1. Power Of Attorney Must Be Construed Strictly; Agent Can't Sell Without Express Authorisation : Supreme Court Case Title: Umadevi Nambiar Vs Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese | CA 2592 of 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 338 The Supreme Court observed that the power to sell is not to be inferred from a document of Power of Attorney which has to be...
Case Title: Umadevi Nambiar Vs Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese | CA 2592 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 338
The Supreme Court observed that the power to sell is not to be inferred from a document of Power of Attorney which has to be construed strictly. The agent would have the power to sell only if the document expressly authorize him/her (i) to execute a sale deed; (ii) to present it for registration; and (iii) to admit execution before the Registering Authority, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian noted.
Case Title : Government of NCT of Delhi and others versus Bheem Singh Meena and others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 339
The Supreme Court recently upheld the decision of the Delhi Government to dismiss a government teacher from service for suppressing the information about a criminal case against him while applying for the job.
"In the present case, the respondent is responsible for shaping career of young students. What kind of message he will be giving to the students by his conduct based on untruthfulness?", a bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramaniam observed.
Case Name: M/s. Frost International Limited v. M/s. Milan Developers And Builders (P) Limited And Anr.| Criminal Appeal No. 1689 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 340
The Supreme Court has held that reliefs in a suit which seeks to frustrate the defendants from initiating a prosecution against plaintiff or seeking any other legal remedy are barred by law and can be a ground for allowing an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection of plaint. A Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V Nagarathna allowed a plea assailing the order of the Orissa High Court, which had set aside the order of the revisional court rejecting the plaint, on the ground that it exceeded its jurisdiction in doing so, and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration.
4. Even If Appointment Was Irregular, State Has To Pay Salary For Work Done By Employee : Supreme Court
Case Title : Man Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 341
The Supreme Court has set aside a direction to recover from a person the salary paid to him after his appointment as a teacher was found to be irregular. The Top Court noted that the person had worked for nearly 24 years a teacher before his services were cancelled for the reason that his appointment was irregular. It was found that he was a relative of a member of the selection committee and hence his appointment was contrary to the rules. While cancelling his appointment, the State also directed the recovery of salary paid to him. Though the person approached the High Court challenging the cancellation order, it did not interfere. Aggrieved, he approached the Supreme Court.
A bench comprising Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V Ramasubramaniam observed that the High Court ought to have appreciated the fact that he had worked for nearly 24 years.
Case Title: Dokala Hari Babu V. Kotra Appa Rao & Anr.| Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 4382/2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 342
The Supreme Court recently observed that to get the benefit of Section 64(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the objector and/or subsequent purchaser has to plead and prove that he is the bona fide purchaser, who has entered into the transaction prior to the order of attachment. The observation was rendered by the bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna while considering a SLP assailing Andhra Pradesh High Court's order dated January 4, 2022 passed by the bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao.
Case Title : Union of India v. Major R. Metri NO. 08585N
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 343
Observing that the Armed Forces Tribunal has the jurisdiction to interfere with the finding of a Court-Martial, the Supreme Court reinstated an army officer, upholding the setting aside of his conviction in a corruption case. The Court also observed that conviction solely on the basis of extra-judicial confession without corroboration is unjustified
"It could thus be seen that the extrajudicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Unless such a confession is found to be voluntary, trustworthy and reliable, the conviction solely on the basis of the same, without corroboration, would not be justified," a bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai said.
Case Title: Rishipal @ Rishipal Singh Solanki Versus Raju and Another| Criminal Appeal No 541 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 344
The Supreme Court has observed that the reasons which weigh with the Court in cancelling the bail granting to co accused would also apply in case of bail preferred by another accused in relation to the same FIR and incident. The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant rendered this observation while considering a criminal appeal assailing Allahabad High Court's order dated November 9, 2021.
Case Title: M/S Shree Vishnu Constructions V The Engineer In Chief Military Engineering Service & ors| Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 5306/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 345
The Supreme Court on April 1, 2022 expressed concerns at the time taken by the Telangana High Court to dispose of an arbitration application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after a period of four years. The bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna also observed that arbitration applications for appointment of an Arbitrator are required to be decided and disposed of at the earliest, otherwise the object and purpose of the Arbitration Act shall be frustrated.
Case Name: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 2 v. M/s. Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd.| Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4063 of 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 346
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, held that whether corporate death of amalgamating entity upon amalgamation per se invalidates an assessment order issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be determined on a bare application of Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956 or its equivalent in the 2013 Act, which deals with the dissolution of the said company. The Apex Court stated that the same would depend on the terms of the amalgamation and the facts of each case. A Bench comprising Justices U.U. Lalit and S. Ravindra Bhat allowed a plea assailing the order of the Delhi High Court affirming the order of the Income Tax Tribunal, which quashed the assessment order at the threshold without going into the merits of the matter. While allowing the appeal, the Bench restored the matter before the ITAT for determination on merits(Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 2 v. M/s. Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd..
Case Title: Sukh Dutt Ratra vs State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 347
The Supreme Court bench of Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha has observed that forcible dispossession of private property of a person without following due process of law, is violative of both their human right and constitutional right.
