgment, a bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed that the High Court trenched upon a domain of executive policy regarding retirement age.
299. Right To Summon Document Has To Be Exercised When Trial Is In Progress And Not When Trial Is Completed
[Case: Md. Ghouseuddin v. Syed Riazul Hussain; Citation: LL 2021 SC 298]
The Supreme Court observed that the right to summon document(s) has to be exercised when the trial is in progress and not when the trial is completed. A Bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna observed, "The right to summon document(s), indeed, is available but that has to be exercised when the trial is in progress and not when the trial is completed, including after the statement of accused under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code had been recorded. The efficacy of the trial cannot be whittled down by such belated application."
300. Violation Of Retrenchment Conditions U/s 25F Industrial Disputes Act Would Not Automatically Entail Reinstatement With Full Backwages
[Case: Madhya Bharat Gramin Bank v. Panchamlal Yadav; Citation: LL 2021 SC 299]
The Supreme Court observed that the violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, [Retrenchment conditions] would not automatically entail in the reinstatement with full back wages. The Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose observed, "the respondent is not entitled for reinstatement in view of the law settled by this Court. The judgments relied upon by Mr. Kapur are clear to the effect that violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, would not automatically entail in the reinstatement with full back wages. The relief to be granted depends on the facts of individual cases." The Bench however directed the bank to pay a compensation of Rs. 5 Lakhs to him.
301. Religious Sentiments Subservient To Right To Health & Life: Case Against Kanwar Yatra
[Case: In Re : Alarming Newspaper Report Regarding Kanwar Yatra in State of UP; Citation: LL 2021 SC 300]
The Supreme Court has observed that religious sentiments are subservient to the fundamental right to life and health while adjudicating in the suo motu case taken against the decision of the Uttar Pradesh government to allow the Kanwar Yatra pilgrimage amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The Bench comprising Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai observed that the State of Uttar Pradesh cannot go ahead with the Kanwar Yatra, especially so when the Union Government has taken a stand against holding the same.
302. Ex-Parte Decree Against Minor Not Represented By A Duly Appointed Guardian A Nullity
[Case: KP Natarajan and another v. Muthalammal and others; Citation: LL 2021 SC 301]
The Supreme Court has upheld a judgment of the Madras High Court which held that an ex-parte decree passed against a minor not represented by a guardian who is duly appointed is a nullity. A bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and V Ramasubramanian was considering an appeal filed against the High Court judgment, which had set aside the ex-parte decree passed against a minor on the ground that he was not represented by a guardian appointed in terms of procedure contemplated under Order XXXII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court also held that the failure to appoint guardian ipso facto will result in prejudice to the minor and it need not be specially established.
303. Supreme Court Permits 5 Civil Service Aspirants Who Cleared Mains But Were Disqualified For Submitting Degree Certificate Late To Attend UPSC Interview
[Case: Deepak Yadav &Ors v. UPSC &Ors; Vaidehi Gupta v. UPSC &Ors; Citation: LL 2021 SC 302]
In an extraordinary move, the Supreme Court has allowed five civil service candidates who cleared the UPSC civil service main examinations held this year, but were disqualified for submitting the degree certificates after the cut-off date, to appear for the interview. A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna passed this direction as a "special case" considering the fact that the candidates missed the last date as their universities declared their results late due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
304. Accused Cannot Be Discharged U/s 306 IPC While Confirming Charge U/s 304B IPC
[Case: Bhagwanrao Mahadeo Patil v. Appa Ramchandra Savkar ; Citation: LL 2021 SC 303]
The Supreme Court has observed that an accused cannot be discharged for an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code while confirming the charge under Section 304B IPC. A Bench comprising Justices Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari observed, "having heard learned counsel parties, considering the totality of the circumstances and keeping in view the suicide notes as well as the statements of witnesses, we are of the opinion that the accused ought not to have been discharged of the offence under Section 306 IPC, especially when the charges under Section 304B IPC and other related sections had already been framed and confirmed."
305. Relief To Doctor Who Could Not Secure Admission To PG Course Because He Was Denied Study Leave Due To Covid 19 Situation In Delhi
[Case: Dr. Rohit Kumar v. Secretary, Office of Lt. Governor of Delhi; Citation: LL 2021 SC 304]
"It would be a travesty of justice to deny relief to the Doctor, who had to make a personal sacrifice in the larger public interest, to serve the cause of humanity", the Supreme Court has observed while directing PGI Chandigarh to grant admission to a Doctor who could not join the post graduate course as he was denied study leave in view of the COVID-19 pandemic in Delhi. The bench comprising Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice V. Ramasubramanian clarified that the policy decision not to grant Study Leave to doctors for a certain length of time, in apprehension of a rise in COVID-19 cases, to ensure the availability of as many doctors, as possible for duty, is neither arbitrary, nor discriminatory, nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
306. Protection Of Sanction U/s 197 CrPC Not Available For Public Servants Prosecuted U/s 48 Water Act
[Case: Noorulla Khan v. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board; Citation: LL 2021 SC 305]
The Supreme Court has observed that protection of sanction under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure is not available to public servants prosecuted under Section 48 the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act. The bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi, referring to previous judgments in V.C. Chinnappa Goudar v. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and Karnataka State Pollution Control Board v. B. Heera Naik observed, "If the violation of the provisions of the Water Act was at the hands of a Department, subject to the satisfaction of the requirements under Section 48 of the Water Act, "the Head of the Department" would be deemed to be guilty..because of deeming fiction under Section 48 of the Water Act, the protection under Section 197 of the Code would not be available and the matter ought to be considered de hors such protection."
307. CB Judgment In Indore Development Authority Case Doesn't Affect Haryana Govt's Power U/s 101A RFCTLARR To Denotify Acquired Lands
[Case: Raghubhir Singh v. State of Haryana; Citation: LL 2021 SC 306]
The Supreme Court has observed that the Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority case will not affect the power of the Government of Haryana under Section 101A of the RFCTLARR Act, to denotify the land acquired under the old Land Acqusition Act for stated reasons in public interest. The bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna observed that denotification can be done only if the State Government is fully satisfied that the land has become unviable or non-essential for the purpose of development and in particular for reason for which it was so acquired.
308. Supreme Court Disapproves Practice Of Delayed Filing Of Review Petition After Judges Retire
[Case: Vedanta Ltd. v. The Goa Foundation; Citation: LL 2021 SC 307]
The Supreme Court has disapproved the practise of delayed filing of review petitions after waiting for judges to retire. "Such practice must be firmly disapproved to preserve the institutional sanctity of the decision making of this Court", the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah remarked while dismissing the review petitions filed against the judgment in Goa Foundation v. Sesa Sterlite Limited.
309. Supreme Court Sets Aside Allahabad High Court's Blanket Ban On DJ Services In Uttar Pradesh
[Case: Sachin Kashyap v. Sushil Chandra Srivastava; Citation: LL 2021 SC 308]
The Supreme Court has set aside the 2019 order of the Allahabad High Court imposing a blanket ban on the use of DJ services in the state of Uttar Pradesh. A Division Bench of Justice Vineet Saran and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari clarified that music/DJ can be played only in accordance with law and after obtaining the requisite license/permission from the concerned authorities. The Court observed that since there were neither pleadings nor any prayer with regard to the playing of music or DJ in public place, the direction of the High Court with regard to the noise generated by DJ and restriction on playing music, cannot be justified.
310. Section 482 CrPC: Interim Protection Order Can Be Passed In Exceptional Cases Giving Brief Reasons
[Case: A P Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Shareholders Welfare Association v. Ramesh Kumar Bung; Citation: LL 2021 SC 309]
The Supreme Court observed that the High Courts can pass interim protection order in Section 482 CrPC petitions in exceptional cases by giving brief reasons. What is frowned upon in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra is the tendency of the courts to pass blanket, cryptic, laconic, nonspeaking orders reading "no coercive steps shall be adopted", the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian said.
311. To Give In To Pressure Groups A Sorry State Of Affairs': Supreme Court Slams Kerala's Lockdown Relaxations Ahead Of Bakrid
[Case: In Re Alarming News Report About Kanwar Yatra In UP; Citation: LL 2021 SC 310]
The Supreme Court slammed the decision taken by the State of Kerala to give relaxations in the COVID19 lockdown norms for three days on account of Bakrid. A Bench comprising Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai observed, "the relaxation for one day to Category D areas was wholly uncalled for. In these circumstances, we direct the state of Kerala to give heed to Article 21 of the Constitution read with Article 144 of the Constitution and follow our directions given in the UP case."
312. Section 34 Arbitration Act Gives No Power To Modify Arbitral Award; Appellate Court Can Only Set Aside Or Remand
[Case: Project Director, National Highways v. M. Hakeem; Citation: LL 2021 SC 311]
The Supreme Court held that a Court, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, cannot modify an award. "If one were to include the power to modify an award in Section 34, one would be crossing the Lakshman Rekha", Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai observed.
313. Supreme Court Strikes Down 97th Constitutional Amendment To The Extent It Relates To Co-operative Societies
[Case: Union of India v. Rajendra Shah and others; Citation: LL 2021 SC 312]
The Supreme Court upheld a 2013 judgment of the Gujarat High Court which struck down the provisions of the Constitution(97th Amendment) Act 2011 to the extent it introduced Part IX B in the Constitution to deal with co-operative societies. A 3-judge bench comprising Justices Rohinton Nariman, KM Joseph and BR Gavai dismissed the appeals filed by the Union of India against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court. The bench unanimously held that the 97th Constitutional Amendment required ratification by at least one-half of the state legislatures as per Article 368(2) of the Constitution, since it dealt with a entry which was an exclusive state subject (co-operative societies).
Also Read: States Have Exclusive Legislative Power In Cooperative Societies' Matter
Also Read: Supreme Court Sheds Light On The Contours Of Ministry Of Cooperation
314. Motor Vehicles Act - Third Party Insurance Deemed To Be Transferred Along With Effective Control Over Vehicle In A Hire Agreement
[Case: Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. National Insurance Company Limited & Ors; Citation: LL 2021 SC 313]
The Supreme Court has held that when a transport corporation hires a motor vehicle for use from its registered owner, the third-party insurance coverage will also be deemed to be transferred along with the vehicle. The person who is having the effective control and command of the vehicle will be regarded as the 'owner'. Therefore, along with the vehicle it must be deemed that the existing insurance policy also remains transferred for the period of hire, the division bench of Justices S. Abdul Naseer and Krishna Murari noted.
315. Court Cannot Grant Liberty To Amend Plaint While Rejecting It Under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC
[Case: Sayyed Ayaz Ali v. Prakash G Goyal; Citation: LL 2021 SC 314]
The Supreme Court held that while rejecting a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure, the Court cannot grant liberty to the plaintiff to amend the plaint. The proviso to Rule 11 covers the cases falling within the ambit of clauses (b) and (c) and has no application to a rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d), the Bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed.
316. There Is No Per Se Bar To Grant Relief Of Interest On Refund To A Subsequent Purchaser Of Flat
[Case: Laureate Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. v. Charanjeet Singh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 315]
The Supreme Court held that there is no per se bar to grant relief of interest on refund to a subsequent purchaser of flat. The bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat observed, "it cannot be said that a subsequent purchaser who steps into the shoes of an original allottee of a housing project in which the builder has not honoured its commitment to deliver the flat within a stipulated time, cannot expect any even reasonable time, for the performance of the builder's obligation." The three judge Bench also observed that per se bar to the relief of interest on refund, enunciated by the decision in HUDA v. Raje Ram which was applied in Wing Commander Arifur Rahman Khan and Anr. v. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd., cannot be considered good law.
317. Supreme Court Dismisses Andhra Govt.'s Plea Against Quashing Of Criminal Cases Related To Alleged "Amaravati Land Scam"
[Case: State of Andhra Pradesh v. Chekka Guru Murali Mohan; Citation: LL 2021 SC 316]
In a blow to Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Jagan Mohan Reddy, the Supreme Court has dismissed the state's SLPs against the quashing of criminal cases filed in connection with the alleged 'insider trading' in land transactions at Amaravati. The Bench of Justices Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari was hearing the SLPs at the instance of the AP state government against the January 19 judgment of the Single Judge of the AP High Court observing that private sale transactions cannot be criminalized and that the concept of the offence of "insider trading", which is essentially an offence in the field of stock market relating to selling and buying the securities and bonds, cannot be applied to the offences under Indian Penal Code and cannot be read into Section 420, IPC or into any provisions in the scheme of IPC.
318. Trial Judges Work Amidst Appalling Conditions; Colonial Mindset Towards District Judiciary Must Change
[Case: Somesh Chaurasia v. State of M.P; Citation: LL 2021 SC 317]
The colonial mindset which pervades the treatment meted out to the district judiciary must change, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment passed on July 22. The Bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Hrishikesh Roy noted that the Trial judges work amidst appalling conditions and thus observed, "lack of infrastructure, inadequate protection, examples of judges being made targets when they stand up for what is right and sadly, a subservience to the administration of the High Court for transfers and postings which renders them vulnerable."
319. Sanction U/S 197 CrPC Required To Prosecute Public Servants If Alleged Act Committed Is Directly Concerned With Official Duty
[Case: Indra Devi v. State of Rajasthan; Citation: LL 2021 SC 318]
The Supreme Court has observed that sanction from competent authorities under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure is required to prosecute public servants if the alleged act committed is directly concerned with the official duty. The Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta opined that the yardstick to be followed is to form a prima facie view whether the act of omission for which the accused was charged had a reasonable connection with the discharge of his duties. The case against the accused was that he had conspired with his superiors who issued a forged lease.
320. Production Of Injury Report Is Not A Sine Qua Non For Establishing Offence Under Section 323 IPC Booth Capturing & Bogus Voting Affects Rule Of Law & Democracy; Should Be Dealt With Iron Hands
[Case: Lakshman Singh v. State of Bihar; Citation: LL 2021 SC 319]
The Supreme Court has observed that production of injury report is not a sine qua non for establishing the case for the offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code. The Bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed, "it may be that there might not be any serious injuries and/or visible injuries, the hospital might not have issued the injury report. However, production of an injury report for the offence under Section 323 IPC is not a sine qua non for establishing the case for the offence under Section 323 IPC. Section 323 IPC is a punishable section for voluntarily causing hurt."
