Supreme Court Monthly Digest: January 2022 [Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1 To 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 106]
1. Employee Who Refuses Promotion Offer Not Entitled To Financial Upgradation Merely Because She Suffered Stagnation : Supreme CourtCase Title: Union of India v. Manju AroraCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1The Supreme Court observed that if a regular promotion is offered but is refused by the employee before becoming entitled to a financial upgradation, she/he shall not be entitled to...
Case Title: Union of India v. Manju Arora
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1
The Supreme Court observed that if a regular promotion is offered but is refused by the employee before becoming entitled to a financial upgradation, she/he shall not be entitled to financial upgradation only because he/she has suffered stagnation. The court said that Central Government employees who have refused the offer of regular promotion are disentitled to the financial upgradation benefits envisaged under the O.M. dated 9.8.1999 When an employee refuses the offered promotion, difficulties in manning the higher position might arise which give rise to administrative difficulties as the concerned employee very often refuse promotion in order to continue in his/her own place of posting, the bench comprising Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy observed.
In this case, some employees claimed the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme for the Central Government civilian employees under the O.M. dated 9.8.1999 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India. The ACP Scheme provided for financial upgradation to the next higher grade of pay for those employees who could not get promotion after 12 years of service. Second upgradation is similarly admissible after 24 years of service.
Case Tile: I-Pay Clearing Services Private Limited v. ICICI Bank Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 2
The Supreme Court observed that merely because an application is filed under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by a party, it is not always obligatory on the part of the Court to remit the matter to Arbitral Tribunal. "When it prima facie appears that there is a patent illegality in the award itself, by not recording a finding on a contentious issue, in such cases, Court may not accede to the request of a party for giving an opportunity to the Arbitral Tribunal to resume the arbitral proceedings.", the bench comprising Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy observed. The court said that the discretionary power conferred under Section 34(4) of the Act, is to be exercised where there is inadequate reasoning or to fill up the gaps in the reasoning, in support of the findings which are already recorded in the award. As per Section 34(4) of the Act, upon a request by a party, the Court may adjourn the proceedings for a period determined by it in the order to give the Arbitral Tribunal an opportunity to resume the arbitral proceedings or to take such other action as in the opinion of Arbitral Tribunal, will eliminate the grounds for setting aside the arbitral award.
Case Tite: Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Dilip Uttam Jayabhay
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 3
The Supreme Court observed that an acquittal in a criminal trial has no bearing or relevance on the disciplinary proceedings. The standard of proof in both the cases are different and the proceedings operate in different fields and with different objectives, the bench comprising Justices M R Shah and BV Nagarathna observed while setting aside an order passed by Industrial Court which directed Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation to reinstate a driver whose services were terminated by it after holding a disciplinary enquiry. "Therefore, at the best even if it is assumed that even driver of the jeep was also negligent, it can be said to be a case of contributory negligence. That does not mean that the respondent – workman was not at all negligent. Hence, it does not absolve him of the misconduct.", the court said.
Case Title: Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing and Marketing Corporation Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 4
The Supreme Court has rejected the argument raised by the Kerala State Beverages Corporation that it is entitled to deduct the levies made by the state government on it from income. The Beverages Corporation's claim was on the premise that the license given to by the State Government to trade in liquor was not 'exclusive'. Section 40(a)(iib) of the Income Tax Act, which refers to charges paid to the government that are not deductible from income, uses the word "exclusively". The Supreme Court held that this term "exclusively" is not to be understood on the basis of the number of undertakings involved. A bench comprising Justice Subhash Reddy and Justice Hrishikesh Roy observed that, "The aspect of exclusivity under Section 40(a)(iib) is not to be considered with a narrow interpretation, which will defeat the very intention of Legislature. The aspect of 'exclusivity' under S. 40(a)(iib) has to be viewed from the nature of undertaking on which levy is imposed and not on the number of undertakings on which the levy is imposed."