Case Name: Haryana Urban Development Authority, Karnal v. M/s. Mehta Construction Company And Anr| Civil Appeal No. 2693 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(SC) 348
The Supreme Court has held that apart from the grounds mentioned in Section 34(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2013, an arbitral award can be set aside only when it is vitiated by patent illegality, and not on ground of erroneous application of law or by misappreciation of evidence. A Bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna allowed an appeal assailing the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had affirmed the order of the District Judge that the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and the Conciliation Act, 1996 was, inter alia, barred by limitation. Observing that the Courts below had not fully appreciated the objections raised, the Bench remitted it to the District Judge for fresh consideration.
12. Try To Complete Cross-Examination Of Witness On Same Day : Supreme Court
Case Name: Neetu Tripathi v State of UP & Anr| Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3997/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(SC) 349
The Supreme Court has observed that once the witness is in the witness box and is being cross examined, every endeavour must be made to ensure that the cross examination is completed on that day. The bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh rendered this observation while considering a SLP assailing Allahabad High Court's order dated March 19, 2021
Case Name: M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Mahendra Pal Bhatia And Ors.| Civil Appeal No. 5377 of 2015
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(SC) 350
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian has held that if any land fell within the expression 'mine' under the Section 2(h) of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 it would stand transferred to and vest in the Central Government under Section 3(1), irrespective of who owns the said land. "The focus of Section 2(h) read with Section 3(1) is on the property and not on who the owner of the property is." The Apex Court noted that the residence of officers and staff of coal-mines would also fall under the ambit of the definition of 'mine'.
Case Title: Chairman Cum managing Director Fertilizer Corporation Of India Ltd. Vs Rajesh Chandra Shrivastava
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 351
The Supreme Court observed that ad hoc payment made pursuant to the interim orders passed by Court does not form part of "wages" within the meaning of the expression under Section 2(s) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for the purpose of calculating gratuity. A party who is in enjoyment of an interim order, is bound to lose the benefit of such interim order when the ultimate outcome of the case goes against him, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed.
Case Title: Experion Developers Pvt Ltd vs Sushma Ashok Shiroor | CA 6044 of 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 352
The Supreme Court has held that Consumer Courts can grant relief to flat buyers who are aggrieved with the delay in delivery of the apartment as per the agreement.
Consumer Courts have the power to direct refund and compensation to a consumer for the deficiency in not delivering the apartment as per the terms of Agreement, the Court held.
"A consumer invoking the jurisdiction of the Commission can seek such reliefs as he/she considers appropriate. A consumer can pray for refund of the money with interest and compensation. The consumer could also ask for possession of the apartment with compensation.", the bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha observed.
Case Title: Abid Ul Islam vs Inder Sain Dua | CA 9444 OF 2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 353
The Supreme Court observed that a leave to defend under Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, cannot be granted on mere asking and a tenant has to put in some material of substance to the extent of raising a triable issue. The object behind Section 25B is facilitating not only the expeditious but effective remedy for a class of landlords, sans the normal procedural route, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh observed.
Also Read: "Shockingly Brazen": Supreme Court Pulls Up Litigant For Dropping Union Minister's Name During Argument
17. Centre's Direction Not Binding On A State University, Only Recommendatory : Supreme Court
Case Name: State of Uttarakhand v. Sudhir Budakoti And Ors.| Civil Appeal No. 2661 of 2015
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 354
The Supreme Court has held that a direction issued by the Union Government is not binding on a State University and that it is only recommendatory. Holding so, the Court held that a Registrar of a State University cannot make a claim for a higher pay scale based on a circular issued by the Central Government. A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh allowed an appeal assailing the order of Uttarakhand High Court, which permitted the writ petition filed by a Registrar of State University seeking parity in pay with its counterparts in Central University.
18. Supreme Court Upholds Foreign Contribution(Regulation) Amendment Act 2020
Case Title : Noel Harper and others versus Union of India
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 355
The Supreme Court has upheld the 2020 amendments made to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 2010, which introduced restrictions in the handling of foreign contributions by organizations in India. A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar pronounced the judgment in PILs challenging the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Act 2020.
Case Title : Dr.Joe Joseph and others versus State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 356
In the Mullaperiyar dam dispute between the States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court directed that the Supervisory Committee -which was constituted by the Supreme Court in 2014 to monitor the safety arrangements of the 126-year old dam- should continue its operations till the National Dam Safety Authority under the Dam Safety Act 2021 comes into effect. It expanded the Committee by adding one technical member each from Kerala and Tamil Nadu. The reconstituted Supervisory Committee will decide all outstanding matters related to Mullaperiyar Dam's safety and conduct a safety review afresh. For this purpose, it may frame terms of reference in accordance with the provisions of the 2021 Act.
Case Title: State of Rajasthan vs Banwari Lal | SLP(Crl) Diary no. 21596/2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 357
The Supreme Court observed that merely because a long period has lapsed by the time the appeal is decided cannot be a ground to award the punishment which is disproportionate and inadequate. The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed that it has come across a number of judgments of different High Courts in which the criminal appeals are disposed of in a cursory manner and by adopting truncated methods.
Case Title: Mallada K Sri Ram vs State of Telangana | CrA 561 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 358
The Supreme Court observed that preventive detention cannot be ordered merely because a person is implicated in a criminal proceeding.