Also Read: Booth Capturing & Bogus Voting Affects Rule Of Law & Democracy; Should Be Dealt With Iron Hands
321. Power Of Compounding Must Be Expressly Conferred By Statute Which Creates Offence
[Case: Prakash Gupta v. Securities and Exchange Board of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 320]
The Supreme Court has observed that the power of compounding must be expressly conferred by the statute which creates the offence. The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed that in respect of offences which lie outside the Indian Penal Code, compounding may be permitted only if the statute which creates the offence contains an express provision for compounding before such an offence can be made compoundable. This is because Section 320 CrPC provides for the compounding of offences only under the IPC.
322. No Disrespect Shown To Judge; No Offence Under SC-ST Act Attracted: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against MP RS Bharathi
[Case: RS Bharathi v. State; Citation: LL 2021 SC 321]
The Supreme Court quashed a charge sheet filed against DMK leader and Rajya Sabha MP RS Bharathi under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act over a speech made by him. The chargesheet was filed against the MP after he made a speech at a meeting organised by the leaders of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam in the name of 'Kalaignar Vasagar Vattam'. A Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose observed, "a careful reading of the speech does not show that there is any attempt made by the appellant to promote or attempt to promote enmity, hatred or ill will against the members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community."
323. Supreme Court Dismisses Telecom Companies' Pleas To Recomputate AGR Dues
[Case: Union of India v. Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India and others; Citation: LL 2021 SC 322]
The Supreme Court has rejected the pleas of telecom companies seeking recomputation of the Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) dues demanded by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT). A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, S Abdul Nazeer and MR Shah pronounced the order dismissing the applications filed by Vodafone Idea, Bharti Airtel and Tata Teleservices. The bench had observed that reassessment was prohibited in view of an earlier order passed on July 20 last year.
324. Student Becomes Bedridden Due To School's Negligence During Tour: Supreme Court Restores Rs 88.73 Lakh Compensation
[Case: Akshatha v. Secretary BNM Education Institution & Ors; Citation: LL 2021 SC 323]
While hearing an appeal against reduction of compensation by National Consumer Redressal Commission in case of a student taken ill during a school tour and was consequentially bed ridden due to School's negligence, the Supreme Court has restored the compensation amount of Rs.88,73,798 awarded to her by the State Commission. A Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Sinha and Justice Subhash Reddy issued the direction in an appeal filed by the complainant being aggrieved by the order of the National Consumer Redressal Commission reducing the compensation awarded to her from Rs.88,73,798/- to 50 lakhs.
325. Ocular Evidence Is The Best Evidence Unless There Are Reasons To Doubt It
[Case: Pruthiviraj Jayantibhai Vanol v. Dinesh Dayabhai Vala; Citation: LL 2021 SC 324]
Ocular evidence is considered the best evidence unless there are reasons to doubt it, the Supreme Court has observed while setting aside an order of High Court that acquitted an accused in a murder case. The Bench comprising Justices Navin Sinha and R. Subhash Reddy observed that the ocular evidence may be disbelieved only when there is a gross contradiction between medical evidence and oral evidence, and the medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable and rules out all possibility of ocular evidence being true. In this case, the High Court had reversed the Trial Court order convicting the accused on the ground that the evidence of the eyewitnesses is inconsistent with the medical evidence, regarding the nature of injuries visàvis the weapons of offence.
326. Letter Of Intent Is Not A Binding Contract Unless Such An Intention Is Evident From Its Terms
[Case: South Eastern Coalfields Ltd v. S. Kumar's Associates AKM (JV); Citation: LL 2021 SC 325]
A Letter of Intent (LOI) is not a binding contract unless such an intention is evident from its terms, the Supreme Court observed while dismissing an appeal filed by South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, a Government company. The Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta observed that such intention must be clear and unambiguous as LOI normally indicates a party's intention to enter into a contract with the other party in future.
327. Direction To Undergo Other Sentences After Life Sentence Illegal
[Case: Imran Jalal @ Bilal Ahmed v. State Of Karnataka; Citation: LL 2021 SC 326]
The Supreme Court has observed that a court cannot stipulate that other sentences would begin after expiration of life sentence awarded to convict. The bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi observed "in the instant case, the appellant was awarded life sentence on three counts and sentence of 10 years each on five counts, out of which it was only the sentence in respect of the offence punishable under Section 5(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, which was subject matter of the last part of the directions in paragraph 9 of the order of sentence. "
328. Umadevi' Judgment Doesn't Absolve Duty To Comply With Earlier SC Judgment Directing Regularization
[Case: Vice Chancellor Anand Agriculture University v. Kanubhai Nanubhai Vaghela; Citation: LL 2021 SC 327]
The Supreme Court has observed that the judgment in Umadevi case does not absolve the Anand Agricultural University of its duty to comply with the direction in an earlier judgment. "Eligible daily wagers in accordance with the scheme have been eagerly awaiting regularization as per the judgment of this Court in Gujarat Agricultural University's case", the bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose observed while dismissing the appeal filed by Anand Agriculture University.
329. Legislative Privileges & Immunities Not Gateways To Claim Exemption From Criminal Law : Supreme Court In Kerala Assembly Ruckus Case
[Case: State of Kerala v. K.Ajith; Citation: LL 2021 SC 328]
While refusing to allow the withdrawal of criminal prosecution against six LDF members in the Kerala assembly ruckus case of 2015, the Supreme Court made certain significant observations on the scope of legislative privileges and immunities. The State of Kerala and the accused persons had raised an argument that the criminal prosecution was not sustainable against the members for acts committed in the floor of the assembly as they are protected by legislative privileges under Article 194 of the Constitution. Rejecting this argument, a Division bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed that legislative privileges cannot be claimed to seek exemption from the application of criminal law.
330. Arbitration Award Which Ignores Vital Evidence Or Rewrites The Contract Is Liable To Be Set Aside
[Case: PSA Sical Terminals Pvt. Ltd. v. Board Of Trustees Of V.O. Chidambranar Port Trust Tuticorin; Citation: LL 2021 SC 329]
The Supreme Court observed that an arbitration award which ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision or rewrites a contract is liable to be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act on the ground of patent illegality. The Bench comprising Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai observed that a finding based on no evidence at all or an award which ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision would be perverse. Rewriting a contract for the parties would be breach of fundamental principles of justice, the court remarked.
331. No Need To Examine Complainant Before Ordering Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC
[Case: M/s Supreme Bhiwandi Wada Manor Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. State of Maharashtra and another; Citation: LL 2021 SC 330]
The Supreme Court has reiterated that there is no requirement of examining the complainant on oath under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(CrPC) before a Judicial Magistrate orders police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC. Holding so, the Supreme Court set aside an order passed by the Bombay High Court which had granted anticipatory bail on the ground that order of magistrate to direct registration of FIR under Sec 156(3) CrPC was given without examining the complainant on oath as under Section 200 CrPC.
332. High Court Must Give Brief Reasons In Order Disposing Application Seeking Leave To Appeal Against Acquittal
[Case: Brijesh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 331]
The Supreme Court has reiterated that brief reasons must be given in an order disposing an application for leave to appeal under Section 378 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 against an order of acquittal. Merely observing that the order of the trial Judge has taken a possible view without an application of mind to the evidence and the findings is not consistent with the duty which is cast upon the High Court while determining whether leave should be granted to appeal against an order of acquittal, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed.
333. No Discussion Or Analysis: Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Granting Bail To Murder Accused
[Case: Kumer Singh v. State of Rajasthan; Citation: LL 2021 SC 332]
There is no discussion or analysis of circumstances at all, the Supreme Court observed while setting aside a High Court order granting bail to murder accused. The Bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed that in a case where an earlier application for bail has been rejected, there is a higher burden on the appellate court to furnish specific reasons as to why the bail should be granted.
334. Lender Who Advanced Interest Free Loans To Corporate Body Is Also A Financial Creditor; Can Initiate CIRP
[Case: Orator Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Samtex Desinz Pvt. Ltd; Citation: LL 2021 SC 333]
The Supreme Court has observed that a lender who advanced interest free loans to finance the business operations of a corporate body is a Financial Creditor and competent to initiate the Corporate Resolution Process under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. "There is no discernible reason, why a term loan to meet the financial requirements of a Corporate Debtor for its operation, which obviously has the commercial effect of borrowing, should be excluded from the purview of a financial debt", the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian observed.
335. Senior, Even Though Less Meritorious, Shall Have Priority: Supreme Court Explains Seniority Cum Merit Principle For Promotion
[Case: Tek Chand v. Bhakra Beas Management Board; Citation: LL 2021 SC 334]
The Supreme Court has reiterated that seniority-cum-merit means that given the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration, the senior though the less meritorious shall have priority. Referring to facts of this case, the bench said that a person possessing good reports is eligible to be considered for appointment by promotion as Leading Fireman based on selection. "Other things being equal between competing candidates, seniority is to be given due weightage. But it does not mean that even if a junior is more meritorious by way of possessing an appreciable initiative certificate which the senior does not, irrespective of the same, the senior shall march ahead on the seniority cum merit principle", the Court added.
336. Benefit Of 'Krishna Sradha' Judgment Can Be Availed Only If NEET Candidate Approached Court Without Any Delay
[Case: Medical Council of India v. Ritwik; Citation: LL 2021 SC 335]
The Supreme Court has observed that the benefit of S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh judgment can be availed only if the NEET candidate approached the Court without delay. In Krishna Sradha, the Supreme Court has observed that, in exceptional cases, a direction can be issued to grant admission to meritorious candidates to MBBS Course even after cut-off date. One crucial condition is that the student has to approach the Court at the earliest and without any delay, the bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose noted.
337. Possible Apprehension Of Breach Of 'Law And Order ' Cannot Be A Ground For Preventive Detention
[Case: Banka Sneha Sheela v. State of Telangana; Citation: LL 2021 SC 336]
A Bench comprising Justice RF Nariman and Justice Hrishikesh Roy observed that a possible apprehension of breach of law and order cannot be a ground to detain a person under Preventive Detention Laws. It opined that mere contravention of law such as indulging in cheating or criminal breach of trust certainly affects 'law and order' but before it can be said to affect 'public order', it must affect the community or the public at large. "A Preventive Detention Order can only be passed if his activities adversely affect or are likely to adversely affect the maintenance of public order", the bench observed while quashing a detention order passed against a person under Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act.
338. Entity Which Misuses Status Under Section 12AA Income Tax Act Not Entitled To Retain It
[Case: Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) v. Batanagar Education and Research Trust; Citation: LL 2021 SC 337]
An entity which is misusing the status conferred upon it by Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act is not entitled to retain and enjoy said status, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi observed while upholding the cancellation of a registration of Trust. Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act deals with the procedure for the registration of a charitable trust, which is entitled to tax benefits.
339. 'Avoid Unnecessary Remarks On Counsel's Conduct': Supreme Court Expunges Remarks Made Against Lawyer By Uttarakhand High Court
[Case: Neeraj Garg v. Sarita Rani; Citation: LL 2021 SC 338]
The Supreme Court observed that judges should avoid unnecessary remarks on the conduct of the counsel which may have no bearing on the adjudication of the dispute before the Court. The bench comprising Justices RF Nariman and Hrishikesh Roy observed thus while ordering expunction of certain remarks made against a lawyer by the Uttarakhand High Court in an order passed by it.
340. 'Heavy Unexplained Bank Transactions': Supreme Court Upholds Compulsory Retirement Penalty Imposed On Judicial Officer
[Case: Rajinder Goel v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana; Citation: LL 2021 SC 339]
The Supreme Court upheld an order directing compulsory retirement of a Judicial Officer in Haryana. In this case, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against a judicial officer after preliminary enquiry against him revealed that there were "heavy unexplained bank transactions". "Considering the facts and circumstances on record and in view of the record indicating that there were multiple transactions showing deposits and withdrawals of substantial amounts of money, it cannot be said that the Full Court was not justified in taking the view that it did. We do not find any reason to take a different view in the matter.", the bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi observed.
341. Second Appeal, After Its Admission With Formulation Of Substantial Question Of Law, Cannot Be Disposed Of Summarily
[Case: Ramdas Waydhan Gadlinge (Since Deceased) v. Gyanchand Nanuram Kriplani (Dead); Citation: LL 2021 SC 340]
A second appeal, after its admission with formulation of substantial question of law, cannot be disposed of summarily, the Supreme Court has observed. The bench of Justices Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari observed that once a second appeal is admitted, on the High Court being satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in the case and with formulation of that question, the appeal is required to be heard in terms of Order XLII of Code of Civil Procedure.
342. Mere Harassment Will Not Amount To Abetment Of Suicide U/s 306 IPC
[Case: Shabbir Hussain v. State of Madhya Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 341]
Mere harassment would not amount to an offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the Supreme Court has reiterated. The bench of Justices L. Nagaswera Rao and Aniruddha Bose observed that, in order to bring a case within Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide.
343. Accused's Burden To Prove His Defence Taken U/s 313 CrPC Is Not Beyond All Reasonable Doubts
[Case: Pramila v. State of Uttar Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 342]
The Supreme Court has observed that the burden of proof on an accused in support of the defence taken under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure is not beyond all reasonable doubt as it lies on the prosecution to prove the charge. The accused has merely to create a doubt and it is for the prosecution then to establish beyond reasonable doubt that no benefit can flow from the same to the accused, the bench of Justices Navin Sinha and R. Subhash Reddy said while acquitting a woman accused of murdering her sister in law.
344. Writ Jurisdiction Not For Deciding 'Hotly Disputed Questions Of Facts'
[Case: Shubas Jain v. Rajeshwari Shivam; Citation: LL 2021 SC 343]
The Supreme Court has reiterated that a High Court cannot invoke its writ jurisdiction to adjudicate 'hotly disputed questions of facts'. It is not for the High Court to make a comparative assessment of conflicting technical reports and decide which one is acceptable, the bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian said.
345. Quashing Of FIR: Detailed Enquiry On Merits Not Warranted U/s 482 CrPC
[Case: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kunwar Singh; Citation: LL 2021SC 344]
The Supreme Court has reiterated that a detailed enquiry into the merits of the allegations is not warranted while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court ought not to be scrutinizing the material in the manner in which the trial court would do in the course of the criminal trial after evidence is adduced.
