PMLA Prosecution Cannot Continue If Accused Is Discharged From The Scheduled Offence: Supreme Court The Supreme Court reiterated that the prosecution under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act cannot continue if the accused is discharged from the scheduled offence. The court observed thus while allowing a writ petition filed by one Indrani Patnaik and others. They contended...
PMLA Prosecution Cannot Continue If Accused Is Discharged From The Scheduled Offence: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reiterated that the prosecution under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act cannot continue if the accused is discharged from the scheduled offence.
The court observed thus while allowing a writ petition filed by one Indrani Patnaik and others. They contended that their prosecution in relation to the scheduled offence had already come to an end as they were discharged from the criminal case. They contended that consequentially, the PMLA proceedings also could not continue.
Supreme Court Upholds EWS Quota By 3:2 Majority; CJI Lalit & Justice Bhat In Minority
The Supreme Court Constitution Bench has by 3:2 majority upheld the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment.
While Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela Trivedi and JB Pardiwala upheld the 103rd Constitution Amendment, Justice S Ravindra Bhat wrote a dissenting judgment to strike it down. Chief Justice of India Uday Umesh Lalit concurred with the minority view of Justice Bhat.
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India on Monday dismissed the challenge against a decision of the Allahabad High Court to disqualify Rampur MLA Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan for not having attained the age of 25 years on the date of the election as prescribed in Article 173(b) of the Constitution. In 2019, the Allahabad High Court struck a major blow to Khan's electoral aspirations when the petitioner, one Nawab Kazam Ali Khan, moved the Court claiming that the young politician from the Samajwadi Party had falsely represented himself to be older for the purpose of contesting the assembly elections. The Bench, comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and B.V. Nagarathna, dismissed the appeal, with Justice B.V. Nagarathna delivering a separate but concurring judgement.
Supreme Court Holds PILs Filed In HC For Probe Against Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren As Not Maintainable
In a relief to the Chief Minister of Jharkhand Hemant Soren, the Supreme Court on Monday held that the Public Interest Litigation petitions filed in the Jharkhand High Court seeking probe against him for alleged money laundering are not maintainable.
The Top Court set aside the order of the High Court which held as maintainable the PILs which sought probe against Soren for alleged money laundering through shell companies and obtaining a mining lease while he was in power.
Two Supreme Court judges who were in the majority which upheld the 10% quota for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) made observations in their judgments regarding the need for a time-limit for reservations.
Justice Bela Trivedi, as parting comments in her judgment, stated that there is a need to revisit the system of reservation after 75 years of independence.
Justice Pardiwala, concurring with the majority view upholding the EWS quota, said that reservation cannot go on for an indefinite period so as to become a "vested interest".
The Supreme Court Court Constitution Bench has by 3:2 majority upheld the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment. While Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela Trivedi and JB Pardiwala upheld the 103rd Constitution Amendment, Justice S Ravindra Bhat wrote a dissenting judgment to strike it down. Chief Justice of India Uday Umesh Lalit concurred with the minority view of Justice Bhat.
50% Ceiling Limit For Reservation Flexible: Supreme Court In EWS Quota Case
In an important judgement, the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment was upheld by the Supreme Court Constitution Bench with a 3:2 majority. Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela Trivedi and JB Pardiwala upheld the amendment and Justice S Ravindra Bhat along with CJI UU Lalit dissented with the majority view. While upholding the amendment, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari stated that the 50% ceiling limit was "not inflexible" and thus, the breaching of the said limit did not violate the basic structure of the Indian Constitution in any way.
The Supreme Court held that 103rd Constitution Amendment cannot be said to breach the basic structure of the Constitution by permitting the State to make special provisions in relation to admission to private unaided educational institutions.
[EWS Quota] Why Supreme Court's Minority Judgment Did Not Read Down 103rd Constitutional Amendment ?
The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court by 3:2 majority upheld the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment.
Justice S Ravindra Bhat, with whom Chief Justice of India Uday Umesh Lalit joined, authored a dissenting opinion to strike it down. According to the minority view, the amendment – by excluding backward classes – is violative of the basic structure.
The Supreme Court observed that the reservation is an exception to the general rule of equality and thus cannot be regarded as basic feature of the Constitution.
One of the main defence raised by the Centre was that the 103rd Constitutional amendment is enabling, and confer power upon the state, to make special provisions and reservations, based on the economic criterion – thus, cannot violate the basic structure.