"A mere apprehension of a breach of law and order is not sufficient to meet the standard of adversely affecting the "maintenance of public order" , the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant observed while quashing a detention order.
22. Order Can't Be Termed "Mala Fide" Just Because It Is Illegal, Erroneous Or Perverse: Supreme Court
Case Title: Chandra Prakash Mishra vs Flipkart India Private Limited | CA 2859-2861 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 359
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose has observed that every erroneous, illegal or even perverse order/action by a Statutory authority, by itself, cannot be termed as wanting in good faith or suffering from malafide. For imputing motives and drawing inference about want of good faith in any person, particularly a statutory authority, something more than mere error or fault ought to exist, the Top Court also observed.
Case Name: Union of India vs Dillip Kumar Mallick | CA 2754 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 360
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and MM Sundresh has reiterated that non-disclosure of material information itself could be a ground for cancellation of employment or termination of services.
Case Name: State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government of Haryana v. Jai Singh And Ors.| Civil Appeal No. 6990 of 2014
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 361
The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the 1992 Haryana Amendment ("Amending Act") to the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act. 1961, which vests land reserved for common purposes by applying pro-rate cut in the village Panchayat. A Bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian allowed the appeals filed by the State of Haryana and the Panchayats and upheld the validity of the impugned Amending Act on the ground that it forms a part of agrarian reform and is protected under Article 31A of the Constitution.
Case Name: Mafat Lal vs State of Rajasthan | CrA 592 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 362
The Supreme Court observed that an offence under Section 366 IPC would be attracted only when there is a forceful compulsion of marriage, by kidnapping or by inducing a woman. The bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath observed that no fruitful purpose would be served by relegating the matter for conducting the trial as the same would not be conducive for either of the appellants and it would be a futile exercise.
26. Term Of Office Of A Nominated Member Of Wakf Board Can Be Curtailed: Supreme Court
Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Shaikh Mahemud | CA 2784 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 363
The Supreme Court observed that the term of office of a nominated member of Wakf Board can be curtailed. The bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed that appointment of members by the method of nomination always stands on a slightly different footing than election.
Case Name: Daljit Singh vs Arvind Samyal | SLP(C) 5192-5194/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 364
The Supreme Court observed that a reference to the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal is not required if there is a case of difference of opinion between the Judicial Member and the Administrative Member of the Tribunal. In such a situation, the matter is required to be referred to the third Member/Chairman who has to give his own decision upon such a reference, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
Case Name: Central Council for Indian Medicine v. Karnataka Ayurveda Medical College And Ors.| Civil Appeal No. 2892 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 365
The Supreme Court bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai held that permission granted for undertaking admission of students for a subsequent academic year cannot be deemed to be permission granted for earlier academic year when the Ayurveda Medical College was not fulfilling the criteria of minimum standard as per the Indian Medicine Central Council (Post Graduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2016. In the said terms it clarified the effect of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal and Another v. Union of India and Others (2013) 16 SCC 696.
Case Name: Dental Council of India vs Biyani Shikshan Samiti | CA 2912 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 366
The Supreme Court observed that the right to establish an educational institution can be regulated to ensure the maintenance of proper academic standards, atmosphere and infrastructure and the prevention of maladministration. The bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai observed thus while upholding Regulation 6(2)(h) of the Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New or Higher Course of Studies or Training and Increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006.
Case Name: Shankarlal Nadani vs Sohanlal Jain | | CA 2816 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 367
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed that a decree passed in a suit for possession filed before the civil court prior to the applicability of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act is valid and executable.
Case Name: Sanjay Gupta & Ors. V. State Of Uttar Pradesh Through Its Chief Secretary & Ors.| Writ Petition (Civil) NO. 338 OF 2006
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 368
The Supreme Court asked the Allahabad High Court Chief Justice to nominate within two weeks a District Judge or Additional District Judge to work on a day to day basis for determining the compensation payable to the families of the victims of the fire that broke out during a consumer fair in Meerut in 2006. The bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian also noted that since the amount of compensation payable to each of the victim including the families of the deceased had not been computed, the same required computation in accordance with the principles of just compensation as in the case of accident under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
32. Plea Of Juvenility : Supreme Court Frees 'Murder Convict' Who Served 17 Years Jail Sentence
Case Title: Sanjay Patel vs State of Uttar Pradesh| M.A.No.1997 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 369
Accepting the plea of juvenility, the Supreme Court bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and AS Oka freed a man who served 17 years sentence after his conviction in a murder case.
Case Title: Kamatchi vs Lakshmi Narayanan| CrA 627 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 370
The Supreme Court bench of Justices UU Lalit and PS Narasimha has held that the limitation period prescribed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable for the filing of an application by an aggrieved woman under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Case Title: In Re: Inaction of the Government In Appointing President And Members/Staff of Districts And State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission And Inadequate Infrastructure Across India v. Union of India And Ors. SMWP(C) No. 2 of 2021
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 371
The Supreme Court directed all State Governments to set up mediation cells and e-filing systems for the District and State Consumer Dispute Redressal Forums.