346. Governor Can Exercise Pardon Power Even If Prisoner Has Not Undergone 14 Years Imprisonment
[Case: State of Haryana v. Rajkumar @ Bittu; Citation: LL 2021 SC 345]
The Supreme Court has observed that the power of Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution to commute sentence or to pardon will override the restrictions imposed under Section 433-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. Even if the prisoner has not undergone 14 years or more of actual imprisonment, the Governor has a power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites and remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna observed.
347. State Cannot Plead Financial Burden To Deny Salary For Legally Serving Doctors
[Case: North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma and others; Citation: LL 2021 SC 346]
The Supreme Court has observed that the state cannot be allowed to plead financial burden to deny salary to legally serving doctors. Allowing such an excuse raised by the state would amount to violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14(right to equality) , 21(right to life) and 23 (right against bonded labour) of the Constitution. "The State cannot be allowed plead financial burden to deny salary for the legally serving doctors. Otherwise it would violate their rights under Articles 14, 21 and 23 of the Constitution", the judgment delivered by a bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and Hrishikesh Roy observed.
348. Witness Cannot Be Prosecuted For Perjury U/s 193 IPC For Mere Inconsistency In His Statements
[Case: N.S. Nandiesha Reddy v. Kavitha Mahesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 347]
The Supreme Court has observed that a witness cannot be prosecuted for perjury under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code merely because he made inconsistent statements before the Court. The bench led by CJI NV Ramana observed that the prosecution for perjury cannot be ordered if there is no intentional falsehood uttered. Mere reference to inconsistent statements alone is not sufficient to take action unless a definite finding is given that they are irreconcilable; one is opposed to the other so as to make one of them deliberately false, the bench also comprising Justices AS Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy added.
349. Suit For Eviction Maintainable Before Wakf Tribunal If Tenant Disputes That Property Is Not A Wakf
[Case: Telangana State Wakf Board v. Mohamed Muzafar; Citation: LL 2021 SC 348]
The Supreme Court has observed that a suit for eviction is maintainable before a Wakf Tribunal if the tenant disputed that the property is not a wakf. This is because the question whether a property belongs to wakf is exclusively triable by the Wakf Tribunal. A Bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna observed that the facts and circumstance in each case will have to be ken note in the background of the legal frame work contained in the Wakf Act to determine jurisdiction.
350. Money Decree/Certificate Of Recovery In Favour Of Financial Creditor Gives Fresh Cause Of Action To Initiate CIRP U/s 7 IBC
[Case: Dena Bank v. C. Shivakumar Reddy; Citation: LL 2021 SC 349]
The Supreme Court has observed that a judgment and/or decree for money in favour of the Financial Creditor, or the issuance of a Certificate of Recovery in its favour, would give rise to a fresh cause of action for the Financial Creditor, to initiate proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC for initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. Such judgment/decree may be passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, or any other Tribunal or Court, and in such cases Insolvency Resolution Process can be initiated, within three years from the date of the judgment and/or decree or within three years from the date of issuance of the Certificate of Recovery, if the dues of the Corporate Debtor to the Financial Debtor, or any part thereof remained unpaid, the court held.
The bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian also observed that an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code would not be barred by limitation, on the ground that it had been filed beyond a period of three years from the date of declaration of the loan account of the Corporate Debtor as NPA, if there were an acknowledgement of the debt by the Corporate Debtor before expiry of the period of limitation of three years. In such a case, the period of limitation would get extended by a further period of three years, the court observed.
351. Offences Committed Outside India: Previous Sanction Of Central Govt U/S 188 CrPC Not Required At The Stage Of Cogizance But Trial Can't Be Commenced Without It
[Case: Nerella Chiranjeevi Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 350]
The Supreme Court has observed that the trial of the criminal case against an Indian citizen for offences committed outside India cannot commence without sanction of the Central Government under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But such previous sanction is not required at the stage of cognizance, the bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose said.
352. If Last Seen Theory Is Established, Accused Should Explain Circumstances In Which He Departed Company Of Deceased
[Case: Surajdeo Mahto v. State of Bihar; Citation: LL 2021 SC 351]
Once the fact of last seen is established, an adverse inference can be drawn against the accused if he fails to explain the circumstances in which he departed the company of the deceased, the Supreme Court has reiterated. The bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose was disposing a criminal appeal arising out of a murder case of the year 1987.
353. 'Harsh': Supreme Court Reduces Condition Imposed On Public Interest Litigant To Deposit 1% Of Project Cost As Security
[Case: Arvind Tukaram Shinde v. State of Maharashtra & Ors; Citation: LL 2021 SC 352]
The Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Bombay High Court, requiring a PIL-petitioner to deposit 1% cost of a sewage treatment plan project, estimated to be around Rs. 390 crore, before hearing his case. Instead, the Court directed the Petitioner to deposit Rs. 10 lakh as security to proceed in the matter. "We understand that the impugned order of the High Court was intended to subserve the interest of ensuring that a public project should not be stalled by filing of frivolous PILs. However, it is equally necessary to ensure that a balance is struck to preclude the possibility of denial of access to Justice," a Division Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed.
[Case: Jimmy Dora Sukhia v. Roshani Farukh Chinoy; Citation: LL 2021 SC 353]
"A quarter of a century has passed in determining whether the licenser is entitled to seek occupation of the portion occupied by her son!", the Supreme Court observed while directing a Court in Pune to expedite the trial of a partition suit which is pending for 26 years. "We can hardly envisage a situation where for 26 years, a suit is pending at the first stage, and we have to decide the appeal and the second appeals which would arise thereafter.", the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta observed.
355. Order XLI Rule 22 CPC- Cross Objection Not Necessary To Challenge Adverse Findings
[Case: Saurav Jain v. A. B. P. Design; Citation: LL 2021 SC 354]
The Supreme Court has observed that a party in whose favour a court has decreed the suit can challenge an adverse finding before the appellate court without a cross objection. "It is not necessary that a challenge to the adverse findings of the lower court needs to be made in the form of a memorandum of cross-objection", the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed. The Court also observed that it can entertain new grounds raised for the first time in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution if it involves a question of law which does not require adducing additional evidence.
356. Magistrate Not Required To Record Statement Of Public Servant Who Filed Complaint Before Summoning Accused
[Case: Cheminova India Limited v. State of Punjab; Citation: LL 2021 SC 355]
The Supreme Court has observed that a Magistrate is not required to record statement of a public servant who filed the complaint in discharge of his official duty before issuing summons to the accused resides outside the territorial jurisdiction. In this case, the Inspecting Officer filed complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, against a company, its managing director and others alleging offence of 'misbranding' under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 33, 29 of the Insecticides Act. One of the contentions raised by the appellant-accused was that the Magistrate has taken cognizance without conducting inquiry and ordering investigation and thus not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
357. Not Much Scope For Considering 'Territorial Jurisdiction' Issue In A Transfer Petition U/s 25 CPC
[Case: Naivedya Associates v. Kriti Nutrients Ltd; Citation: LL 2021 SC 356]
The Supreme Court has observed that there is not much scope of going into the question of 'territorial jurisdiction' of a court in a Transfer Petition under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This point is required to be urged before the Court in which the suit is pending, Justice Aniruddha Bose observed while dismissing a transfer petition. In this case, the petitioner is a defendant in a suit instituted in the Court of District Judge, Shahdara, Karkardooma Court, New Delhi alleging infringement of trade mark and copyright.
358. Emergency Arbitration Award Enforceable In Indian Law: Supreme Court Rules In Favour Of Amazon In Case Against Future Retail
[Case: Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Limited; Citation: LL 2021 SC 357]
The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of e-commerce giant Amazon in its dispute with Future Retail Limited(FRL) over the latter's merger deal with Reliance group. The top court held that that Emergency Award passed by Singapore arbitrator stalling FRL-Reliance deal is enforceable in Indian law. "It is wholly incorrect to say that Section 17(1) of the Act would exclude an Emergency Arbitrator's orders", the Court said in the judgment. A Bench comprising Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai opined, "We declare that full party autonomy is given by the Arbitration Act to have a dispute decided in accordance with institutional rules which can include Emergency Arbitrators delivering interim orders, described as "awards". Such orders are an important step in aid of decongesting the civil courts and affording expeditious interim relief to the parties. Such orders are referable to and are made under Section 17(1) of the Arbitration Act."
359. Mens Rea As Intent Not Required In Medical Negligence Cases
[Case: Prabhat Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar; Citation: LL 2021 SC 358]
The Supreme Court has observed that mens rea as intent is not required in a case of medical negligence. The bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna observed that before summoning the accused in a criminal medical negligence complaint, the complainant has to lead medical evidence or examine a professional Doctor by the complainant in support of his case made out in the complaint.
360. Motor Accident Compensation: Pranay Sethi Judgment Doesn't Limit Operation Of Statute Providing Greater Benefits
[Case: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila Shukla; Citation: LL 2021 SC 359]
The Supreme Court has observed that the judgment in Pranay Sethi does not limit operation of a statutory provision granting greater benefits in the matter of Motor Accident Compensation. "If a statutory instrument has devised a formula which affords better or greater benefit, such statutory instrument must be allowed to operate unless the statutory instrument is otherwise found to be invalid", the bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi observed. The Court dismissed an Insurance Company's appeal challenging the award by Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Allahabad of Rs.24,43,432/- was awarded with 7% interest, while considering the claim in respect of an accident which resulted in the death of one Jairam Shukla.
361. Kirpan' Part Of Religious Belief ; Fact That It Can Be Used As Weapon Does Not Ipso Facto Make It A Weapon Of Offence
[Case: Om Prakash Singh v. State Of Punjab; Citation: LL 2021 SC 360]
"The fact that kirpan carried by members of a specific community as part of religious belief can also be used as a weapon of offence, does not ipso facto make it a weapon of offence", the Supreme Court has observed while acquitting an accused of murder charge.
Referring to evidence on record, the bench comprising Justices Navin Sinha and R. Subhash Reddy observed that there is no evidence that the appellant was aware that the co-accused was a carrying a kirpan and intended to use it for assault.
362. Condition Of Pre-deposit Of Fine Amount Cannot Be Imposed To Hear Revision Petition Filed By Convict
[Case: R. Kalai Selvi v. Bheemappa; Citation: LL 2021 SC 361]
The Supreme Court has observed that deposit of fine amount cannot be made a condition precedent for hearing revision petition under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code.In this case, the accused was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, was sentenced to fine in the sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. It was also stipulated that the stipulation that in the event of default in payment of fine, she would undergo simple imprisonment for six months. An amount of Rs.5,90,000/- was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation in terms of Section 357 Cr.P.C. and the balance amount was to be remitted to the State.
363. 'Illegal Selection Process': Supreme Court Directs Kerala University To Appoint Candidate Who Was Denied Lecturer Post 14 Years Ago
[Case: TV Bindu v. University of Kerala; Citation: LL 2021 SC 362]
The Supreme Court has directed Kerala University to appoint a candidate who was illegally denied the post of Lecturer in Department Of Education in the selection process held 14 years ago. The bench of Justices KM Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat clarified that Bindu TV, the candidate will not be entitled to arrears of salary. Instead she will be entitled to notional fixation and fitment in her grade from the date of such appointment as Assistant Professor with all consequential annual increments etc., and continuity of service on such basis, it said.
364. Willful Breach Of Undertaking Given To Court Is Contempt
[Case: Suman Chadha v. Central Bank of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 363]
The Supreme Court has observed that the wilful breach of the undertaking given to the Court can amount to Contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act. An undertaking given by a party should be seen in the context in which it was made and (i) the benefits that accrued to the undertaking party; and (ii) the detriment/injury suffered by the counter party, the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian observed.
365. Res Judicata Is Not A Ground To Reject A Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC
[Case: Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat; Citation: LL 2021 SC 364]
The Supreme Court has observed that the Res Judicata cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. "Since an adjudication of the plea of res judicata requires consideration of the pleadings, issues and decision in the 'previous suit', such a plea will be beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 (d), where only the statements in the plaint will have to be perused.", the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed.
366. Pendency A Direct Result Of Centre's 'Recalcitrant Attitude' In Not Appointing HC Judges For Years After Collegium Clearances
[Case: M/s Indian Solar Manufacturers Association v. Solar Power Developers Association; Citation: LL 2021 SC 365]
The Supreme Court expressed exasperation at the delay on the part of the Union Government in filling up the mounting vacancies of judges in High Courts across the country. The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy observed that the "recalcitrant attitude" of the Government in not appointing High Court judges even years after the Supreme Court collegium has cleared the recommendations is causing delay in adjudication of cases.
[Case: Eastern Coalfields Limited v. Anadinath Banerjee; Citation: LL 2021 SC 366]
The Supreme Court has observed that the relatives who are not dependent on the claimant will constitute a separate family unit for the purposes of compensation and rehabilitation. "The principle which can be deduced is that relatives who are not dependent on the claimant will constitute a separate family unit for the purposes of compensation and rehabilitation. The self-serving affidavits executed by the father, brother and nephews of the respondent cannot be taken as the basis of determining whether the holding of the respondent was in excess of the threshold of two acres. Such affidavits create no interest in the land particularly when the persons who executed them do not fall within the ambit of the phrase 'family'", the Bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed while allowing the appeal.
368. Political Parties Must Publish Criminal Antecedents Of Candidates Within 48 Hours Of Their Selection: Supreme Court Modifies Earlier Direction
[Case: Brajesh Singh v. Sunil Arora; Citation: LL 2021 SC 367]
With the objective of decriminalization of politics, the Supreme Court on Tuesday directed that the political parties must publish the criminal antecedents, in any, of the candidates within 48 hours of their selection. A bench comprising Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai modified the direction in its February 13, 2020 judgment in that regard. The court has also directed the Election Commission of India to create a dedicated mobile application containing information published by candidates regarding their criminal antecedents, so that at one stroke, each voter gets such information on his/her mobile phone.
Also Read: SC Directs Political Parties To Publish Criminal Antecedents Of Candidates In LS & Assembly Polls
Also Read: Politicians With Criminal Antecedents Cannot Be Permitted To Be Law-Makers; But Our Hands Are Tied
369. NCLT/NCLAT Has No Residual Equity Jurisdiction While Dealing With Resolution Plan Approved By CoC
[Case: Pratap Technocrats (P) Ltd. v. Monitoring Committee of Reliance Infratel Limited; Citation: LL 2021 SC 368]
The Supreme Court has observed that there is no residual equity based jurisdiction in the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Authority while dealing with the resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors. The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah reiterated that these authorities can not enter into the commercial wisdom underlying the approval granted by the CoC to the resolution plan.