Case Title: Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. v. Maheshbhai Tinabhai Rathod
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 5
The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered last month (16th December 2021), held that Section 5 of Limitation Act cannot be applied to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed under Section 34(3) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In this case, petition under Section 34 was filed before the High Court with a delay of 185 days beyond the time period allowed under Section 34 (3) of the Act. The singe judge refused to condone the delay. In appeal, the Division Bench condoned it and directed to place it before Single bench for admission. This order was assailed before the Supreme Court. "The scope available for condonation of delay being self contained in the proviso to Section 34(3) and Section 5 of Limitation Act not being applicable has been taken note by this Court in its earlier decisions, which we may note.."
Case Title: Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (RMGB) v. Ramesh Chandra Meena
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 6
The Supreme Court observed there is no absolute right in favour of the delinquent employee to be represented in the departmental proceedings through the agent of his choice and the same can be restricted by the employer. In this case, High Court has permitted the delinquent employee who is facing disciplinary proceedings to represent through ex-¬employee of the Bank. It was observed that the Regulation 44 only restricts representation by a legal practitioner, and even that too is permissible of course with the leave to the competent authority, and there is no complete or absolute bar even on engaging a lawyer, the employee cannot be restrained from availing services of retired employee of a Bank.
The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna noted that the Regulation neither restricts nor permits availing the services of any outsider and / or ex¬-employee of the Bank as DR and to that extent Regulation is silent. But it noticed that the Clause 8 of the Handbook Procedure specifically provides that DR should be serving official / employee from the Bank.
Case Title : Small Industries Development Bank of India v. M/s Sibco Investment Pvt Ltd
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 7
A Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Subhash Reddy and Justice Hrishikesh Roy, while presiding over a matter regarding delayed payments of principal amount and interest accrued on bonds issued by SIDBI, stated that "RBI has wide supervisory powers over financial institutions like SIDBI, in furtherance of which, any direction issued by the RBI, deriving power from the RBI Act or the Banking Regulation Act is statutorily binding. The Apex Court bench while looking into the question of whether the facsimile issued by RBI to the appellant (SIDBI) was a directive or a suggestion. The bench looked at S. 35A of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 which talks about RBI's powers to give directions to banking companies and stated that "It is not necessary for RBI to mention a specific provision before issuing directions for it to have statutory consequences. All that is required is the authority under the law, to issue such a direction. Hence, it is undisputed that any direction by the RBI is compelling and enforceable similarly like the provisions of the RBI Act by its very nature." Thus, the bench concluded that the RBI's communication in question was a direction with appropriate statutory backing traceable to S. 45MB of the RBI Act and S. 35A of the Banking Regulation Act.
Case Title: Ellora Paper Mills Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 8
The Supreme Court held that an arbitral tribunal constituted as per an arbitration clause before the 2015 amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 will lose its mandate if it violates the neutrality clause under Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule, which were incorporated through the 2015 amendment. The Court held that an arbitration clause that prescribes appointment of arbitrators contrary to the amended provision of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot be given effect. "...when the arbitration clause is found to be foul with the amended provision, the appointment of the arbitrator would be beyond the pale of the arbitration agreement, empowering the Court to appoint such an arbitrator as may be permissible.That would be the effect of the non-obstante clause contained in sub-section (5) of Section 12 and the other party cannot insist upon the appointment of the arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement", the Supreme Court observed in the case Ellora Paper Mills Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh.
Case Title: M/s. Durga Welding Works v. Chief Engineer, Railway Electrification, Allahabad And Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 9
The Supreme Court has held that a party to the arbitration agreement can appoint an arbitrator even after an Arbitration Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the other party before the High Court for appointment of an arbitrator if the party has not been given due notice of the same. A bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka dismissed an appeal filed to assail the order the Orissa High Court, which had dismissed an Arbitration Petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Act") for the appointment of an arbitrator, since the appellant himself had selected an arbitrator; filed its statement of claim and the Arbitral Tribunal had passed ex-parte arbitral award almost three years before the Respondents were put to notice of the Arbitration Petition filed before the High Court.