Case Name: Jahir Hak vs State of Rajasthan | Crl A 605 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 372
The Supreme Court bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy granted bail to a UAPA under-trial accused who was in custody for nearly 8 years. Jahir Hak was arrested on 08.05.2014 in connection with FIR for offences punishable under Sections 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 19, 20, 23 and 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. A charge sheet was filed against him on 17.09.2014. Charges were framed on 29.01.2018. The Rajasthan High Court dismissed his bail application against which he approached the Apex Court.
The court noted that for the trial, the prosecution seeks to examine as many as 109 witnesses of which only 6 witnesses have been fully examined so far. The bench also noted that the prosecution case is that the accused was found to be in touch with one of the accused, who is the head of a sleeper cell module of Indian Mujahideen.
36. Hawker Can't Claim Right To Leave Goods & Wares Overnight At Hawking Place : Supreme Court
Case Title: Madan Lal v NDMC & Anr | SLP (C) 5684/2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 373
The Supreme Court has observed that any hawker can be permitted to hawk in the market only as per the hawking policy and not against the same.
The bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna also observed that a hawker has no right to insist that he may be permitted to keep his goods and wares at the place where he is hawking overnight.
Case Title: Eastern Coalfields Limited & Ors v Rabindra Kumar Bharti | CIVIL APPEAL NO.2794 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 374
The Supreme Court has observed that although order 41 Rule 33 of CPC clothes appellate courts with extraordinary power, it is to be exercised only in exceptional cases.
Case Name: P. Ramasubbamma v. V. Vijayalakshmi And Ors.| Civil Appeal No. 2095 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 375
The Supreme Court held that once the execution of agreement to sell and payment of advance substantial sale consideration is admitted by the vendor, there is nothing further required to be proved by the vendee in a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell. A Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna allowed an appeal assailing the order of the Karnataka High Court, which set aside the order of the Trial Court granting decree for specific performance of agreement to sell.
Case Title: Jagjeet Singh And Ors. v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu And Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 632 of 2022]
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 376
The Supreme Court has held that a 'victim' as defined under Section 2(wa) of the Code of the Criminal Procedure. 1973 has a right to be heard at every step post the occurrence of the offence, including the stage of adjudication of bail application of the accused.
Case Title: Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology & Natural History, Coimbatore vs Dr. Mathew K. Sebastian | SLP(C) 5218/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 377
The Supreme Court has observed that the onus to prove that an employee was not gainfully employed elsewhere when his service was terminated is on the employer. An employee is not required to prove the negative that he was not gainfully employed.
Once he asserts that he is not gainfully employed, thereafter the onus will shift to the employer positively and it would be for the employer to prove that the employee was gainfully employed, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
41. Interim Order Comes To An End With The Dismissal Of Proceedings: Supreme Court
Case Title: State of UP vs Prem Chopra | CA 2417 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 378
The Supreme Court observed that a stay order is not wiped out from existence, unless it is quashed in the main proceedings.
Once the proceedings, wherein a stay was granted, are dismissed, any interim order granted earlier merges with the final order, the bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath observed. The interim order comes to an end with the dismissal of proceedings.
42. Owner Can Bequeath Properties Even To Strangers By Will: Supreme Court
Case Title: Saroja Ammal vs M Deenadayalan | CA 2828 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 379
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian has reiterated that an absolute owner of a property is entitled to bequeath his properties by Will in favour of strangers.
Case Title: Smruti Tukaram Badade v. The State Of Maharashtra and Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 380
The Supreme Court bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Aniruddha Bose requested the High Courts to respond to the Model Guidelines for Vulnerable Witnesses Deposition Centres (VWDCs) circulated to the Chief Justices of High Courts by 20th May, 2022, so that the Committee, chaired by Justice Ms. Gita Mittal, former Chief Justice of the Jammu And Kashmir High Court, appointed to implement an All India VWDC Training Programme, can provide a uniform national model for implementation.
Case Title: KC Laxmana vs KC Chandrappa Gowda | CA 2582 OF 2010
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 381
The Supreme Court observed that a Hindu father or any other managing member of a Hindu undivided Family has power to make a gift of ancestral property only for a 'pious purpose'.
The bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari observed that the deed of gift in regard to the ancestral property executed 'out of love and affection' does not come within the scope of the term 'pious purpose'.
The court also held that the term 'alienation' in Article 109 of the Limitation Act, 1963, includes 'gift' also.
Case Title: Sunil Kumar Jain vs Sundaresh Bhatt| | CA 5910 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 382
The Supreme Court held that the dues towards the wages/salaries of only those workmen/employees who actually worked during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process(CIRP) are to be included in the CIRP costs.
The court clarified that the wages and salaries of all other workmen/employees of the Corporate Debtor during the CIRP who actually have not worked and/or performed their duties when the Corporate Debtor was a going concern, shall not be included automatically in the CIRP costs. Such dues will be governed by Section 53(1)(b) and Section 53(1) (c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose observed.
Case Title: Tirupati Steels vs Shubh Industrial Component | CA 2941 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 383
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed that the pre deposit of 75% of the awarded amount as per section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006, is mandatory to challenge the award under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
47. Supreme Court Deprecates Recent Trend Of Courts Deciding Bail Pleas Without Giving Specific Reasons
Case Title: Ms. Y vs State of Rajasthan | CrA 649 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 384
While setting aside the bail granted to a rape-accused, the Supreme Court expressed concerns at the "recent trend" of Courts passing bail orders without providing sufficient reasons.