370. 'Perversity' Or 'Patent Illegality' Not Grounds To Refuse Enforcement Of Foreign Arbitration Award
[Case: Gemini Bay Transcription Pvt. Ltd. v. Integrated Sales Service Ltd; Citation: LL 2021 SC 369]
The Supreme Court has observed that perversity of an award is not a ground to refuse enforcement of a foreign award under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, after 2015 amendment. The Court held that the ground of "patent illegality" is only available to set aside domestic arbitration awards made under Part 1 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and will not apply to international commercial awards. "The ground of "patent illegality appearing on the face of the award" is an independent ground of challenge which applies only to awards made under Part I which do not involve international commercial arbitrations.", the bench comprising Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai observed.
371. Application For Initiating CIRP Has To Be Rejected If A Dispute Truly Exists In Fact And Is Not Spurious, Hypothetical Or Illusory
[Case: Kay Bouvet Engineering Ltd. v. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Private Limited; Citation: LL 2021 SC 370]
The Supreme Court has observed that adjudicating authority has to reject an application seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, if a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory. The bench of Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai observed that, at this stage, the authority is not required to be satisfied as to whether the defence is likely to succeed or not and it cannot go into the merits of the dispute.
372. Section 106 Evidence Act- 'Failure To Explain' Can Only Be An Additional Link To Complete Chain Of Circumstance
[Case: Parubai v. State of Maharashtra; Citation: LL 2021 SC 371]
The Supreme Court has observed that the failure of the accused to explain can only be held as an additional link to complete the chain of circumstance. If the other circumstances in the chain are not established, such failure to explain cannot be the sole basis to convict the accused, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna observed.
373. Right To Shelter Does Not Mean Right To Government Accommodation
[Case: Union of India v. Onkar Nath Dhar; Citation: LL 2021 SC 372]
The right to shelter does not mean right to government accommodation, the Supreme Court observed while setting aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court order allowing a retired Intelligence Bureau Officer to retain Government accommodation. The court observed that government accommodation is meant for serving officers and officials and not to the retirees as a benevolence and distribution of largesse. The bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna added that compassion howsoever genuine does not give a right to a retired person from continuing to occupy a government accommodation.
374. A 'Clarificatory' Provision In Tax Laws Cannot Impose A New Condition Retrospectively
[Case: M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax; Citation: LL 2021 SC 373]
A retrospective provision in a tax act which is "for the removal of doubts" cannot be presumed to be retrospective, even where such language is used, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood, the Supreme Court has observed while holding that Explanation 3C to Section 43B(d) of the Income Tax Act is 'clarificatory' and does not add a new condition retrospectively. The bench of Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai observed that Explanation 3C was introduced to curb the misuse of the provisions of Section 43B by not actually paying interest, but converting such interest into a fresh loan.
375. There Cannot Be Repeated Test Identification Parades Till Accused Is Identified
[Case: Umesh Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand; Citation: LL 2021 SC 374]
The Supreme Court observed that there cannot be repeated Test Identification Parades till such time that the prosecution is successful in obtaining identification of the accused. The bench of Justices Navin Sinha and R. Subhash Reddy observed that mere identification in the test identification parade cannot form the substantive basis for conviction unless there are other facts and circumstances corroborating the identification. It reiterated that a test identification parade under Section 9 of the Evidence Act is not substantive evidence in a criminal prosecution but is only corroborative evidence.
376. Delay In Pronouncing Judgment By Itself Is Not A Ground For Setting It Aside
[Case: Sree Srimanniranjana Pranavaswarupi Sree Shivananda Shivayogirajendra Mahaswamigalu v. CR Shivananda; Citation: LL 2021 SC 375]
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna observed that a delay in pronouncing the judgment by itself is not a ground of setting it aside. In this case, the appellant challenged the High Court judgment on the ground that it delivered the judgment after one and a half year of the judgment being reserved. The appellant's counsel relied on a judgment viz. Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) (2001) 3 SCC 179 in this regard.
377. Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Services Rules 2017 Has No Retrospective Operation
[Case: Anand Kumar Tiwari v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 376]
The Supreme Court has observed that Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2017, has no retrospective operation. The roster shall be prepared and maintained only after the commencement of operation of the Rules, the bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose observed. After the introduction of the 2017 Rules, seniority inter-se direct recruits and promotees shall be determined on the basis of Roster, the court added. The bench further observed that the delay in the decision taken by the High Court to bring the seniority rule in accord with the directions given by this Court in All India Judges' Association (supra) on the ground of pendency of SLP before this Court is not justified.
378. 'SLP Cannot Lie Against Only A Review Order': Supreme Court Raps Petitioner For Approaching Court With Over 56 Years Delay
[Case: Anita Devi and Anr v. Sanjay Kumar and Ors; Citation: LL 2021 SC 377]
Emphasizing the fact that an SLP could not lie against only a review order, the Supreme Court today rapped the petitioner for approaching the Court by way of a review application with a delay of 56 years and 6 days.The Division Bench of Justice SK Kaul and Justice Hrishikesh Roy while hearing a plea against the order passed by the Patna High Court on March 29, 2019, remarked that, "We find the present proceeding filed before this Court as also before the High Court is an abuse of process of law and complete wastage of judicial time."
379. Payment Of Gratuity Act - No Retrospective Effect For 2010 Amendment Enhancing Gratuity Upper Limit As Rs 10 Lakhs
[Case: Krishna Gopal Tiwary v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 378]
The Supreme Court has observed that 2010 amendment of Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 is not retrospective. As per the 2010 amendment, the upper-limit of amount of gratuity payable as per Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 was increased as Rupees 10 lakhs from Rupees 3.5 lakhs. The bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna observed that the benefit of higher gratuity is one-time available to the employees only after the commencement of the Amending Act.
380. Improper To Quash FIR U/s 482 CrPC When There Are Serious Triable Allegations In Complaint, Reiterates Supreme Court
[Case: Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 379]
The Supreme Court has observed that it is improper to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code when there are serious triable allegations in the complaint. Appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, the Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah reiterated while setting aside a High Court judgment.
381. Premature Release - UP Govt.'s Policy To Release Prisoners Only On Republic Day Arbitrary: Supreme Asks Govt To Consider All Eligible Persons Regardless Of Application
[Case: Beche Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 380]
A bench of Justices Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari on May 4 told the state of UP to not deem as ineligible for consideration for premature release those life convicts who have not specifically applied for the relief, and obligated the state government to conduct periodical assessments to identify those who are so entitled. "We cannot approve the policy that those who do not specifically apply for remission would fall in the restricted category and would be ineligible for consideration", the Court said.
382. Whether A Deed Is Of Absolute Transfer Or Mortgage By Conditional Sale? Intention Of Parties Determines
[Case: Bhimrao Ramchandra Khalate (Deceased) v. Nana dinkar Yadav (Tanpura); Citation: LL 2021 SC 381]
The Supreme Court has observed that the intention of parties has to be looked into to consider whether a document is of absolute sale or mortgage by conditional sale. A Bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna was interpreting Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act which defines Mortgage by conditional sale. The proviso to this section states that no such transaction shall be deemed to be a mortgage, unless the condition is embodied in the document which effects or purports to effect the sale.
383. Motor Accident Claim Petition Does Not Abate On Death Of Injured Claimant
[Case: Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon (deceased); Citation: LL 2021 SC 382]
The Supreme Court has observed that a motor accident claim petition does not abate even after the death of the injured claimant. A Bench comprising Justices Navin Sinha and R. Subhash Reddy ruled that the right to sue survive to his heirs and legal representatives in so far as loss to the estate is concerned. The Court added that the loss of estate would include expenditure on medicines, treatment, diet, attendant, Doctor's fee, etc. including income and future prospects which would have caused reasonable accretion to the estate but for the sudden expenditure which had to be met from and depleted the estate of the injured, subsequently deceased.
384. He Fought A Long & Arduous Battle Against The Might Of The State': Supreme Court Rejects Centre's SLP Against A Mason
[Case: Union of India v. Vasudev; Citation: LL 2021 SC 383]
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with an order of the Delhi High Court judgment in the matter of regularization of a mason. The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed that the mason had been pursuing his claim right from 1997 before the Tribunal and he was entitled to temporary status on the completion of 240 days' continuous service.
385. Criminal Appeal Cannot Be Dismissed Merely For Non-Representation Or Default Of Accused' Advocate
[Case: K. Muruganandam v. State; Citation: LL 2021 SC 384]
The Supreme Court has observed that a Court cannot dismiss the appeal filed by an accused merely because of non-representation or default of the advocate for the accused. If the accused does not appear through counsel appointed by him/her, the Court is obliged to proceed with the hearing of the case only after appointing an amicus curiae, the bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna stated.
386. Process Of Determination Of Motor Accident Compensation Cannot Be By A Continuing Mandamus, It Must Take Place At One Go
[Case: HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mukesh Kumar; Citation: LL 2021 SC 385]
The Supreme Court has observed that while determining compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, a court cannot direct the continued maintenance by Insurance Company of a prosthetic limb for the injured claimant. The process of determination of such compensation cannot be by a continuing mandamus, in a colloquial sense, and the determination must take place at one go, the bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy observed.
387. Mere Over-ruling Of Principles By A Subsequent Judgment Will Not Dilute Binding Effect Of Decision On Inter-parties
[Case: Neelima Sreevastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 386]
Emphasizing the distinction between over-ruling a principle and reversal of the judgment, the Supreme Court observed that mere over-ruling of the principles by a subsequent judgment will not dilute the binding effect of the decision on inter-parties. "Mere over-ruling of the principles, on which the earlier judgment was passed, by a subsequent judgment of higher forum will not have the effect of uprooting the final adjudication between the parties and set it at naught.", the bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari ruled.
388. A 'Tenant In Sufferance' Not Entitled To Any Protection Of Rent Act Against SARFAESI Proceedings
[Case: Hemaraj Ratnakar Salian v. HDFC Bank Ltd; Citation: LL 2021 SC 387]
The Supreme Court has observed that a tenant in sufferance is not entitled to any protection of the Rent Act against SARFAESI proceedings. A tenant whose term has expired but has not vacated is called a "tenant at sufferance.‟. In the absence of a registered instrument, if the tenant only relies upon an unregistered instrument or an oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession, the tenant is not entitled to possession of the secured asset for more than the period prescribed under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, the bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari observed.
389. Genuineness Of Property Transaction Cannot Be Doubted Merely Because Thumb Impression Was Affixed Instead Of Signature
[Case: Lachhmi Narain Singh (D) v. Sarjug Singh (Dead); Citation: LL 2021 SC 388]
The Supreme Court has observed that genuineness of property transaction cannot be doubted merely because thumb impression was affixed instead of signature. The bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Krishna Murari also observed that every person has a unique thumb impression and thus 'forgery of thumb impressions is nearly impossible'.
390. Right Of Equity Of Redemption Of Mortgage Is Subsidiary To Right Of Ownership
[Case: Narayan Deorao Javle (Deceased) v. Krishna; Citation: LL 2021 SC 389]
The Supreme Court has observed that the right of equity of redemption is subsidiary to the right of ownership. A Bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna observed, "The expression equity of redemption is a convenient maxim but an owner, who has stepped into the shoes of the mortgagor, after the purchase from the mortgagor but before filing a suit for foreclosure is entitled to redeem the property in terms of Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act", the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna ruled.
391. Prior Knowledge Of Senior Secondary Level Biology Or Biological Science Is Essential For Admission To MBBS Course
[Case: Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences v. Srikeerti Pingle; Citation: LL 2021 SC 390]
The Supreme Court has observed that prior knowledge - both theoretical and practical, of senior secondary level in biology or biological sciences is an essential qualification to get admission to MBBS Course. The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat observed that equivalence in qualification is not merely at the level of a 10+2 requirement, but MCI regulation requires equivalence in 'standard and scope' in an examination where the candidate is tested in Physics, Chemistry and Biology including practical testing in these subjects, along with English.
392. Personal Liberty- Merely Because An Arrest Can Be Made Lawfully, It Does Not Mandate That Arrest Must Be Made
[Case: Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 391]
Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made, the Supreme Court has recently observed. The bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy observed that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate.
393. B.Ed In Biological Science Eligible Qualification For HSA(Natural Science) Post
[Case: Praveen Kumar CP v. Kerala Public Service Commission; Citation: LL 2021 SC 392]
The Supreme Court has held that candidates with B.ED degree in 'Biological Science' are eligible to apply to the post of High School Assistant (Natural Sciences) in government schools in Kerala. A bench comprising Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice Aniruddha Bose set aside the judgments of the Kerala High Court which held that B.Ed degree in 'Biological Science' was not a qualification for High School Assistant (Natural Sciences).
394. Investigation Buried The Truth Fathom Deep: Supreme Court Acquits All Accused In A Murder Case
[Case: Madhav v. State of Madhya Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 393]
Investigation in this case was carried out not with the intention of unearthing the truth, but for burying the same fathom deep, the Supreme Court has remarked while acquitting all the accused in a murder case of 2008. Overruling the conviction, the Bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian observed that the High Court proceeded on a wrong premise that there was scientific evidence to point to the guilt of the accused, merely because as pe FSL Report, the knife and lathis said to have been seized by the police, contained stains of human blood.
395. Consumer Complaint Against A Common Carrier Not Maintainable Without Serving It A Prior Notice
[Case: Associated Road Carriers v. Kamlender Kashyap; Citation: LL 2021 SC 394]
The Supreme Court has observed that a consumer complaint against a common carrier is not maintainable if prior notice under Section 6 of Carriers Act, 1865, is not served on it. Notice is required to be served prior to initiation of proceedings and not the proceedings itself, the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna held.
396. 'No Sympathies To Students Who Entered Through Backdoor': SC Dismisses Plea Of MBBS Students Admitted Through Private Counselling
[Case: Abdul Ahad v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 395]
No sympathies can be shown to students who have entered through backdoor, the Supreme Court observed while dismissing review petitions filed by some medical students. The bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari observed that the medical admissions conducted through the private counselling is illegal.