SC/ST/OBC Exclusion From EWS Quota Logical, Necessary To Avoid Double Benefits: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court by 3:2 majority upheld the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment. Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela Trivedi and JB Pardiwala upheld the 103rd Constitution Amendment, Justice S Ravindra Bhat wrote a dissenting judgment, which was concurred with by the Chief Justice of India Uday Umesh Lalit.
The Supreme Court observed that the bona fide of the petitioner who files the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is an extremely relevant consideration and must be examined at the very threshold itself.
This has to be done irrespective of the seemingly high public cause being espoused by the petitioner in a PIL, the bench of CJI Uday Umesh Lalit, Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed.
The Supreme Court (2:1) held that an accused has the right to receive the list of the statements, documents, material, etc. in the possession of the prosecution even if Draft Rules of Criminal Practice are not yet adopted.
The CJI Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat disagreed with the Justice Bela M. Trivedi who, while dismissing a criminal appeal, observed that this right is available only after the Draft Rules are brought into force.
The Supreme Court observed that for determining capital value for imposing property tax under Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, only the present physical attributes and status of the land and building can be considered and not the future prospects of the land.
The bench comprising CJI Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Ajay Rastogi dismissed appeals filed by Mumbai Municipal Corporation which held that Rules 20, 21 and 22 of the Capital Value Rules 2010 and 2015 are ultra vires the provisions of the MMC Act. Appeals filed against that part of the judgment of the High Court which upheld validity of various provisions of the MMC Act have also been dismissed.
The Supreme Court on Monday acquitted the three people accused of committing murder and rape of a 19-year-old girl in the 2012 Chhawla Gang Rape Case. They were earlier convicted by the trial court and sentenced to death penalty which was ratified by the Delhi High Court on 26th August 2014.
The bench of Chief Justice U. U. Lalit and Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela M. Trivedi allowed the appeals filed by the three accused Rahul, Ravi and Vinod, assailing the judgments of the Delhi High Court. The bench set aside the orders of conviction passed by the trial court and the High Court stating that, "Every case has to be decided by the Courts strictly on merits and in accordance with law without being influenced by any kind of outside moral pressures."
The Supreme Court observed that the proceedings under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C must come to an end once the Civil Court is seized of the matter.
The interse rights of the parties regarding title or possession are eventually to be determined by the Civil Court, the bench of Justices said.
The court observed thus while considering a special leave petition against the order of Allahabad High Court that quashed passed by a magistrate under Section 146 CrPC. The dispute between the parties in this case is regarding a plot consisting of some shops and a residential house constructed on it, situated in Mohalla Angooribagh, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh.
"Education is not the business to earn profit. The tuition fee shall always be affordable", the Supreme Court remarked while setting aside a Government order issued by State of Andhra Pradesh that enhanced the tuition fee of Private Medical Colleges by seven times, to Rs. 24 lakhs per annum.
The bench of Justices MR Shah and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that the G.O. enhancing the tuition fee on the representations made by the private medical colleges was 'wholly impermissible and most arbitrary and only with a view to favour and/or oblige the private medical colleges'.
The Supreme Court bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and V. Ramasubramanian observed that the time period for filing written statement is not mandatory if the suit was instituted in a civil court and transferred to a Commercial Court after the expiry of 120 days.
The plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of damages on the file of the Civil Court Senior Division Jalgaon in December, 2017. As two among the defendants failed to file written statement within prescribed period, the Trial Court ordered that the suit be proceeded without their written statement. As the other two had not even entered appearance, it passed an order directing the proceeding to go on ex parte against them.
The Supreme Court bench of CJI UU Lalit and Justice Bela M. Trivedi set aside a court martial proceedings against an army officer on the ground that it was barred under limitation prescribed under Section 122 of the Army Act.
In this case, a colleague of Col Anil Kumar (appellant), wrote a letter on 13.08.2015 to his superior in which he alleged that the appellant was sending indecent messages to his wife which were sexually explicit in nature and that he had reasonable cause to believe that they had indulged in illegitimate physical relationship with each other.
Consumer Commission Can Condone Delay For Filing Written Version Upto 15 Days Only : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that a Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to condone the delay for filing opposite party's written version beyond the prescribed period of 15 days mentioned in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in this case, the opposite party filed written statement (version) beyond the period of 45 days. The Commission refused to condone the delay by observing thus: "Time for filing the Written Version as provided under Section 13 (1) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 now replaced by Section 38 (2) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is in force since 20/24.07.2020 has expired. This Commission does not have the power to condone the delay beyond 30 + 15 days as provided in the statute. Right of Opposite Party No.2 to file the Written Version stands closed."