Case Title: Bhadar Ram (D) v. Jassa Ram
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 10
The Supreme Court observed that a person belonging to Scheduled Caste /Scheduled Tribe in relation to his original State of which he is permanent or an ordinarily resident cannot be deemed to be so in relation to any other State on his migration to that State. The court noted that as per Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, there is a restriction on sale, gift or bequest by a member of Scheduled Caste in favour of a person, who is not a member of Scheduled Caste. This provision is to protect a member of the Scheduled Caste belonging to the very State he belongs to, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna observed. It is to be noted that as per Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, there is a restriction on sale, gift or bequest by a member of Scheduled Caste in favour of a person, who is not a member of Scheduled Caste. Looking to the object and purpose of such a provision, it can be said that the said provision is to protect a member of the Scheduled Caste belonging to the very State he belongs i.e., in the present case the State of Rajasthan. Being a Scheduled Caste in the State of Punjab whether the sale transaction in favour of the appellant ¬ original defendant could have been saved from the bar under Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 is now not res integra.
Case Title: Shobhabai Narayan Shinde v. The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik And Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 11
The Supreme Court held that no statutory appeal lies against an order passed under Section 14B(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, refusing to disqualify the Sarpanch or Member of Panchayat. The Apex Court clarified that Section 14B(2) of the Act does not provide for an appeal mechanism for the orders passed under Section 14B(1). A bench comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and C.T. Ravikumar allowed an appeal filed assailing the order of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, wherein the order of disqualification passed by the Divisional Commissioner under Section 14B(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 ("Act") setting aside the orders of the Collector under Section 14B(1) was affirmed. The Apex Court set aside the order of the Divisional Commissioner as non-est in law, and restored the orders passed by the Collector rejecting the applications seeking disqualification of the appellants.
12. Tribunal Decisions Can Be Scrutinized Only By A Jurisdictional High Court : Supreme Court
Case Title: Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 12
The Supreme Court has held that any decision of a tribunal (inclusive of one passed under S. 25 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985) can only be scrutinized by a High Court which has territorial jurisdiction over the tribunal in question. "All decisions of tribunals created under Article 323A and 323B of the Constitution will be subject to the scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned tribunal falls", the Court referred to the dictum laid down by the Constitution Bench in L Chandrakumar decision. The Supreme Court faulted the approach of the High Court by noting that it was contrary to the dictum of the Constitution Bench in L Chandrakumar. The judgment authored by Justice Ravikumar held : "When once a Constitution Bench of this court declared the law that "all decisions of Tribunals created under Article 323A and Article 323B of the Constitution will be subject to the scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned Tribunal falls", it is impermissible to make any further construction on the said issue. The law thus declared by the Constitution Bench cannot be revisited by a Bench of lesser quorum or for that matter by the High Courts by looking into the bundle of facts to ascertain whether they would confer territorial jurisdiction to the High Court within the ambit of Article 226(2) of the Constitution."
Case Title: State of UP v. Mcdowell and Company Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 13
The Supreme Court observed that a fire accident cannot be said to be an 'act of God' if it did not happen due to the operation of any forces of nature. "When nothing of any external natural force had been in operation in violent or sudden manner, the event of the fire in question could be referable to anything but to an act of God in legal parlance.", the court said in a judgment delivered on Thursday (6 January 2022). In 2003, a fire incident took place in a godown of the distillery of the Mcdowell & Co. As many as 35,642 cases of Indian Made Foreign Liquor of different brands got destroyed in this fire. After receiving the initial reports that the fire possibly took place due to short circuit of electricity, the Revenue department proposed to recover the amount of excise duty lost, due to such destruction of liquor, from the company. Allowing the writ petition filed by the Company, the Allahabad High Court quashed the demand notice issued by the Department.