397. Default Sentences Cannot Be Directed To Run Concurrently
[Case: Dumya Alias Lakhan Alias Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra; Citation: LL 2021 SC 396]
The Supreme Court has observed that the default sentences imposed on a convict cannot be directed to run concurrently. A bench of Justices UU Lalit and Ajay Rastogi noted that in Sharad Hiru Kilambe v. State of Maharashtra & Ors, it was held that the default sentence cannot be directed to run concurrently. It was further noted that in Sharad Hiru, the court had observed that the default sentence given to the concerned accused of three years each on three counts was found to be excessive.
398. Reservation Category Person Can't Claim Quota Benefits Simultaneously In Two Successor States
[Case: Pankaj Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand; Citation: LL 2021 SC 397]
The Supreme Court has held that a person who is entitled to the benefit of reservation in either of the State of Bihar or State of Jharkhand will not be entitled to claim benefit of reservation simultaneously in both the successor States. Allowing such simultaneous claim will defeat the mandate of Articles 341(1) and 342(1) of the Constitution, the Court observed. A division bench comprising Justices UU Lalit and Ajay Rastogi further held that those who are members of the reserved category and are resident of the successor State of Bihar, while participating in open selection in State of Jharkhand shall be treated to be migrants and it will be open to them to participate in general category without claiming the benefit of reservation and vice-versa. Accordingly, the Bench set aside a judgment of the Jhakrhand High Court.
399. Scope And Ambit Of Powers Of Court Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Summarizes Principles
[Case: Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana; Citation: LL 2021 SC 398]
The Supreme Court summarized the scope and ambit of the powers of the Court under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even in a case where the stage of giving opportunity to the complainant to file a protest petition urging upon the trial Court to summon other persons as well as who were named in the FIR but not implicated in the charge-sheet has gone, in that case also, the court is still not powerless by virtue of Section 319 CrPC, the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed.
Access full report to read the list of principles enlisted by the Court
400. Economic Criterion Cannot Be The Sole Basis For Identifying 'Creamy Layer'
[Case: Pichra Warg Kalyan Mahasabha Haryana v. State of Haryana; Citation: LL 2021 SC 399]
The Supreme Court has observed that economic criterion cannot be the sole basis for identifying 'creamy layer'. Accordingly, a bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose quashed a notification issued by the State of Haryana specifying the criteria for exclusion of 'creamy layer' within the backward classes. "..the State of Haryana has sought to determine 'creamy layer' from backward classes solely on the basis of economic criterion and has committed a grave error in doing so. On this ground alone, the notification dated 17.08.2016 requires to be set aside", the Court observed.
401. EPF Pension Case : Supreme Court Larger Bench To Decide If There Is Cut-Off Date For Option Under Para 11(3) Of EPS
[Case: The Employees Provident Fund Organization and others v. Sunil Kumar B and others; Citation: LL 2021 SC 400]
The Supreme Court has referred to a larger bench the appeals filed by the Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) and the Union of India challenging the judgments of Kerala, Delhi and Rajasthan High Courts which quashed the Employee's Pension (Amendment) Scheme, 2014. A division bench comprising Justices UU Lalit and Ajay Rastogi said that the principal questions that arise for consideration are : 1. Whether there would be a cut-off date under paragraph 11(3) of the Employees' Pension Scheme and 2. Whether the decision in R.C. Gupta v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (2016) would be the governing principle on the basis of which all these matters must be disposed.
402. How To Exercise The Discretionary Power For Granting Bail? Principles Summarized By Supreme Court
[Case: Harjit Singh v. Inderpreet Singh @ Inder; Citation: LL 2021 SC 401]
The Supreme Court has observed that seriousness of crime is an aspect to be considered while granting bail to an accused. The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah set aside a bail granted by the High Court to a murder accused. "We are of the opinion that the High Court has erred in granting bail to respondent no.1 herein without taking into consideration the overall facts, otherwise having a bearing on exercise of its discretion on the issue. The order passed by the High Court fails to notice material facts and shows nonapplication of mind to the seriousness of the crime and circumstances, which ought to have been taken into consideration.", the Court said.
403. Section 482 CrPC: High Court Not Required To Appreciate Evidence To Find Out Whether Accused Is Likely To Be Convicted Or Not
[Case: Saranya v. Bharati; Citation: LL 2021 SC 402]
The Supreme Court reiterated that, at Section 482 CrPC stage, a High Court is not required to appreciate the evidence to find out whether the accused is likely to be convicted or not. A Bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed, "The High Court has entered into the appreciation of the evidence and considered whether on the basis of the evidence, the accused is likely to be convicted or not, which as such is not permissible at all at this stage while considering the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C."
404. Insistence On Bank Guarantee Of Scheduled Indian Private Banks In Preference To Scheduled Foreign Banks In India A Fallacy
[Case: SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation v. Power Mech Projects Ltd; Citation: LL 2021 SC 403]
Justice Indira Banerjee of the Supreme Court has observed in a dissenting judgment that it is incomprehensible why bank guarantee from Scheduled Private Banks in India should be preferred to Scheduled Foreign Banks in India with high global rating, even though, some Scheduled Private Sector Banks have not even been running well. The bench of Justice Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian was considering appeals against the High Court order refusing to accept a legally valid irrevocable Bank Guarantee of Rs.30 Crores, issued by the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Limited, Mumbai, which is a Scheduled Bank included in the Second Schedule of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, and insisting that the Appellant should furnish a fresh Bank Guarantee of the same amount, with identical terms, issued by a "Scheduled Indian Bank", notwithstanding the expenditure incurred by the Appellant in obtaining the Bank Guarantee from ICBC.
405. Fundamental Right To Reside Anywhere In/Move Throughout The Country Cannot Be Denied On Flimsy Grounds: Supreme Court Quashes Externment Order Against Journalist
[Case: Rahmat Khan @ Rammu Bismillah v. Deputy Commissioner of Police; Citation: LL 2021 SC 404]
While quashing an externment order passed against a journalist, the Supreme Court has observed that a person cannot be denied his fundamental right to reside anywhere in the country or to move freely throughout the country, on flimsy grounds. The bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian observed that the drastic action of externment should only be taken in exceptional cases, to maintain law and order in a locality and/or prevent breach of public tranquility and peace.
406. Supreme Court Directs Compulsory Retirement Of Judicial Officer; Says Solitary Remark About Lack Of Integrity Sufficient
[Case: High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan v. Bhanwar Lal Lamror; Citation: LL 2021 SC 405]
The Supreme Court has observed that solitary remark regarding lack of integrity is sufficient to order compulsory retirement of a Judicial Officer. The bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna set aside a Rajasthan High Court judgment which directed reinstatement of a judicial officer who was compulsorily retired.
407. Element Of Judicial Accountability Is Lost Where Oral Regimes Prevail: Supreme Court Deprecates Practice Of Issuing 'Oral Directions'
[Case: Salimbhai Hamidbhai Menon v. Niteshkumar Maganbhai Patel; Citation: LL 2021 SC 406]
Deprecating the practice of issuing oral directions, the Supreme court said that Judges ought to speak through their judgments and orders and not by issuing oral directions which does not form a part of the judicial record. "The element of judicial accountability is lost where oral regimes prevail. This would set a dangerous precedent and is unacceptable. Judges, as much as public officials over whose conduct they preside, are accountable for their actions.", the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah has observed.
408. Supreme Court Grants Bail To YSRCP MP Raghu Rama Krishna Raju In Sedition Case
[Case: Kanumuri Raghurama Krishnam Raju v. Stateof Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 407]
A Bench of Justices Vineet Saran and BR Gavai granted bail to YSR Congress MP K. Raghu Rama Krishnam Raju from Andhra Pradesh, who was arrested by Guntur CID on May 14 for alleged sedition and promotion of communal hatred over his speeches. It observed that custodial interrogation would not be required as all statements of Petitioner are on record. The bench also took note of the medical condition of the petitioner, having regard to the heart surgery underwent by him last year. The bench also opined on the basis of the medical report from Army Hospital, Secundarabad, that possibilities of the petitioner's ill-treatment in custody cannot be ruled out.
409. Applicability Of Res Judicata Between Co-Defendants: Supreme Court Explains
[Case: Union of India v. S. Narasimhulu Naidu; Citation: LL 2021 SC 408]
The Supreme Court in a recent judgment examined the applicability of res judicata between co-defendants. The bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta observed that the requisite conditions to apply the principle of res judicata as between co-defendants are that: (a) there must be conflict of interest between the defendants concerned; (b) it must be necessary to decide this conflict in order to give the plaintiff the relief he claims; and (c) the question between the defendants must have been finally decided.
410. Principle Of Equal Pay For Equal Work Cannot Be Applied Merely On Basis Of Designation
[Case: Union of India v. Manoj Kumar; Citation: LL 2021 SC 409]
The Supreme Court has observed that the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied merely on basis of designation. A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy observed, "we are fortified in the view we are seeking to adopt in interpreting the aforesaid paragraphs of the Pay Commission by the observations in Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das, where it was opined that the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied merely on basis of designation. While dealing with the 5th Pay Commission recommendations with respect to functional requirements, it was held that there was no question of any equivalence on that basis. The said case dealt with Stenographers of the Geological Survey of India. While observing that as a general statement it was correct to state that the basic nature of work of a Stenographer remained by and large the same whether they were working for an officer in the Secretariat or for an officer in a subordinate office; it was held that Courts ought not to interfere if the Commission itself had considered all aspects and after due consideration opined that absolute equality ought not to be given."
411. Supreme Court Reduces Sentence To Period Already Undergone As Man Convicted U/s 498A IPC Agrees To Pay Compensation To His Wife & Children
[Case: Samaul SK v. State of Jharkhand; Citation: LL 2021 SC 410]
The Supreme Court has reduced sentence awarded to a man convicted under section 498A of IPC to period already undergone after he agreed to pay compensation to his wife and children. The object of any criminal jurisprudence is reformative in character and to take care of the victim, the bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy observed.
412. Second Appeal- Question Of Law Doesn't Arise In Abstract; Mere Reference To Facts Does Not Amount To Reappreciation Of Evidence
[Case: Balasubramanian v. M. Arockiasamy (dead); Citation: LL 2021 SC 411]
The Supreme Court has observed that merely because the High Court, while considering a second appeal, refers to certain factual aspects in the case to raise and conclude on the question of law, the same does not mean that the factual aspect and evidence has been re-appreciated. Question of law for consideration will not arise in abstract but in all cases will emerge from the facts peculiar to that case and there cannot be a strait jacket formula, the bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices AS Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy said.
413. Repeat Of OBC Reservation In Mayor Post Before SC Reservation Not Violation Of Rotation Policy As Per Maharashtra Act
[Case: Sanjay Ramdas Patil v. Sanjay and Others; Citation: LL 2021 SC 412]
The Supreme Court set aside a judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) which had quashed a notification issued by the Maharashtra Government to reserve the post of Mayor in Dhule Municipal Corporation to candidate belonging to Other Backward Class (OBC) category. Disagreeing with the High Court's opinion, the Bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai observed that given the number of municipal corporations in the State of Maharashtra, it was possible that there will be repeat of OBC reservation in Mayor post even before the turn for SC reservation occurs, and this by itself cannot be termed as violation of rotation policy as per the Maharashtra law.
414. Repeated Inquiries For Verification Of Caste Certificate Detrimental To SC-ST Members
[Case: J. Chitra v. District Collector and Chairman State Level Vigilance Committee; Citation: LL 2021 SC 413]
Repeated inquiries for verification of caste certificates would be detrimental to the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the Supreme Court has observed. The bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose said that the purpose of verification of caste certificates by Scrutiny Committees is to avoid false and bogus claims and reopening of inquiry can be only in case they are vitiated by fraud or when they were issued without proper inquiry.
415. Employee Not Estopped From Challenging Terms & Conditions Of Employment If It Violates Statutory Requirement
[Case: Somesh Thapliyal v. Vice Chancellor, H.N.B. Garhwal University; Citation: LL 2021 SC 414]
The Supreme Court has observed that employee is not estopped from questioning terms and condition of employment at a stage where he finds himself aggrieved. "It is open for the employee to challenge the conditions if it is not being in conformity with the statutory requirement under the law and he is not estopped from questioning at a stage where he finds himself aggrieved", the bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi observed.
416. Conditions To Attract Presumption As To Abetment Of Suicide By Married Woman U/s 113A Evidence Act
[Case: Gumansinh @ Raju Bhikhabhai Chauhan v. State Of Gujarat; Citation: LL 2021 SC 415]
The Supreme Court has observed that to attract the applicability of Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, three conditions are required to be fulfilled- 1) The woman has committed suicide 2) Such suicide has been committed within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage 3) The charged-accused had subjected her to cruelty. If all the three conditions stand fulfilled, presumption can be drawn against the accused and if he could not rebut the presumption by leading evidence, he can be convicted, the bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari observed.
417. Magistrate While Accepting Chargesheet Has To Invariably Issue Summons And Not Arrest Warrant
[Case: Aman Preet Singh v. CBI; Citation: LL 2021 SC 416]
The Supreme Court has observed that, while accepting charge-sheet, the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M Sundresh also observed that, if an accused in a non-bailable offence has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, it would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail to suddenly direct his arrest merely because charge sheet has been filed.
418. 'Well Established Process With Sufficient Safeguards Exists For Judges Appointment': Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Collegium Proposal For HC Judgeship With Rs 5 Lakh Costs
[Case: B. Sailesh Saxena v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 417]
Sufficient safeguards exist in the system, the Supreme Court has said while it dismissed a lawyer's plea against proposal to appoint a judicial officer as a judge of the High Court for the State of Telangana. Advocate B. Sailesh Saxena filed a writ petition seeking a direction to consider the representation submitted by him in this regard. The bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh observed that this writ petition is a gross abuse of law filed to harass the concerned judicial officer and for abusing the court proceedings. Therefore, costs of Rs. 5 lakhs was imposed.
419. Presiding Deity Is Owner Of Land Attached To Temple, Not Pujari: Supreme Court Upholds MP Govt. Circulars
[Case: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti; Citation: LL 2021 SC 418]
Presiding deity of the temple is the owner of the land attached to the temple and Pujari is only to perform puja and to maintain the properties of the deity, the Supreme Court observed while upholding the circulars issued by the Madhya Pradesh Government to delete the names of Pujari from revenue record pertaining to temple properties. "The Law is clear on the distinction that the Pujari is not a Kashtkar Mourushi, i.e., tenant in cultivation or a government lessee or an ordinary tenant of the maufi lands but holds such land on behalf of the Aukaf Department for the purpose of management. The Pujari is only a grantee to manage the property of the deity and such grant can be reassumed if the Pujari fails to do the task assigned to him, i.e., to offer prayers and manage the land. He cannot be thus treated as a Bhumiswami", the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna said.