"There is a recent trend of passing such orders granting or refusing to grant bail, where the Courts make a general observation that "the facts and the circumstances" have been considered. No specific reasons are indicated which precipitated the passing of the order by the Court. Such a situation continues despite various judgments of this Court wherein this Court has disapproved of such a practice", the Court observed.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justice Krishna Murari observed that the High Court Court has not considered any of the relevant factors for grant of bail.
Case Title: All India Judges Association And Ors v. Union of India And Ors. WP(C) No. 1022 of 1989
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 385
The Supreme Court bench of Justices LN Rao and BR Gavai modified its previous orders regarding the eligibility criteria for Civil Judges in Delhi Judicial Service to seek promotion to the cadre of District Judges through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE).
Case Title: Indrajeet Yadav vs Santosh Singh | CrA 577 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 386
The Supreme Court reiterated that the practice of pronouncing the final orders without a reasoned judgment has to be stopped and discouraged.
Despite the strong observations made by this Court as far as back in the year 1984 and thereafter repeatedly reiterated, still the practice of pronouncing only the operative portion of the judgment without a reasoned judgment and to pass a reasoned judgment subsequently has been continued", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed while setting aside a judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court.
Case Title: Venkatesh @ Chandra vs State of Karnataka | CrA 1476-1477 OF 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 387
The Supreme Court in a judgment criticized the practice of prosecuting agencies recording the entire statement of the accused rather than only that part of the statement which leads to the discovery of facts as per Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
"Such kind of statements may have a direct tendency to influence and prejudice the mind of the Court. This practice must immediately be stopped.", the bench comprising Justices U U Lalit and P S Narasimha observed.
51. Supreme Court Deprecates Practice Of Disposal Of Writ Petitions Without Deciding It On Merits
Case Title: State of Uttarakhand vs Mayan Pal Singh Verma | CA 2905 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 388
The Supreme Court deprecated the practice of disposal of writ petition without deciding it on merits. The court reiterated that a High Court has a duty to deal with grounds/issues raised in a writ petition. The bench comprising Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna rendered the observation while considering an appeal filed against Uttarakhand High Court judgment.
Case Name: Evergreen LandMark Pvt. Ltd. v. John Tinson And Company Pvt. Ltd. And Anr| Civil Appeal No. 2783 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 389
The Supreme Court bench of Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna held that the Arbitral Tribunal cannot pass an order by way of interim measure under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to deposit the amount involved in the dispute, in a case where the liability to pay such an amount is seriously disputed and the same is yet to be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal.
Case Title: Mohd Firoz vs State of Madhya Pradesh | CrA 612 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 390
The Supreme Court has commuted the death sentence awarded to a man accused of rape and murder of four year old girl. The bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela M. Trivedi observed that the maximum punishment prescribed may not always be the determinative factor for repairing the crippled psyche of the offender.
Case details: Dr. Chanda Rani Akhouri vs Dr. M.A. Methusethupathi | CA 6507 OF 2009
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 391
The Supreme Court observed that merely because doctors could not save the patient, he/she cannot be held liable for medical negligence.
"The doctors are expected to take reasonable care, but no professional can assure that the patient will come back home after overcoming the crisis" the bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka observed.
Case Title : Anil Kumar Upadhyay versus The Director General, SSB and others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 392
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna affirmed the penalty of removal from service imposed on a Head Constable from the Sashastra Seema Bal(SSB) - a Central Armed Police Force guarding border - for entering the women barracks at midnight. The punishment of "removal from service" was imposed on him for "violation of good order and discipline" by entering the Mahila Barack at midnight. He was charged with indiscipline and misconduct leading to the compromise of the security of the Mahila Barack. He had entered the Mahila Barack allegedly to meet a friend, when he was apprehended by six women constables.
56. Appointments Made In Contravention Of Statutory Provisions Are Void Ab Initio : Supreme Court
Case Title: State of Odisha vs Sulekh Chandra Pradhan | CA 3036-3064 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 393
The Supreme Court bench of Justices LN Rao and BR Gavai have observed that the appointments made in contravention of the statutory provisions are void ab initio.
Case Name: Mahesh Kumar Kejriwal vs Bhanuj Jindal | SLP (Crl) 3382/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 394
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose has observed that an accused cannot claim a blanket exemption from appearance in a case pertaining to the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Case Title: Manickam @ Thandapani vs Vasantha |CA 2726 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 395
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian held that Section 22(2) of the Specific Relief Act is only directory provision and the relief of possession is ancillary to the decree for specific performance and need not be specifically claimed.
Case Title: Ramveer Upadhyay vs State of UP | SLP(Crl) 2953 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 396
The Supreme Court observed that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. only because the complaint was lodged by a political rival.
The fact that the complaint may have been initiated by reason of political vendetta is not in itself grounds for quashing the criminal proceedings, the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and AS Bopanna observed.
Case Name: Balram Garg v. Securities and Exchange Board of India| Civil Appeal No. 7054 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 397
The Supreme Court has held that insider trading cannot be presumed merely on the basis of proximity between the parties.