The Supreme Court observed that ordinarily there shall be no direction to "pay and recover" if the Insurance Company is not liable.
The bench of Justices AS Bopanna and PS Narasimha observed thus while considering an appeal filed by a claimant against the Bombay High Court which held that the Insurance Company was not liable to reimburse the compensation.
The issue raised in this appeal was whether the Insurance Company should be directed to "pay and recover" in the facts arising in the case.
The Supreme Court observed that the failure of a candidate to disclose his conviction for an offence under the Kerala Police Act 1960 for holding a dharna in front of the Panchayat office cannot be a ground for declaring his election void under Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.
An offence under enactments such as Kerala Police Act (1960) are not substantive offences, the bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and V. Ramasubramanian observed.
Protest is a tool in the hands of the civil society and police action is a tool in the hands of the Establishment, the Supreme Court remarked in a recent judgment regarding a Kerala Panchayat election dispute.
The bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and V. Ramasubramanian observed thus while allowing appeal filed by an elected candidate whose election was declared void on the ground that he failed to disclose his conviction under Kerala Police Act, 1960 for 'disobeying police directions' in relation to a dharna he had conducted.
Purpose Of Land Acquisition Also A Relevant Factor For Determining Market Value : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari reiterated that the purpose for which the land acquisition is made is also a relevant factor for determining the market value
A large extent of land in Adrial Village of Manthani Mandal, Karimnagar District of Andhra Pradesh was acquired by the State Government for the benefit of Singareni Collieries Company Limited. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the land owners sought references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Reference Court fixed the market value at Rs.30,000/ per acre and Rs.50,000/ per acre. The Reference Court also awarded the compensation @ Rs.15,000/ per acre towards subsoil mineral rights. Later, the High Court modified this award and fixed the compensation @ Rs.80,000/ per acre considering the market value of the land Rs.1,23,000/ per acre and thereafter deducting 1/3rd towards the developmental activities. The High Court has also in addition awarded Rs.10,000/ per acre as part of the market value for subsoil rights. Aggreived with this, the original claimants/land owners preferred appea seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.
The Supreme Court observed that a specific issue on readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff must be framed by the trial court in a suit for specific performance.
The object and purpose of framing the issue is so that the parties to the suit can lead the specific evidence on the same, the bench of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh observed.
The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered on Wednesday (9 Nov 2022), explained the method to determine the compensation for use and occupation of the tenancy premises by a tenant who suffered an eviction decree.
From the date of the decree of eviction, the tenant is liable to pay mesne profits or compensation for use and occupation of the premises at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises, the bench of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh observed.
The Supreme Court reiterated that the Vice-Chancellor appointment has to be made out of the panel of the names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee.
Most meritorious person should be appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the University from and amongst the other eligible meritorious candidates out of the panel of the names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee, the bench of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh observed while upholding the Uttarakhand High Court judgment which set aside the appointment of Prof. Narendra Singh Bhandar as Vice-Chancellor of Soban Singh Jeena University.
The Supreme Court observed that a letter of credit is independent of and unqualified by the contract of sale or underlying transactions.
The court observed thus in a judgment delivered in an appeal filed against the order passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bawa Paulins Pvt. Ltd. entered into a contract with County Seat Stores, New York for export of two hundred and thirty-four (234) packages of MN's 100% CTN Twill messenger bags for a total invoice value of US$ 31,920 (equivalent to Rs.13,79,901/- approximately). The mode of payment was agreed to be through Letter of Credit against the Forwarder Cargo Receipt ("FCR", for short). For the said purpose, the consignee appointed Bank of Bostons as the purchaser's bank through which the Letter of Credit was opened.
The Supreme Court held that a Civil Court has jurisdiction to try a suit filed by a borrower against a Bank or Financial Institution.
Answering the reference made to to it, the three judges bench presided by Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul observed that an independent suit filed by the borrower against the bank or financial institution cannot be transferred to be tried along with application under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
The Supreme Court observed that an application seeking to assign a review petition to a particular HC judge should be placed before Chief Justice of the High Court and not to be dealt on judicial side.
Justice GS Patel reserved a second appeal for judgment while he was sitting at the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court. The judgment allowing the second appeal was delivered through virtual mode by the Judge while sitting at Bombay. The respondent thereafter filed a review petition which was listed before Justice Nutan D. Sardessai who admitted it. An application was filed by the other party praying that the review petition be transferred and be placed before Justice G.S. Patel for final disposal. This application was dealt by Justice Prithviraj K. Chavan who rejected it. Against the said order, the party approached the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court observed that a Registering Authority cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the Court permitting sale at a particular price.