420. Rule Or Law Cannot Be Construed As Retrospective Unless It Expresses A Clear Or Manifest Intention To The Contrary
[Case: Assistant Excise Commissioner, Kottayam v. Esthappan Cherian; Citation: LL 2021 SC 419]
The Supreme Court has observed that a rule or law cannot be construed as retrospective unless it expresses a clear or manifest intention to the contrary. In the absence of express statutory authorization, delegated legislation in the form of rules or regulations, cannot operate retrospectively, the bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat observed.
421. Adjudicatory Function Of National Green Tribunal Cannot Be Assigned To Expert Committees
[Case: Sanghar Zuber Ismail v. Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change; Citation: LL 2021 SC 420]
The Supreme Court has observed that adjudicatory function of the National Green Tribunal cannot be assigned to committees. "The discharge of its functions cannot be obviated by tasking committees to carry out a function which vests in the tribunal", the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, MR Shah and Hima Kohli observed.
422. Difference Between 'Royalty' & 'Tax' : Supreme Court Explains
[Case: M/s INDSIL Hydro Power and Manganese Ltd v. State of Kerala and others; Citation: LL 2021 SC 421]
The Supreme Court has explained the differences between the concepts of 'royalty' and 'tax' in a recent decision. A division bench comprising Justices UU Lalit and Vineet Saran observed that 'Royalty' has its basis in an agreement entered into between parties and has a nexus with the benefit or privilege conferred on a grantee. Tax is imposed under a statutory power without reference to any special benefit conferred on the payer of the tax.
423. What The Court Says, And How It Says It, Is Equally Important As What It Decides': Supreme Court Explains Purpose & Importance Of Judgment
[Case: Shakuntala Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 422]
The Supreme Court, while setting aside a High Court order that granted bail to a murder accused, explained the 'importance of judgment; purpose of judgment and what should be contained in the judgment'. The Court said that a judgment should have a clarity, both on facts and law and on submissions, findings, reasoning's and the ultimate relief granted. What the court says, and how it says it, is equally important as what the court decides, the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed.
424. Suit Simpliciter For Injunction Without Claiming Declaration Of Title Not Maintainable If Plaintiff's Title Is Disputed
[Case: T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy v. M. Mallappa; Kayalulla Parambath Moidu Haji v. Namboodiyil Vinodan; Citation: LL 2021 SC 423; LL 2021 SC 423A]
The Supreme Court has observed that a suit simpliciter for permanent injunction without claiming declaration of title is maintainable only in cases where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud. The bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai observed that if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court has to relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.
425. Fraudulent Practice To Gain Public Employment Cannot Be Countenanced: Supreme Court Upholds Termination Of 38 Workmen By BCCL
[Case: Employers In Relation To The Management Of Bhalgora Area v. Workmen; Citation: LL 2021 SC 424]
The Supreme Court has observed that fraudulent practice to gain public employment cannot be countenanced to be permitted by a Court of law. The sanctity of public employment, as a measure of social welfare and a significant source of social mobility, must be protected against such fraudulent process which manipulates and corrupts the selection process, the bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy observed.
426. Medical Professionals Cannot Be Held Negligent Merely Because The Treatment Is Not Successful Or Patient Dies During Surgery
[Case: Dr. Harish Kumar Khurana v. Joginder Singh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 425]
The Supreme Court has observed that a medical professional cannot be held negligent merely because the treatment is not successful or the patient dies during surgery. To indicate negligence, the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna said, there should be material available on record or else appropriate medical evidence should be tendered. The court said that the principle of res ipsa loquitur (mere occurrence of some types of accident is sufficient to imply negligence) can be applied when the negligence alleged is so glaring and not based on perception.
427. Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal Of A Title Suit Filed 54 Years Ago
[Case: Rakesh Bhushan Prasad Alias Rakesh Prasad v. Radha Devi; Citation: LL 2021 SC 426]
The Supreme Court, in a judgment upheld the dismissal of a 'Title' suit filed 54 years ago on 5th August 1967. "We find that the judgment of the trial court dismissing the suit is correct", the bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna observed while setting aside the Patna High Court order and first appellate court order that had decreed the suit.
428. Railways Liable To Pay Compensation For Late Arrival Of Trains If Delay Is Not Explained Or Justifiable
[Case: Northern Western Railway and Another v. Sanjay Shukla; Citation: LL 2021 SC 427]
The Supreme Court has held that until and unless the railways provide evidence and explain the late arrival of a train to establish and prove that delay occurred because of the reasons beyond their control, they would be liable to pay compensation for such delay. "Therefore, unless and until the evidence is laid explaining the delay and it is established and proved that delay occurred which was beyond their control and/or even there was some justification for delay, the railway is liable to pay the compensation for delay and late arrival of trains", a bench of Justice MR Shah and Justice Aniruddha Bose observed.
429. Reinstatement Not Automatic In Cases Of Violation Of Retrenchment Conditions U/s 25F Industrial Disputes Act
[Case: Ranbir Singh v. Executive Eng PWD; Citation: LL 2021 SC 428]
The Supreme Court has observed that the reinstatement of terminated workmen cannot be automatic in cases of violation of retrenchment conditions under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. "We find that reinstatement cannot be automatic, and the transgression of Section 25F being established, suitable compensation would be the appropriate remedy", the bench of Justices KM Joseph and PS Narasimha observed in an appeal against a High Court Judgment which interfered with a Labour Court order to the extent it awarded reinstatement of a workman with 25 per cent back wages.
430. Director Of Enforcement Can Be Appointed For A Period Of More Than Two Years
[Case: Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 429]
The Supreme Court has held that a Director of Enforcement can be appointed for a period of more than two years by following the procedure prescribed Section 25 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003. The bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai also upheld the power of the Union of India to extend the tenure of Director of Enforcement beyond the period of two years. It clarified that extension of tenure granted to officers who have attained the age of superannuation should be done only in rare and exceptional cases.
431. Mutation Entry Does Not Confer Any Right, Title Or Interest In Favour Of Any Person
[Case: Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 430]
The Supreme Court has observed that mutation entry in the revenue record is only for fiscal purposes and does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of a person. "If there is any dispute with respect to the title and more particularly when the mutation entry is sought to be made on the basis of the will, the party who is claiming title/right on the basis of the will has to approach the appropriate civil court/court and get his rights crystalised and only thereafter on the basis of the decision before the civil court necessary mutation entry can be made", the bench of Justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose observed.
432. Use Of Gauchar Land By State Or Any Third Party Contrary To What Is Permitted Cannot Go On
[Case: Rameshbhai Virabhai Chaudhari v The State of Gujarat; Citation: LL 2021 SC 431]
While directing the State of Gujarat to bring Gauchar Land (grazing land) of Village Bhandu in conformity with its use, the Supreme Court observed that use of gauchar land, whether by State of any third party, contrary to what was permitted could not go on. "It is trite to say that gauchar land can be used only for purposes for which it is permitted to be used. If there is a user contrary to the permissible user, whether by the State or by any third party, the same cannot go on," the division bench of Justice SK Kaul and Justice MM Sundresh observed.
433. Contravention Of A Statute Not Linked To Public Policy Or Public Interest Cannot Be A Ground To Set Aside An Arbitral Award
[Case: Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd; Citation: LL 2021 SC 432]
The Supreme Court has observed that contravention of a statute which is not linked to public policy or public interest cannot be a ground to set aside an arbitration award. "There is a disturbing tendency of courts setting aside arbitral awards, after dissecting and reassessing factual aspects of the cases to come to a conclusion that the award needs intervention and thereafter, dubbing the award to be vitiated by either perversity or patent illegality, apart from the other grounds available for annulment of the award", the bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat observed.
434. Second Appeal- High Courts Can Exercise Limited Factual Review Under Section 103 CPC
[Case: K.N. Nagarajappa v. H. Narasimha Reddy; Citation: LL 2021 SC 433]
The Supreme Court has observed that High Courts are empowered to exercise limited factual review under Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat observed that the rule that sans a substantial question of law, the High Courts cannot interfere with findings of the lower Court or concurrent findings of fact, is subject to the following two important caveats: First, if the findings of fact are palpably perverse or outrage the conscience of the court; in other words, it flies on the face of logic that given the facts on the record, interference would be justified. Second, where the findings of fact may call for examination and be upset, in the limited circumstances spelt out in Section 103 CPC.
435. Magistrates Cannot Extend Time To Complete Investigation In UAPA Cases
[Case: Sadique v. State of Madhya Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 434]
The Supreme Court held that magistrates would not be competent to extend the time to complete investigations in UAPA cases. The only competent authority to consider such request would be "the Court" as specified in the proviso in Section 43-D (2)(b) of the UAPA, the bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Belam M Trivedi held.
436. Government Should Keep Taxation System Convenient & Simple, Says Supreme Court
[Case: South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax; Citation: LL 2021 SC 435]
The Supreme Court has observed that it is the responsibility of the Government should endeavour to keep taxation regime convenient and simple. "Just as the Government does not wish for avoidance of tax equally it is the responsibility of the regime to design a tax system for which a subject can budget and plan", the bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy observed.
437. Delay In Conducting Disciplinary Enquiry Does Not Ipso Facto Vitiate It
[Case: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Akhilesh Jha; Citation: LL 2021 SC 436]
Every delay in conducting a disciplinary enquiry does not, ipso facto, lead to the enquiry being vitiated, the Supreme Court observed. The bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and Hima Kohli has observed that the prejudice caused by the delay must be demonstrated to have been caused and cannot be a matter of surmise.
438. In A Democratic Setup, The Will Of The Majority Has To Prevail
[Case: Sau. Sangeeta w/o Sunil Shinde v. The State of Maharashtra and others; Citation: LL 2021 SC 437]
The Supreme Court has observed in a judgment that "in a democratic set up, the will of the majority has to prevail". A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai made this observation in a case related to the approval of the group leader of a party in Panchayat Samiti elections.
439. Writ Petition Can Be Entertained Only In Exceptional Circumstances When Alternate Remedy Is Available
[Case: Assistant Commissioner of State Tax v. Commercial Steel Limited; Citation: LL 2021 SC 438]
The Supreme Court bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and Hima Kohli observed that, when an alternate remedy is available, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be entertained by a High Court only in following exceptional circumstances: (i) a breach of fundamental rights; (ii) a violation of the principles of natural justice; (iii) an excess of jurisdiction; or (iv) a challenge to the vires of the statute or delegated legislation.
440. Trees To Be Valued Separately When Acquired Land Value Is Determined With Reference To Sales Statistics
[Case: Bhupendra Ramdhan Pawar v. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation; Citation: LL 2021 SC 439]
The Supreme Court has observed that the trees have to be valued separately in a case where the land value for the purpose of its acquisition is determined with reference to the sales statistics. The Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka noted the following observations in Ambya Kalya Mhatre(Dead) v. State of Maharashtra, "If the land value had been determined with reference to the sale statistics or compensation awarded for a nearby vacant land, then necessarily, the trees will have to be valued separately. But if the value of the land has been determined on the basis of the sale statistics or compensation awarded for an orchard, that is land with fruit-bearing trees, then there is no question of again adding the value of the trees."
441. PC Act Is A Code By Itself- Bank Account Of A Person Accused of Prevention of Corruption Act Cannot Be Attached U/S 102 CrPC
[Case: Ratan Babulal Lath v. The State Of Karnataka; Citation: LL 2021 SC 440]
The Supreme Court has observed that bank account of a person accused under Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be attached invoking Section 102 of Code of Criminal Procedure. "It is not possible to sustain the freezing of the bank account of the appellant taking recourse to Section 102 Cr.P.C. as the Prevention of Corruption Act is a Code by itself", the bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh observed while allowing an appeal against a Karnataka High Court judgment. "It is not possible to sustain the freezing of the bank account of the appellant taking recourse to Section 102 Cr.P.C. as the Prevention of Corruption Act is a Code by itself. In view of the aforesaid position, the freezing of the account of the appellant cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside", the Court said.
442. Consumer Complaints Alleging Deficiency In Service Related To Transfer Of Title Of Immovable Property Not Maintainable
[Case: Estate Officer v. Charanjit Kaur; Citation: LL 2021 SC 441]
The Supreme Court has observed that consumer complaints on the ground of deficiency in service related to transfer of title of the immovable property is not maintainable. The expression 'service' includes housing construction and not allotment of a site or a plot, the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and A.S.Bopanna observed. "The expression 'service' includes housing construction and not allotment of a site or a plot. Since the respondents are already in possession of the sites as lessee on 99 years basis, it cannot be said that the appellant was deficient in providing any service, which even if used in a liberal sense would not include transfer of title in an immovable property. "
443. Compassionate Appointment - Policy Prevailing At The Time When Employee Died/Application Was Made Is Only To Be Considered
[Case: Seema Kausar v. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors; Citation: LL 2021 SC 442]
The Supreme Court on September 6, 2021 while upholding Bombay High Court's order of rejecting compassionate appointment, observed that it can be made only as per the Government's policy, and only in case where eligibility criteria under the Scheme has been satisfied. Dismissing the special leave petition, the bench of Justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose also observed that, "It also cannot be disputed that the policy which was prevailing at the time when the deceased employee died/the application was made only is required to be considered."
444. Writ Court Cannot Adjudicate Factual Disputes Arising Out Of Pure Contractual Matters Having No Statutory Flavour
[Case: Union of India v. M/s Puna Hinda; Citation: LL 2021 SC 443]
The Supreme Court has observed that writ court cannot adjudicate factual disputes arising out of pure contractual matters in the field of private law having no statutory flavour. "Though, the jurisdiction of the High Court is wide but in respect of pure contractual matters in the field of private law, having no statutory flavour, are better adjudicated upon by the forum agreed to by the parties. The dispute as to whether the amount is payable or not and/or how much amount is payable are disputed questions of facts. There is no admission on the part of the appellants to infer that the amount stands crystallized", the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna said.
445. Employee Cannot Insist On Transfer To A Particular Place; It's For Employer To Decide
[Case: Namrata Verma v. State of UP; Citation: LL 2021 SC 444]
The Supreme Court on September 6, 2021 has observed that it was not for the employee to insist the transfer or non-transfer to a particular place but it was for the employer to do the same considering the requirement. The observations were made by the division bench of Justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose while dismissing the special leave petition assailing Allahabad High Court's order of refusing to interfere with the petitioner's representation that rejected transfer to another college.