The Court held 'communication' of Unpublished Price Sensitive Information under Regulation 3(1) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading), 2015 ought to be proved by producing cogent materials, like, letters, emails, witnesses etc. and not be deemed owing to the alleged proximity between the parties. The Court further held that the onus is on the SEBI to prove such communication.
A Bench comprising Justices Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose allowed appeals filed assailing the order of the Securities Appellate Tribunal, which had upheld the order of the Whole Time Member of SEBI, penalising the appellants for insider trading.
Case Name: Union of India And Ors. v. M/s. Willowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.| Civil Appeal No. 2995-2996 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 398
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, held that in cases of delayed refund of integrated tax paid on export of goods governed by the principal provision of Section 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the interest would be payable at the rate of 6% as prescribed by the statute, especially when the delay was not inordinate.
"...wherever a statute specifies or regulates the interest, the interest will be payable in terms of the provisions of the statute. Wherever a statute, on the other hand, is silent about the rate of interest and there is no express bar for payment of interest, any delay in paying the compensation or the amounts due, would attract award of interest at a reasonable rate on equitable grounds."
A Bench comprising Justices U.U. Lalit and S. Ravindra Bhat allowed appeals filed by the Union of India to reduce the interest granted by the Gujarat High Court for delay in refunds of integrated tax paid on export of goods from 9% to 6%.
Case Name: Hyundai Motor India Limited vs Shailendra Bhatnagar | CA 3001 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 399
The Supreme Court observed that the failure to provide an airbag system which would meet the safety standards as perceived by a carbuyer of reasonable prudence should be subject to punitive damages which can have deterrent effect.
"A consumer is not meant to be an expert in physics calculating the impact of a collision on the theories based on velocity and force", the bench comprising Justices Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose observed.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs 63 Moons Technologies Ltd |CA 2748-49
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 400
In its judgment upholding the attachment of properties of 63 Moons Technologies, the Supreme Court also rejected the challenge against the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act 1999.
Case Title: Ram Chander vs State of Chhattisgarh | WP (Crl) 49 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 401
The Supreme Court observed that a presiding officer of the sentencing court while giving opinion on a remission application should give adequate reasons. Inadequate reasons in the opinion of the presiding officer of the sentencing court would not satisfy the requirements of Section 432 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Aniruddha Bose observed.
Case Title: Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh @ Seth Singh vs State of Bihar | CrA 150 OF 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 402
The Supreme Court observed that the testimony of a witness in a criminal trial cannot be discarded merely because of minor contradictions or omissions.
The bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli also observed that medical evidence adduced by the prosecution has great corroborative value.
Case Title: Jafarudheen & Ors. v State of Kerala| Criminal Appeal No 430 of 2015
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 403
The Supreme Court bench of bench Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh has acquitted 4 persons affiliated to the National Development Front(NDF) in a case related to the murder of a member of the Communist Party of India(Marxist)(CPI(M)) in Kerala in 2002. The Court set aside the verdict of the High Court which had reversed the acquittal of these 4 accused by the trial court.
The Court added that it must be cautious in dealing with Section 27 recoveries as "one cannot lose sight of the fact that the prosecution may at times take advantage of the custody of the accused, by other means".
Case Title: Union of India and Ors vs M. Duraisamy, CA 2665/2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 404
While setting aside the order substituting the removal of an employee to that of compulsory retirement, the Supreme Court observed that punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority can't be substituted merely on grounds that the employee had voluntarily deposited the defrauded amount.
"Being a public servant in the post office, the delinquent officer was holding the post of trust. Merely because subsequently the employee had deposited the defrauded amount and therefore there was no loss caused to the department cannot be a ground to take a lenient view and/or to show undue sympathy in favour of such an employee", the Court said.
A bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna made the observation in Union of India's special leave petition challenging Madras High Court's order confirming the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal modifying the punishment imposed on a postal assistant from dismissal/removal from service to compulsory retirement.
Case Name: Allahabad Bank And Ors. v. Avtar Bhushan Bhartiya| SLP (Civil) No. 32554 of 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 405
The Supreme Court has held that an employee whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is obligated to either plead or at least make a statement at the first instance that they were not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages after being dismissed from service. It added that only then the burden would shift to the employer to prove otherwise.
A Bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian dismissed appeals assailing the order of the Allahabad High Court, which had set aside the penalty order passed by the disciplinary authority of Allahabad Bank and directed reinstatement of its delinquent officer with 50% back wages and all consequential benefits.
Case Title : Manish Gupta and another versus Jan Bhagidari Samiti and others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 406
The Supreme Court bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai has reiterated that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and can be replaced by only a regularly appointed candidate.
"It is a settled principle of law that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and he can be replaced only by another candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed", the Court observed.
70. Employers Can't Dispute Employees' Date Of Birth At Fag End Of Their Service : Supreme Court
Case Title : Shankar Lal versus Hindustan Copper Ltd and others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 407
The Supreme Court has held that the rule that employees cannot raise a dispute relating to date of birth at the fag end of their service is equally applicable to employers as well. A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Aniruddha Bose set aside the decision of Hindustan Copper Ltd, a Public Sector Undertaking, to reduce the VRS benefits to an employee by altering his date of birth.