Case Title: Ram Ratan v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 14
In a judgement delivered recently, the Supreme Court through a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and Justices A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli clarified two important positions of the law relating to the offence of Robbery under the Indian Penal Code. The question that came up for the Court's consideration was whether the charge under Section 397 of IPC would hold in case the firearm had not been put to use. The judgement authored by Justice Bopanna notes that in order to meet the ingredients of Section 397 of the IPC, first, it is not necessary for the offender to have literally used the weapon for the purpose it serves. Even showcasing the same to create fear in the mind of the victim would be sufficient. The Court held: "It is clear that the use of the weapon to constitute the offence under Section 397 IPC does not require that the 'offender' should actually fire from the firearm or actually stab if it is a knife or a dagger but the mere exhibition of the same, brandishing or holding it openly to threaten and create fear or apprehension in the mind of the victim is sufficient."
Case Title : Gayabai Digambar Puri (Died) v. Executive Engineer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 15
The Supreme Court observed that if a person is deprived of possession of his property on account of acquisition of land, he should be paid compensation immediately. If the same is not paid to him forthwith, he would be entitled to interest on the compensation amount from the date of taking possession of the land till the date of payment, the court said. In this case, the issue was regarding the liability to pay interest whether commences from the date of taking possession or only from the date of award. The Reference Court had directed that the interest has to be paid from 04.04.1997 when possession was taken until 03.04.1998 for the first year at the rate of 9 per cent per annum and thereafter at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from 04.04.1998 till the date of payment, i.e. 08.09.2004. This was altered by the High Court.
Case Title: Asst. Director Enforcement Directorate v. Dr. VC Mohan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 16
The Supreme Court observed that, once the prayer for anticipatory bail is made in connection with offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the underlying principles and rigors of Section 45 of the PMLA Act must get triggered although the application is under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is the duty of court to examine the jurisdictional facts including the mandate of Section 45 of the PMLA Act, which must be kept in mind, the bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar observed while setting aside an order passed by the High Court of Telangana by which it granted anticipatory bail to an accused in connection with offence concerning the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Case Title : Neil Aurelio Nunes and others v. Union of India
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 17
The Supreme Court has allowed the commencement of counselling process for NEET-PG and NEET-UG for 2021-22 admissions on the basis of the existing 27% quota for Other Backward Classes (OBC) and 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections(EWS) in the All India Quota. The Court upheld the constitutionality of 27% OBC reservation. As regards criteria to determine EWS(Rupees 8 lakhs gross annual income cut-off), the Court allowed the existing criteria to operate for the current admission year so as to not delay the admission process further. However, future application of EWS criteria, which has been stipulated in the Office Memorandum of July 2019, will be subject to final outcome of the petitions.
18. Arbitrator Can Grant Post-Award Interest On The Interest Amount Awarded: Supreme Court
Case Title: UHL Power Company Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 18
The Supreme Court observed that post-award interest can be granted by an Arbitrator on the interest amount awarded. In this case, in terms of the award dated 05th June, 2005, the Sole Arbitrator had awarded a sum of ₹26,08,89,107.35 in favour of UHL Power Company Limited towards expenses claimed along with pre-claim interest capitalized annually, on the expenses so incurred. Further, compound interest was awarded in favour of UHL @ 9% per annum till the date of claim and in the event the awarded amount is not realized within a period of six months from the date of making the award, future interest was awarded @ 18% per annum on the principal claim with interest. The court, however, agreed with the view expressed by the Appellate Court that the Single Judge (while considering Section 34 petition to set aside Arbitration Award) committed a gross error in re-appreciating the findings returned by the Arbitral Tribunal and taking an entirely different view in respect of the interpretation of the relevant clauses of the Implementation Agreement governing the parties.
Case Title: Jasdeep Singh Jassu v. State of Punjab
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 19
A mere common intention per se may not attract Section 34 IPC, sans an action in furtherance, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment delivered in a criminal appeal on 7 Jan 2022. In this case, the appellants were convicted under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) with life sentence. They filed appeal challenging the invocation of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to convict them with along with other accused. The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh agreed with the submission on behalf of the appellant that the evidence available is not sufficient enough to hold that Section 34 IPC is attracted as against them. There is no evidence at all on record to hold that A3 and A4 were aware of the fact that A1 was having a gun with him, the court said.
Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi And Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 20
The Supreme Court held that the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board had correctly applied the method of 'Normalisation' of marks at the stage of Written Examination as well as the Final merit list in the process of selection of candidates for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, Platoon Commander and Fire Officer. A Bench comprising Justices U.U. Lalit and Vineet Saran allowed the appeals filed challenging the order of the Special Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, which had quashed the results of the examination of police officials in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The bench held that 'normalisation' was appropriately applied by the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board ("Board") at the stage of written examination.
Case Title: Arjab Jena@ Arjab Kumar Jena v. Utsa Jena @ Pattnaik
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 21
The Supreme Court observed that taking on record the comments made during the course of mediation or settlement proceedings impedes conciliation and impinges on the principle of confidentiality. While disapproving the observations made in the order dated April 20, 2021 passed by the Orissa High Court, bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi in its order said, "We disapprove the observations made in the impugned order which refer to the comments made during the course of the mediation or settlement proceedings. The High Court should not have taken the aforesaid comments on record, as the same would impede conciliation and is contrary to and impinges on the principle of confidentiality. Accordingly, the paragraphs 11 and 12 of the impugned order would be erased from record."
Case Title: Mahendra vs State Of MP
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 22
The Supreme Court reiterated that it is an essential condition of an unlawful assembly that its membership must be five or more. Less than five persons can be charged under Section 149 only if the prosecution has a case that the persons before the Court and other numbering in all more than five composed an unlawful assembly, these others being persons not identified and un¬armed, the bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka said. It may be noticed that the essential ingredients of Section 149 are that the offence must have been committed by any member of an unlawful assembly, and Section 141 makes it clear that it is only where five or more persons constituted an assembly that an unlawful assembly is born, provided, of course, the other requirements of the said section as to the common object of the persons composing that assembly are satisfied. To say in other words, it is an essential condition of an unlawful assembly that its membership must be five or more. At the same time, it may not be necessary that five or more persons necessarily be brought before the Court and convicted. Less than five persons may be charged under Section 149 if the prosecution case is that the persons before the Court and other numbering in all more than five composed an unlawful assembly, these others being persons not identified and un¬armed.
23. Right Of Preemption A Maligned, Feudal, Archaic And Outmoded Law, Reiterates Supreme Court
Case Title: Punyadeo Sharma vs Kamla Devi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 23
The Supreme Court observed that the right of pre-emption is a maligned law and are characterised as 'feudal, archaic and outmoded'. In this case, the appellants are purchasers of the land in question vide sale deed dated 9.2.1990. The sale deed was presented for registration but the registration was completed on 7.1.1992. The proceedings for pre-emption of the land were initiated in terms of Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1 19611 on 31.3.1992. The bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat held that "any other Court" is wide enough to include the Constitutional Courts i.e. the High Court and the Supreme Court.
24. NCLT Must Pass Reasonable Order For Fees & Expenses Of Resolution Professional : Supreme Court
Case Title: Devarajan Raman v Bank of India Limited
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 24
The Supreme Court has held that the NCLT/NCLAT must make a reasonable assessment of the fees and expenses payable to the Interim Resolution Profession and cannot pass an order in an ad-hoc manner. The Court held that an order assigning reasons must be passed in respect of fees of resolution professional; otherwise, it will amount to abdication. A judgement delivered by a Bench of Justices D.Y.Chandrachud and A.S.Bopanna, while considering a dispute relating to the payment of costs and expense incurred by a Resolution Professional, set aside impugned order and judgement of NCLAT and NCLT that awarded an ad-hoc amount to the Interim Resolution Professional without any consideration of the actual amount due as per technical and financial bid.