446. Requirement To Frame Substantial Question Of Law In Second Appeal Not A Mere Formality, But Meant To Be Adhered To
[Case: Singaram v. Ramanathan; Citation: LL 2021 SC 445]
The Supreme Court has observed that the requirement to frame substantial question of law in a second appeal is not a mere formality, but is meant to be adhered to. The limitation on the exercise of power by the High Court in the Second Appeal interfering with the judgment of the First Appellate Court is premised on high public policy, the bench of Justices KM Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat observed.
447. Refund For Unutilised Input Tax Credit Can't Be Claimed On Account Of Input Services: Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of Section 54(3) CGST Act
[Case: Union of India v. VKC Footsteps India Pvt Ltd; Citation: LL 2021 SC 446]
The Supreme Court has held that Section 54(3) of the Central Goods and Services Act excludes unutilised input tax credit that accumulated on account of input services. "When there is neither a constitutional guarantee nor a statutory entitlement to refund, the submission that goods and services must necessarily be treated at par on a matter of a refund of unutilized ITC cannot be accepted", a bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed while rejecting the challenge against Section 54(3) on the ground that it violates equality doctrine under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Also Read: Practical Effect Might Result In Certain Inequities': Supreme Court Points Out Anomalies In GST Refund Formula; Urges GST Council To Reconsider
448. NCLT/NCLAT Should Strictly Adhere To IBC Timelines; Delays Cause Commercial Uncertainty
[Case: Ebix Singapore Private Limited v. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited; Citation: LL 2021 SC 447]
The Supreme Court has urged NCLT/NCLAT, the adjudicating and appellate authorities under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, to strictly adhere to the timelines stipulated under the IBC and clear pending resolution plans forthwith. The court said that inordinate delays cause commercial uncertainty, degradation in the value of the Corporate Debtor and makes the insolvency process inefficient and expensive. The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah made these observations in the judgment viz. Ebix Singapore Private Limited v. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited in which it held that NCLT cannot permit modifications or withdrawals of CoC-approved Resolution Plans, at the behest of the successful Resolution Applicant, once the plan has been submitted to it.
449. Repeated Filing Of Cases & Complaints Against Spouse Can Amount To 'Cruelty' For Granting Divorce
[Case: Sivasankaran v. Santhimeenal; Citation: LL 2021 SC 448]
The Supreme Court has observed that repeated filing of cases and complaints against a spouse can amount to 'cruelty' for the purpose of granting divorce under Hindu Marriage Act. The bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, in a case, referred to such conducts, even if they were subsequent to filing of the divorce petition, to grant divorce to a 'husband' on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and the ground of cruelty.
450. Compassionate Appointment: 'Divorced' Daughter Cannot Be Treated At Par With 'Widowed' Or 'Unmarried' Daughter
[Case: Director of Treasuries in Karnataka v. V. Somyashree; Citation: LL 2021 SC 449]
The Supreme Court has set aside a Karnataka High Court judgment that held that a divorced daughter would fall in the same class of an unmarried or widowed daughter for the purpose of Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996. The bench of Justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose reiterated that norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application should be the basis of consideration of claim for compassionate appointment.
451. Judicial Discipline Demand To Respect Order Passed By Coordinate Bench: Supreme Court On Comments By Uttarakhand HC On Allahabad HC Order
[Case: Uttar Pradesh Jal Vidyut (S) Nigam Limited v. Balbir Singh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 450]
"Judicial discipline/propriety demand to respect the order passed by the Coordinate Bench", the Supreme Court observed while it set aside observations made by Uttarakhand High Court on an order passed by Allahabad High Court. The bench of Justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose observed, "Even otherwise once a judicial order was passed by the High Court of Allahabad permitting the appellants to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a writ petition before the appropriate court (the High Court of Uttarakhand) and thereafter when the appellants preferred the writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand, the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand is not at all justified in making comments upon the judicial order passed by the Coordinate Bench of the Allahabad High Court. "
452. Amicable Settlement' : Supreme Court Reduces Sentence Awarded To Man Convicted U/s 307 IPC For 'Attempt To Murder'
[Case: Sy. Azhar Sy. Kalandar v. State of Maharashtra; Citation: LL 2021 SC 451]
The Supreme Court has reduced the sentence awarded to a man accused of attempt to murder taking note of the amicable settlement between the accused and the victim. The bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka noted that in earlier judgments, the court has taken note of the compromise between the parties to reduce the sentence of the convicts even in serious non-compoundable offences.
453. Sentence Of Life Imprisonment Means Rigorous Imprisonment For Life
[Case: Md. Alfaz Ali v State of Assam; Citation: LL 2021 SC 452]
The Supreme Court has reiterated that a sentence of imprisonment for life means rigorous imprisonment for life. A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai held so while disposing two special leave petitions, in which the court had issued a limited notice on the question of propriety of specifying rigorous imprisonment while imposing life sentence.
454. NCLAT Has No Jurisdiction To Condone Delay Exceeding 15 Days From Period Of 30 Days, Contemplated U/s 61(2) IBC
[Case: National Spot Exchange Limited v. Anil Kohli; Citation: LL 2021 SC 453]
The Supreme Court observed that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has no jurisdiction to condone the delay exceeding 15 days from the period of 30 days, as contemplated under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The bench of Justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose, referring to the relevant provisions of IBC observed: "The appeal preferred before the NCLAT was under Section 61(2) of the IB Code. As per Section 61(2) of the IB Code, the appeal was required to be preferred within a period of thirty days. Therefore, the limitation period prescribed to prefer an appeal was 30 days. However, as per the proviso to Section 61(2) of the Code, the Appellate Tribunal may allow an appeal to be filed after the expiry of the said period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal, but such period shall not exceed 15 days. "
455. Bar U/s 9(3) Arbitration Act Not Applicable If Application Was Taken Up By Court Before Constitution Of Arbitration Tribunal
[Case: Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd v. Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd; Citation: 2021 SC 454]
The Supreme Court has observed that the bar under Section 9(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act operates only when the application under Section 9(1) had not been entertained till the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal. "Once an Arbitral Tribunal is constituted the Court cannot take up an application under Section 9 for consideration, unless the remedy under Section 17 is inefficacious. However, once an application is entertained in the sense it is taken up for consideration, and the Court has applied its mind to the Court can certainly proceed to adjudicate the application", the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari observed.
[Case: Subhransu Sarkar v. Indrani Sarkar; Citation: LL 2021 SC 455]
The marriage between the parties is emotionally dead and there is no point in persuading them to live together any more, the Supreme Court has remarked while it dissolved a marriage invoking its powers Article 142 of the Constitution. "The marriage between the parties is emotionally dead and there is no point in persuading them to live together any more. Therefore, this is a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India", the bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai observed while dissolving the marriage.
457. Mere Quarrel On The Day Of Occurrence Does Not Attract Offence Of Abetment Of Suicide U/s 306 IPC
[Case: Velladurai v. State; Citation: LL 2021 SC 456]
The Supreme Court has observed that mere quarrel on the day of occurrence cannot attract the offence of abetment of suicide under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The bench of Justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose reiterated that mere harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306.
458. Evidence Act - Failure Of Accused To Discharge Burden U/S 106 Irrelevant If Prosecution Is Unable To Establish Chain Of Circumstances
[Case: Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar; Citation: LL 2021 SC 457]
The Supreme Court has observed that the failure of accused to discharge burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is not relevant in a case governed by circumstantial evidence if the prosecution is unable to establish a chain of circumstance. "When a case is resting on circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of burden placed on him by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, such a failure may provide an additional link to the chain of circumstances…When the chain is not complete, the falsity of the defence is no ground to convict the accused," the bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka remarked.
459. Commercial Suits & Requirement Of Establishing Reasonable Cause For Non Disclosure Of Documents Under Order XI Rule 1 (4) CPC
[Case: Sudhir Kumar @ S. Baliyan v. Vinay Kumar G.B; Citation: LL 2021 SC 458]
The Supreme Court has 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 Apex Court bench of Justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose observed, "However, at the same time, the requirement of establishing the reasonable cause for non disclosure of the documents along with the plaint 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."
460. IBC- Every Attempt Has To Be First Made To Revive The Concern And Make It A Going Concern, Liquidation Being The Last Resort
[Case: K.N. Rajakumar v. V. Nagarajan; Citation: LL 2021 SC 459]
Every attempt has to be first made to revive the concern and make it a going concern, liquidation being the last resort, the Supreme Court has observed while upholding NCLT order permitting withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna observed that an adjudicating authority under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code can allow withdrawal of CIRP proceedings on an application made by the applicant with the approval of 90% voting share of the Committee of Creditors.
461. Chairman Of Company In Arbitration Ineligible To Be Arbitrator; Disqualification Conditions Have To Be Read As A Whole
[Case: Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited v. M/s Ajay Sales & Suppliers; Citation: LL 2021 SC 460]
The Supreme Court has observed that non-independence and non-impartiality of an arbitrator would make him ineligible to conduct arbitration. The bench of Justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose observed that the ineligibility of an arbitrator can be removed only by an 'express agreement'.
462. Difference Lies In The Degree Of The Act: Supreme Court Explains Subtle Distinction Between Culpable Homicide U/s 304 IPC & Murder
[Case: Mohd. Rafiq @ Kallu v. State Of Madhya Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 461]
In a judgment delivered on September 15, 2021, the Supreme Court has explained the difference between culpable homicide under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and murder under Section 300 IPC. The Court observed that, though it difficult to distinguish between culpable homicide and murder as both involve death, there is a subtle distinction of intention and knowledge involved in both the crimes. "This difference lies in the degree of the act. There is a very wide variance of degree of intention and knowledge among both the crimes", the bench of Justices KM Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat observed.
463. Moratorium Ordered U/Sec.14 IBC Does Not Apply To Proceedings In Respect Of Directors/Management Of Corporate Debtor
[Case: Anjali Rathi v. Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd; Citation: LL 2021 SC 462]
The Supreme Court has 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.
464. 'Extension Of Time Of Joining' Cannot Be Claimed As Matter Of Right
[Case: Nilesh Kumar Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 463]
While upholding Chhattisgarh High Court's order of not granting extension of time for joining a post of Presiding Officer, Labour Court, the Supreme Court observed that extension of time of joining cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The division bench of Justices Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose in their order noted that, "Appointment letter was categorical to the effect that the petitioner had to join within 30 days. Admittedly, life of select list expired on January 5, 2011 & petitioner did not join even after expiry of period of select list. Petitioner not joining within a period of 30 days disentitles him to be appointed for the post. Extension of time of joining cannot be claimed as a matter of right."
465. Statutory Tenant Cannot Seek Repossession After Demolition Of Building Under Section 108B(e) Of Transfer Of Property Act
[Case: Abdul Khuddus v. H.M. Chandiramani (Dead); Citation: LL 2021 SC 464]
The Supreme Court has observed that the rights and liabilities of a statutory tenant have to be found under the Rent Act alone and not under Transfer of Property Act. The bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna observed that a statutory tenant cannot seek repossession after the demolition of building under Section 108(B)(e) of the TP Act.
Also Read: Rent Control Act Will Not Bar Demolition Of Building As Per Municipal Law
466. Ground Reality Today Is That Almost No Tender Remains Unchallenged': Supreme Court Reemphasizes Limited Scope Of 'Tender Jurisdiction'
[Case: UFLEX Ltd. v. Govt. Of Tamil Nadu; Citation: LL 2021 SC 465]
"The ground reality today is that almost no tender remains unchallenged", the Supreme Court has remarked. The bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy observed that the enlarged role of the Government in economic activity and its corresponding ability to give economic 'largesse' was the bedrock of creating what is commonly called the 'tender jurisdiction'. The objective was to have greater transparency and the consequent right of an aggrieved party to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the court said.
467. Employee Who Made False Declaration/ Suppressed Involvement In Criminal Case Not Entitled To Appointment/Continue In Service As A Matter Of Right
[Case: Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited v. 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.
468. 'No Positive Act': Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Girl Accused Of Abetting Suicide Of A Man By Refusing Marriage
[Case: Kanchan Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 467]
The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a girl accused of abetting suicide of a man by allegedly refusing to marry him. The bench of Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy reiterated that Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code will not be attracted if there was no positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide. The court said that it would be travesty of justice to compel the accused to face a criminal trial without any credible material whatsoever. It requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide, seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide, the bench added.
469. Section 319 CrPC: Summoning Power Should Be Exercised Only When Strong And Cogent Evidence Occurs Against A Person
[Case: Ramesh Chandra Srivastava v. State of UP; Citation: LL 2021 SC 468]
The Supreme Court has 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: Neha @ Pooja Alizad v. Vaibhav Kumar @ Chetan Sancheti; Citation: LL 2021 SC 469]
The Supreme Court has 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'. Therefore, the judge directed the registry to place the petition before the Chief Justice for necessary directions.
471. 'Concurrent' Life Imprisonments Can Be Imposed On Accused Convicted For Multiple Murders
[Case: Mahavir v. State of Madhya Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 470]
There is no bar in imposing concurrent life imprisonments on accused convicted for murder of more than one persons, the Supreme Court observed in a recent order. "In terms of the policy of sentencing, there cannot be consecutive life imprisonment one after the another. But the fact remains that for each of the death of the victim, the petitioner has been convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC. It is not a case of imposition of life imprisonment consecutively. It is a case of imposition of concurrent life imprisonment", the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian said.
472. Assessee Not Liable To Pay Interest On Short Payment Of Advance Tax Due To Default Of Payer In Deducting TDS Before 2012-2013 FY
[Case: Director of Income Tax, New Delhi v. M/s Mitsubishi Corporation; Citation: LL 2021 SC 471]
The Supreme Court has held that the amount of income tax which is deductible or collectible at source can be reduced by the assessee while calculating advance tax before 2012-2013 Financial Year. Therefore, the assessee cannot be held liable for interest under Section 234B of Income Tax for short-fall of advance tax which arises due to reducing the income tax deductible or collectible at source from the advance tax, a bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose said.
473. Summoning And Detaining A Person Without There Being Any Crime Registered Against Him Illegal
[Case: M.A Khaliq v. 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 v. 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.