Case Title : Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya versus District Development Officer Dahod and others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 408
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has held that Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers are entitled to the payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
"The 1972 Act will apply to Anganwadi centres and in turn to AWWs(Anganwadi Workers) and AWHs(Anganwadi Helpers)", a bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka held while allowing the appeals filed against a judgment delivered by a division bench of the Gujarat High Court.
Case Title: Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd v. U.B. Engineering Ltd and Anr. SLP(C) Nos. 24912-24913 of 2013
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 409
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna held that the arbitral tribunal can grant post-award interest on the sum of the award which also includes the interest component. The Court reiterated that the word sum used under Section 31(7) of the A&C Act includes the interest awarded on the substantive claims, therefore, the post award interest would be on both the amount awarded in respect of the substantive claims and the interest awarded on such claims.
Case Name: Kalyani (D) vs Sulthan Bathery Municipality | CA 3189 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 410
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath has observed that the burden to prove that there was a voluntary surrender of land is on the panchayat/municipality which raises such a claim.
Case Title: Shraddha Gupta vs State of Uttar Pradesh | CrA 569-570 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 411
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna has observed that there can be prosecution against a person under Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, even in case of a single offence/FIR/charge sheet for any of the anti-social activities mentioned in section 2(b) of the Act.
Case Title: Smt. Kaithuami [L] vs Smt. Ralliani| CA 7159-7160 of 2008
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 412
The Supreme Court observed that the inheritance under Mizo customary law depends upon the responsibility carried out by a legal heir to look after the elders in the family.
The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai agreed with the view taken in a 2012 judgment of Gauhati High Court that under Mizo customary law "even if a natural heir does not support his parents, he would not be entitled to inheritance and that "even if there is a natural heir, a person who supports the person until his death could inherit the properties of that person".
Case Title: Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan vs State (Govt Of NCT Of Delhi)| CrA 694-695 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 413
The Supreme Court observed that a High Court should be slow to grant the relief of quashing a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act at a pre-trial stage.
In a situation where the accused moves Court for quashing even before trial has commenced, the Court's approach should be careful enough to not to prematurely extinguish the case by disregarding the legal presumption which supports the complaint, the bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy said.
Case Title: Bar Council of India v. Twinkle Rahul Mangonkar And Ors. Civil Appeal No. 816-817 of 2022]
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 414
The Supreme Court accepted the suggestion made by Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate KV Vishwanathan that persons engaged in other employments can be permitted to provisionally enrol with the concerned Bar Council and to appear in the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), and that upon clearing the AIBE, they can be given a period of 6 months to decide whether to join legal profession or continue with the other job.
The Court said that the BCI may allow provisional enrolment for such persons with a window of 6 months for them to decide after clearing AIBE on giving up their employment to join legal practice.
The Court also directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to consider if fresh Bar examinations are to be conducted for advocates seeking to return to the legal profession after getting their licenses suspended to take up other employment.
Case Title : Asset Reconstruction Co (India) Ltd versus Chief Controlling Revenue Authority
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 415
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian has set aside a judgment delivered by a Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court which had held that stamp duty has to be independently paid for a Power of Attorney executed along with a deed assigning debt, even if stamp duty has been paid on the assignment deed.
Case Title: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs Discovery Enterprises Pvt. Ltd | CA 2042 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 416
The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered on explained the 'Group of companies' doctrine which postulates that an arbitration agreement entered into by a company within a group of companies, can bind its non-signatory affiliates or sister concerns if the circumstances demonstrate a mutual intention of the parties to bind both the signatory and affiliated, non-signatory parties.
The court observed that a non-signatory may be bound by the arbitration agreement where: (i) There exists a group of companies; and (ii) Parties have engaged in conduct or made statements indicating an intention to bind a non-signatory.
The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath held that the following factors have to be considered to apply the doctrine:
(i) The mutual intent of the parties
(ii) The relationship of a non-signatory to a party which is a signatory to the agreement
(iii) The commonality of the subject matter
(iv) The composite nature of the transaction
(v) The performance of the contract
Case Title : Ranbir Singh versus SK Roy, Chairman Life Insurance Corporation and Another
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 417
Observing that a public employer cannot be asked to carry out a mass absorption of over 11,000 workers without a recruitment process, the Supreme Court on Tuesday decided a four-decade old dispute related to the regularization of part-time workers in the Life Insurance Corporation(LIC).
"LIC as a statutory corporation is bound by the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. As a public employer, the recruitment process of the corporation must meet the constitutional standard of a fair and open process. Allowing for back-door entries into service is an anathema to public service", a bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath observed.
Case Title: Wipro Finance Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax | CA 6677 of 2008
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 418
Allowing the appeal filed by Wipro Finance Ltd., the Supreme Court observed that the loss suffered owing to exchange fluctuation can be regarded as revenue expenditure and thus an allowable deduction.
The bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Abhay S. Oka and CT Ravikumar allowed the appeal against the High Court judgment which had reversed the above view taken by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Case Name: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs Sandeep Choudhary | CA 8717 OF 2015
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 419
The Supreme Court has observed that the reserved category candidates securing higher marks than the last of the general category candidates are entitled to get seat/post in the General category.
The candidates belonging to reserved categories can as well stake claim to seats in unreserved categories if their merit and position in the merit list entitles them to do so., the bench comprising Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna observed.