Case Title: S. Amutha v. The Government Of Tamil Nadu & Ors
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 25
The Supreme Court recently quashed a detention order after noting that the authority considered the representation of the detenu after a long delay. The Court observed that in the matter of considering representation made against detention order, the Competent Authority is duty-bound to do so with "utmost despatch". The bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar was considering a special leave petition assailing order dated November 18, 2021 passed by the Madras High Court, Bench at Madurai ("impugned order").
Case Title: Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. v. Stanford Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. SLP(C) No. 17298 of 2021
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 26
The Supreme Court has observed that the period of limitation which could have been condoned by a Court or a Tribunal is also excluded from the limitation period up to 07.10.2021 in view of the orders passed suo motu by the Top Court to extend limitation period in the wake of COVID-19. "Even as held by this Court in the subsequent orders even the period of limitation which could have been extended and/or condoned by the Tribunal/Court is excluded and/or extended even up to 07.10.2021", observed the Supreme Court. Holding so, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of Madras High Court, which relied on its direction dated 08.03.2020 in Suo Moto Writ (Civil) No 3 of 2020 titled In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation to condone the delay in filing written statements in a commercial suit.
Case Title: Sukriti & Ors v CBSE & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 27
The Supreme Court has struck down Clause 28 of CBSE Policy which held that marks in the later (improvement) exams will be considered final for the assessment of Class 12 exams for the last academic year. The Bench further directed that the CBSE shall provide the option to the candidate to accept the better of the two marks obtained for the final declaration of the results. The Supreme Court in December had asked the Central Board of Secondary Education(CBSE) to reconsider its policy of treating the marks in the improvement exams of Class 12 as final over the marks tabulated as per the Standard Formula.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Bhagwan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 28
The Supreme Court observed that the employees of the autonomous bodies cannot claim, as a matter of right, the same service benefits on par with the Government employees. The State Government and the Autonomous Board/Body cannot be put on par and the the employees of the latter are governed by their own Service Rules and service conditions, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed. The court also observed that interference by the Judiciary in a policy decision having financial implications and/or having a cascading effect is not at all warranted and justified.
Case Title: Jayaben V. Tejas Kanubhai Zala & Anr. | Jayaben V. Jaysukhbhai Devrajbhai Radadiya & Anr.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 29
The State of Gujarat and its Director of Prosecution came under the criticism of the Supreme Court for not filing appeal against a High Court order granting bail to the accused in a case where a Dalit man was brutally murdered while he was collecting scrap outside a factory. A bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna noted that the High Court's bail order was "most perfunctory and casual", but the State did not appeal against it. Aggrieved with the High Court order, the complainant(the widow of the victim) filed appeal before the Supreme Court. While allowing the appeal and setting aside the High Court's judgement in Jayaben V. Tejas Kanubhai Zala & Anr, the bench said, "By not filing the appeals by the State against the impugned judgments and orders releasing the accused on bail in such a serious matter, the State has failed to protect the rights of the victim. We are of the opinion that this was the fit case where the State ought to have preferred the appeals challenging the orders passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail. In criminal matters the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of the social interest of the community at large and so it is for the State to take all the steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interest of the community to book."
Case Title: Mahavir Arya Vs State Govt. NCT Of Delhi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 30
The Supreme Court observed that an application seeking exemption from surrendering is not required to be filed along with a special leave petitions against cancellation of bail orders. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, while considering one such case, noted that large number of such applications for exemptions are routinely filed when there is no need to adopt such a procedure at all. "The officers of the Registry must know the Supreme Court Rules like the back of ones hand. Order XXII Rule 5, applies only to cases where the petitioner is 'sentenced to a term of imprisonment' and it cannot be confused with simple orders of cancellation of bail", the judge said.