474. Conversion To Christianity: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Man Accused Under MP Freedom Of Religion Act
[Case: George Mangalapilly v. 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. The bench of Justices UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and CT Ravikumar held, "In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and especially when the entire fulcrum of the prosecution rests upon the version of the man who was stated to be forcibly converted, in our view, the testimony of said person assumes great significance. According to his own version neither was he forcibly converted nor had the appellant contacted him at any juncture."
475. Unilateral Cancellation Of Registered Sale Deed Can't Be An Anticipatory Bail Condition
[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.
476. Consumer Complaint On Behalf Of Numerous Consumers Having Same Interest Can Be Filed Only With Permission Of Consumer Forum
[Case: Yogesh Aggarwal v. Aneja Consultancy; Citation: LL 2021 SC 475]
The Supreme Court has observed that a consumer complaint on behalf of one or two consumers having same interest can be filed only with the permission of the consumer forum of which the jurisdiction is invoked. "The complaint on behalf of one or two consumers having same interest can be filed only with the permission of the forum of which the jurisdiction is invoked. Since the complainant is neither a voluntary consumer association nor a registered body, nor the permission of the appropriate forum has been sought, therefore, the complaint itself was not maintainable", the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian said allowing the appeal.
477. Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Plaint Can't Be Rejected If Limitation Is A Mixed Question Of Law & Fact
[Case: Salim D.Agboatwala and others v.Shamalji Oddavji Thakkar and others; Citation: LL 2021 SC 476]
The Supreme Court has held that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure if the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. A bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramaniam observed so while reversing a Bombay High Court's judgment which had upheld a civil court's order to reject a plaint. The suit in question was filed essentially to set aside an order passed by the Agricultural Land Tribunal to issue sale certificate in respect of a tenancy under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
478. Delay In Intimating Insurance Company About Theft Not A Ground To Deny Claim
[Case: Dharamender v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd; Citation: LL 2021 SC 477]
The Supreme Court has observed that mere delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of the theft cannot be a ground to deny the insurance claim. The bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian noted that the case of Insurance Company throughout was based upon delay in intimation to the Insurance Company. Therefore, in respect of the argument that the FIR was delayed, the said arguments need not be examined in this case, the court said while allowing the appeal and restoring the order passed by the District Forum.
[Case: Jaganarayan Lal v. Doctor Girija Tiwari; Citation: LL 2021 SC 478]
The Supreme Court observed that a Karta of a Joint Hindu Family cannot file a consumer complaint in respect of deficiency in service on part of the Hospital/Doctor regarding the treatment given to his pregnant sister-in-law. The concept of Joint Hindu Family does not extend to the treatment of a pregnant sister-in-law, the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed.
480. A Caretaker/Servant Can Never Acquire Interest In Property Irrespective Of His Long Possession
[Case: Himalaya Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. v. Md. Zahid; Citation: LL 2021 SC 479]
The Supreme Court observed that a caretaker/servant can never acquire interest in the property irrespective of his long possession. The bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka observed: "After we heard counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the material on record, in our considered view, the Trail Court has committed a manifest error in appreciating the pleadings on record from the plaint filed at the instance of respondent no.1-plaintiff who as a caretaker/servant can never acquire interest in the property irrespective of his long possession and the caretaker/servant has to give possession forthwith on demand and so far as the plea of adverse possession is concerned as it lacks material particulars and the plaint does not discloses the cause of action for institution of the suit."
481. Reinstatement With Full Back Wages Is Not Automatic In Every Case Of Illegal Termination / Dismissal
[Case: Allahabad Bank v. Krishan Pal Singh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 480]
The Supreme Court reiterated that reinstatement with full back wages is not automatic in every case, where termination / dismissal is found to be not in accordance with procedure prescribed under law. "The reinstatement with full back wages is not automatic in every case, where termination / dismissal is found to be not in accordance with procedure prescribed under law. Considering that the respondent was in effective service of the Bank only for about six years and he is out of service since 1991, and in the meantime, respondent had attained age of superannuation, we deem it appropriate that ends of justice would be met by awarding lump sum monetary compensation", the bench of Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Sanjiv Khanna observed.
482. Motor Accident Compensation- Multiplier Which Is Relevant To The Deceased Has To Be Applied
[Case: Chandra v. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited; Citation: LL 2021 SC 481]
The Supreme Court has observed that, while computing Motor Accident Compensation, the multiplier which is relevant to the deceased has to be applied. The bench of Justices KM Joseph and PS Narasimha observed that the claimants should be granted increase by 40 per cent having regard to the admitted age of the deceased being below 40 years on the basis of the salary which we have arrived upon based on the order of the appointment.
483. 'Fraud Vitiates Every Solemn Act': Supreme Court Upholds A Trial Court Judgment Which Declared A Registered Gift Deed Void
[Case: Sonamati Devi v. Mahendra Vishwakarma; Citation: LL 2021 SC 482]
Fraud vitiates every solemn act, remarked the Supreme Court bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela M. Trivedi while it upheld a Trial Court judgment which declared a registered gift deed void on the ground of fraud and undue influence.
484. Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Plaint Has To Be Rejected If Reliefs Claimed In It Cannot Be Granted Under Law
[Case: Rajendra Bajoria v. Hemant Kumar Jalan; Citation: LL 2021 SC 483]
The Supreme Court observed that a court has to reject a plaint if it finds that none of the reliefs sought in it can be granted to the plaintiff under the law. In such a case, it will be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted, the bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai observed. The court added that underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is that when a plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings.
485. Successful Allottee/ Bidder Free To Decide Whether To Continue Any Existing Contracts In Relation To Coal Mining Operation
[Case: Punjab State Power Corporation Limited v. Emta Coal Ltd; Citation: LL 2021 SC 484]
The Supreme Court observed that a successful allottee or bidder has complete freedom to decide as to whether he desires to continue or adopt any such existing contracts in relation to coal mining operation. "In the event the successful bidder or allottee elects not to adopt or continue with the existing contracts, all such contracts shall cease to be enforceable against the successful bidder or allottee in relation to Schedule I coal mines", the bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna observed.
486. Change Of Date Of Birth In Service Records Cannot Be Claimed As Of Right; Can Be Rejected For Delay & Latches
[Case: Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited v. T.P. Natarajan; Citation: LL 2021 SC 485]
The Supreme Court observed that change of date of birth in the service record cannot be claimed as of right, even if there is cogent evidence. Such applications, the court said, can only be processed as per the relevant provisions/regulations applicable. They can be rejected on the ground of delay and latches also more particularly when it is made at the fag end of service and/or when the employee is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation, the bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna observed.
487. Burden Of Proof In Departmental Proceedings Is Of 'Probabilities Of Misconduct': Supreme Court
[Case: Union of India v. Dalbir Singh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 486]
The burden of proof in the departmental proceedings is of probabilities of the misconduct, the Supreme Court observed while upholding dismissal of a CRPF Constable. The bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed that the departmental inquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service.
488. Educational Qualification A Valid Ground For Classification Between Persons Of Same Class In Matters Of Promotion
[Case: Chandan Banerjee & Ors v. Krishna Prosad Ghosh & Ors; Citation: LL 2021 SC 487]
The Supreme Court has held that educational qualification is a valid ground for classification between persons of the same class in matters of promotion. In the judgment delivered, a bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and Hima Kohli held that such classification on the basis of educational qualification is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Holding so, the Court upheld the validity of separate eligibility conditions for promotion to Supernumerary Assistant Engineers having diploma and degrees in Kolkata Municipal Corporation.
489. 'No Intention': Supreme Court Reduces Jail Sentence Awarded To Man Accused Of Killing A Person For Stealing Pigeon
[Case: Kala Singh @ Gurnam Singh v. State of Punjab; Citation: LL 2021 SC 488]
The Supreme Court reduced jail sentence awarded to an accused who allegedly killed a person for 'stealing' his pigeon. the bench of Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy said that the killing was not a pre-meditated one and there was no intention on the part of the accused to cause death or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
490. NDPS: Absence Of Recovery Of Contraband From Possession Of Accused By Itself Not A Ground To Grant Bail
[Case: Union of India v. Md. Nawaz Khan; Citation: LL 2021 SC 489]
The Supreme Court observed that bail cannot be granted to an accused under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, merely on a finding of the absence of possession of the contraband on the person of the accused. Such a finding does not absolve the court of the level of scrutiny required under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna observed. The court reiterated that the test to apply while granting bail is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has not committed an offence and whether he is likely to commit any offence while on bail.
491. Arbitration Reference Can Be Declined If Dispute In Question Does Not Correlate To Arbitration Agreement
[Case: DLF Home Developers Limited v. Rajapura Homes Private Limited; Citation: LL 2021 SC 490]
The Supreme Court observed that prayer for reference to Arbitration under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act can be declined if the dispute in question does not correlate to the arbitration agreement. The bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justice Surya Kant observed that it is not expected to act mechanically merely to deliver a purported dispute raised by an applicant at the doors of the chosen Arbitrator.
492. Section 92 CPC- Judgment In Representative Suit Binds All Parties Interested In The Trust
[Case: Jamia Masjid v. K V Rudrappa; Citation: LL 2021 SC 491]
The Supreme Court observed that a suit under section 92 CPC is of a representative character and all persons interested in the Trust would be bound by the judgment in the suit. Such persons interested would be barred by the principle of res judicata from instituting a subsequent suit on the same or substantially the same issue, the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and Hima Kohli observed. The court added that while deciding on a scheme for administration in a representative suit filed under Section 92 of the CPC the court may, if the title is contested, have to decide if the property in respect of which the scheme for administration and management is sought belongs to the Trust.
493. Gravity Of Complaint Under Negotiable Instruments Act Cannot Be Equated With An Offence Under IPC Or Other Criminal Offence
[Case: Triyambak S. Hegde v. Sripad; Citation: LL 2021 SC 492]
The Supreme Court has observed that the gravity of complaint under Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be equated with an offence under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code or other criminal offence. The court reiterated that that the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would remain, until the contrary is proved. Whether there is rebuttal or not would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, the bench of CJI NV Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and AS Bopanna said.
494. 'In India, Every State Action Must Be Fair, Failing Which It Will Fall Foul Of Article 14' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Direction To Shift NH Toll Plaza
[Case: National Highway Authority of India v. Madhukar Kumar; Citation: LL 2021 SC 493]
The Supreme Court set aside a Patna High Court judgment which directed the National Highway Authority of India to shift the toll plaza on Patna-Bakhtiyarpur four-lane road (NH-30) from Karmalichak near Deedarganj. "Undoubtedly, in India, every state action must be fair, failing which, it will fall foul of the mandate of Article 14. It is, at this juncture, we may also notice that the duty to give reasons, would arise even in the case of administrative action, where legal rights are at stake and the administrative action adversely affects legal rights", a bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and S Ravindra Bhat observed.
495. Supreme Court Upholds Rejection Of Candidature To Judicial Post Citing Absence Of 'Honourable Acquittal' In Criminal Case
[Case: Rajasthan High Court v. Akashdeep Morya; Citation: LL 2021 SC 494]
The perception of the common man about the credentials and background of the judicial officer is vital, the Supreme Court observed while upholding non-appointment of a candidate to a post of judicial officer on the ground of the absence of 'honourable acquittal' in criminal cases. The bench of Justices KM Joseph and PS Narasimha observed that most suitable persons should be occupying the post of judicial officer, as they have perform most important functions of the State.
496. Existence Of Alternate Remedy Does Not Bar Exercise Of Writ Jurisdiction If Order Is Challenged For Want Of Jurisdiction
[Case: Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. v. State of Bihar; Citation: LL 2021 SC 495]
The Supreme Court observed that even if an alternate remedy exists, a High Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction if the order of the authority is challenged for want of authority and jurisdiction, which is a pure question of law.
Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise, the the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna noted, were:(a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged.
497. SARFAESI - Fresh 30 Days Notice Not Needed If Failure To Conduct Sale As Per First Notice Was Due To Borrower's Actions
[Case: S.Karthik & Ors v. N.Subhash Chand Jain & Ors; Citation: LL 2021 SC 496]
If the sale of a mortgaged property as per the SARFAESI Rules was interrupted during the 30 days notice period due to the actions of the borrower, a fresh notice of 30 days is not necessary for the sale process to resume after the interruptions are over, held the Supreme Court in a recent judgment. A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna stated that a fresh notice is necessary only if the sale got stopped due to reasons which are not attributable to the borrower.
498. Land Acquisition Compensation : Deduction For Development Costs Is To Made To Arrive At Market Value Of Undeveloped Land
[Case: Shankarrao Bhagwantrao Patil Etc. v. The State of Maharashtra; Citation: LL 2021 SC 497]
In a case related to land acquisition compensation, the Supreme Court approved the deduction of 50% towards developmental costs. Referring to precedents, a bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian observed that deduction for development is to be made to arrive at the market value of large tracts of undeveloped agricultural land (with potential for developments). The deduction varies from 20% to 75% of the price of such developed plots.
499. Supreme Court Recalls Suo Motu Extension Of Limitation With Effect From October 2; Period From 15.03.2020 To 02.10.2021 Stands Excluded From Computing Limitation
[Case: In Re Cognizance For Extension of Limitation; Citation: LL 2021 SC 498]
The Supreme Court recalled the suo motu order of April 27, 2021, which had extended with effect from March 14, 2021 the limitation period for filing of cases in view of the COVID second wave. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices L Nageswara Rao and Surya Kant said that the suo moto extension of limitation period will stand withdrawn with effect from October 2, 2021.
The following are the directions : I. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 03.10.2021. II. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 03.10.2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 03.10.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. III. The period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. IV. The Government of India shall amend the guidelines for containment zones, to state.
500. Retirement Will Not Terminate Mandate Of Dept Officer Appointed As Sole Arbitrator : Supreme Court Restores 1998 Award
[Case: M/s Laxmi Continental Construction Co v. State of UP; Citation: LL 2021 SC 499]
Deciding an appeal arising out of the Arbitration Act 1940, the Supreme Court has held that a department officer, who was appointed as the arbitrator, can continue to preside over the arbitration proceedings even after his retirement. A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna was considering the question "whether once an officer of the department is appointed as an Arbitrator considering the arbitration clause, whether his mandate to continue the arbitration proceedings shall come to an end on his retirement?".