Public auction carried out through court process/receiver is the most transparent manner of obtaining the correct market value of the property, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka and Vikram Nath observed.
The bench observed thus while answering a reference by a two judges bench regarding the scope Section 47A India Stamp Act (as applicable to West Bengal).
The Supreme Court observed that a State Government decision not to recommend further recognition to the new B.Ed. colleges on the need basis cannot be said to be arbitrary.
When the State Government is required to provide detailed reasons against grant of recognition with necessary statistics, it includes the need and/or requirement, the bench of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh observed.
The Supreme Court observed that the levy of simple interest on non-payment of the tax @ 1% p.a. is mandatory.
Merely raising the dispute before any authority cannot be a ground not to levy the interest and/or waiver of interest under Section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act, the bench of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh observed.
In this case, the Competent Authority rejected the application of the petitioner for waiver of interest while exercising the powers under Section 220(2A) of the Act.
Supreme Court Upholds Election Of Office Bearers Of Eastern India Regional Council Of ICSI
The Supreme Court has set aside the Calcutta High Court judgment that quashed the election of the office bearers of the Eastern India Regional Council of the Institute of Company Secretaries of India.
The High Court seriously erred in setting aside the election on the ground that the meeting was not presided over by the Vice Chairman., the bench of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh observed while allowing the appeal filed by ICSI and the elected Chairman against the High Court judgment.
"Ignorance of law is no defence", the Supreme Court remarked while dismissing a writ petition seeking directions for expeditious hearing of a petition pending before a High Court.
One Nepal Das had approached the Apex Court by filing a writ petition seeking expeditious hearing of petition by the Calcutta High Court.
"Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking directions for expeditious hearing of a petition which is already pending before the High Court! Ignorance of law is no defence. More than that such kind of petitions seem to be leading the litigant up the garden path.", the bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S. Oka observed.
High Court Cannot Exercise The Power Of Remission Itself : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that while exercising the power of judicial review, a High Court cannot excercise the power of remission itself.
In this case, the convict in a murder case had undergone 12 years and 9 months of actual sentence and 14 years and 6 months with remission when he sought premature release. The authorities kept the issue pending which made him approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court by filing a writ petition. The High Court allowed the request for remission itself on the premise that it is covered by the policy.
Merely because the stay application is pending in review petition cannot be a ground to not comply with the directions issued by this Court, the Supreme Court observed while issuing notice in a Contempt Petition filed by Reliance Industries Limited.
The bench of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh observed that the pendency of an appeal and/or writ petition along with stay cannot be equated with pendency of the review petition.
The Supreme Court observed that sealed cover procedure sets a 'dangerous precedent' as it makes 'the process of adjudication vague and opaque'.
The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli , in a judgment delivered on 20 October 2022, observed that this procedure affects the functioning of the justice delivery system and causes a serious violation of natural justice.
The measure of nondisclosure of sensitive information in exceptional circumstances must be proportionate to the purpose that the non-disclosure seeks to serve, the bench observed, adding that the exceptions should not become the norm.
The Supreme Court observed that inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees in a particular service has to be determined as per the service rules.
The writ petitioners before the Allahabad High Court were initially appointed as Consolidators in the Consolidation Department in various districts. They were promoted to the post of ACOs on various dates in the year 1997. Direct recruits were directly appointed to the post of ACOs, on the basis of the recommendation of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission and as per the recruitment process under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Consolidation Service Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1992 Rules"). The direct recruits were appointed on 18th August 1997. As such, both the promotees as well as the direct recruits came in the cadre of the ACOs in the recruitment year of 1997-1998, i.e. between 1 st July 1997 and 30th June 1998.
The Supreme Court observed that evidence of Test Identification Parade (TIP) is inadmissible If the suspects were shown to the witnesses before the identification.
Even a TIP conducted in the presence of a police officer is inadmissible, the bench of Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha observed.
In this case, the High Court of Kerala upheld the conviction of the accused under Sections 143, 147, 148 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3(2)(e) of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, read with Section 149 of the IPC. The conviction was mostly based on the evidence of TIP. The accused were allegedly involved in a violent protest against the Kerala Government decision to delink predegree courses from colleges and start plus two courses at the school level. The protesters had become violent and caused damage to as many as 81 buses belonging to the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation leading to the death of a bus conductor with KSRTC.