Case Title: Union of India vs Mukesh Kumar Meena | CA 3468 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 420
The Supreme Court observed that the benefit of the grace marks policy introduced by Central Board of Direct Taxes for Departmental Examination for Income Tax Inspectors is not to allow the reserved category candidate to switch over to general category.
"Only in a case where any candidate belonging to any category is marginally failing to pass the examination, he is/was to be allowed the grace marks so as to allow him to obtain the minimum passing marks required and that too by allowing upto five grace marks.", the bench comprising Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna noted.
84. Mortgagor Has Right To Redeem Usufructuary Mortgage At Any Point Of Time: Supreme Court
Case Title: Harminder Singh (D) vs Surjit Kaur (D) | CA 89 OF 2012
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 421
The Supreme Court Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian has observed that once a usufructuary mortgage is created, the mortgagor has a right to redeem the mortgage at any point of time.
Case Name: Talema Electronic India Private Limited Vs Regional Director, ESI Corporation | CA 3175 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 422
The Supreme Court bench of Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna has observed that conveyance allowance paid to employees is not part of 'wages' for the purpose of computation of ESI Contribution.
86. Insolvency And Bankruptcy Code Is Not For Money Recovery Proceedings: Supreme Court Reiterates
Case title: Invest Asset Securitisation and Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. versus Girnar Fibres Ltd
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 423
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Aniruddha Bose in the case of Invest Asset Securitisation reiterated that the provisions of insolvency and bankruptcy code are essentially intended to bring the corporate debtor to its feet and are not of money recovery proceedings as such.
Case Title: Securities And Exchange Board Of India vs R.T. Agro Private Limited | CA 2957 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 424
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose has upheld an order of Securities Appellate Tribunal holding that the bar of voting as per Section 188 of the Companies Act, 2013 on related parties operates only at the time of entering into a contract or arrangement.
Case Name: Waqf Board. Rajasthan v. Jindal Saw Limited And Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 425
The Supreme Court has held that in absence of proof of 'dedication' or 'user' or 'grant' , which would qualify a dilapidated wall or a platform as 'waqf' in terms of Section 3(r) of the Waqf Act, 1995, the said structure cannot be recognised as a religious place for offering Namaaz.
A Bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian dismissed an appeal assailing the order of the Rajasthan High Court which allowed Jindal Saw Limited to remove a structure from the plot allotted to it for mining, which the Waqf Board, Rajasthan claimed was a religious place.
Case Title: National Medical Commission vs Pooja Thandu Naresh | CA 2950-2951 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 426
The Supreme Court has held that the National Medical Commission is not bound to grant provisional registration to a student who has not undergone clinical training in physical form a part of the medical course in a foreign medical institute.
The Court observed that a medical student who has not undergone clinical training cannot be granted provisional registration to complete internship.
"Without practical training, there cannot be any Doctor who is expected to take care of the citizens of the country", the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed.
Case Name: Atbir vs State of NCT Of Delhi | CrA 714 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 427
The Supreme court observed that eligibility for getting remission is not a pre-requisite for obtaining furlough. The whole of the scheme of granting furlough is based on the approach of reformation and as incentive for maintaining good conduct, the bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose observed.
Case Name: Narinder Garg vs Kotak Mahindra Bank | WP(C) 93 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 428
The Supreme Court reiterated that the moratorium provisions contained in Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 would apply only to the corporate debtor
The natural persons mentioned in Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would continue to be statutorily liable under the provisions of the Act, the bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha observed.
Case Title: Ashutosh Kumar v. The Film And Television Institute of India And Anr. C.A. No. 7719 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 429
The Supreme Court recently directed the Film and Television Institute of India(FTII) to induct individuals with colour blindness in all courses offered by them by making accommodation in its curriculum. The direction is also applicable to other film institutes following similar curriculum as FTII.
A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh further directed FTII to exclude colour grading modules in its diploma and film editing course or to make it an elective as suggested by the Committed appointed by it to look into the issue.
Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh vs Satish Chand Shivhare and Brothers| SLP(C) 5301 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 430
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and AS Bopanna observed that a court has no obligation to consider the merits of an appeal which is barred by limitation and no plausible cause for delay is shown.
The bench also observed that the law of limitation binds everybody including the Government and a different yardstick for condonation of delay cannot be laid down because the government is involved.
Case Title: Harshit Foundation Sehmalpur Jalalpur Jaunpur vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Faizabad
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 431
The Supreme Court has observed that there shall not be any deemed registration even if in a case where the registration application under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not decided within six months.
The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna was considering a Special Leave Petition challenging a judgment of Allahabad High Court in which the issue raised was whether on non-deciding the application for registration under Section 12AA (2) of the Income Tax Act within a period of six months, there shall be deemed registration or not?
Case Name: Haris Marine Products v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (ECGC) Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 432
The Supreme Court has held that first an ambiguous term in an insurance contract ought to be construed harmoniously by reading it in its entirety and if still vague the rule of contra proferentem must be applied and the term must be interpreted against the drafter of the policy, i.e in favour of the insured.
A Bench comprising Justices U.U. Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and P.S. Narasimha allowed an appeal filed assailing the order of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, which had held in favour of the insurer. The Apex Court set aside the order and directed the issuer to pay the claim amount of Rs. 2.45 crores along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.