Case Title: In Re Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 31
Taking note of the surge in COVID-19 cases across the country, the Supreme Court has ordered the extension of limitation period for filing of cases and applications in courts and tribunals. "The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings", the Court ordered. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice Surya Kant passed the order on an application filed by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) in the suo motu case In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra v. Shri Vile Parle Kelvani Mandal And Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 32
The Supreme Court has held that Charitable Education Institutions are not entitled to the exemption from payment of electricity duty post 08.08.2016 as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Electricity Duty Act, 2016. A bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna allowed the appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra assailing the order of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, which had granted the educational institutions run by a public trust the right to exemption from paying electricity duty under the Maharashtra Electricity Duty Act, 2016.
Case Title: Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 33
In a judgment delivered last week, the Supreme Court summarized the circumstances under which an appeal would be entertained by it from an order of acquittal. The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna also summarized circumstances under which the Supreme Court may entertain an appeal against an order of acquittal and pass an order of conviction The Court said that it is only in rarest of rare cases, where the High Court, on an absolutely wrong process of reasoning and a legally erroneous and perverse approach to the facts of the case, ignoring some of the most vital facts, has acquitted the accused, that the same may be reversed by this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution
Case Title: Rajendra Bhagat vs State of Jharkhand
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 34
Emphasizing the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes, the Supreme Court set aside conviction of a man under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'). The Apex Court bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath opined that maintaining of conviction of the appellant of the offence under Section 498-A IPC would not be securing the ends of justice. With such conviction being maintained and the appellant losing his job, the family would again land itself in financial distress which may ultimately operate adverse to the harmony and happy conjugal life of the parties, the bench said.
Case Title: Suresh Kankra vs State Of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 35
The Supreme Court observed that a Judicial Magistrate is required to be conscious of the consequences while passing an Order under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It being a judicial order, relevant materials are expected to be taken note of, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh said while quashing an FIR registered pursuant to an order passed by a Magistrate. In this case, an FIR alleging an offence of rape was lodged against the petitioner. Before the High Court, he contended that the entire complaint is fostered against the petitioner who is a retired person by his estranged sister-in-law out of the family dispute. That he is not even the resident of that area and a similar complaint was given by her against his son which was closed on investigation as false and motivated. That he was actually attending the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat at the time of the alleged incident and a number of litigations going on between the parties. The High Court refused to quash the FIR holding that facts being in the realm of dispute, discretion under Section 482 CrPC cannot be exercised.
Case Title: Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 36
The Supreme Court observed that the failure of a builder to obtain occupation certificate is a deficiency in service under Consumer Protection Act 1986.The flat purchasers are well within their rights as 'consumers' to pray for compensation as a recompense for the consequent liability such as payment of higher taxes and water charges by the owners arising from the lack of an occupancy certificate, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna observed.
37. Section 304B IPC- Demand Of Money For Construction Of A House Is A 'Dowry Demand': Supreme Court
Case Title: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jogendra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 37
The Supreme Court observed that demand of money for construction of a house is a 'dowry demand' to attract offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The word "Dowry" ought to be ascribed an expansive meaning so as to encompass any demand made on a woman, whether in respect of a property or a valuable security of any nature, the bench of CJI NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli said.
Case Title: Haryana Tourism Limited vs M/s Kandhari Beverages Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 38
The Supreme Court observed that a High Court cannot enter into the merits of the claim in an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In this case, the arbitrator directed a party to pay a sum of Rs. 9.5 lakhs.The other party filed objection petition before Additional District Judge, Chandigarh under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act against the award passed by the arbitrator. The said petition was dismissed. Thereafter, a further appeal before the High Court under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act was filed. The said appeal was allowed by the High Court which considered the merits of the claim and has quashed and set aside the award passed by the arbitrator as well as the order passed by Additional District Judge, Chandigarh.
Case Title: Garment Craft vs Prakash Chand Goel
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 39
Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not to correct a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment delivered on Tuesday (11 Jan 2022). The bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi observed that the power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to.
Case Title: Meera v. State By the Inspector of Police Thiruvotriyur Police Station Chennai
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 40
Observing that when cruelty is committed by one woman against another woman the offence becomes more serious, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a mother-in-law for the offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The mother-in-law was found guilty of having committed cruelty against the daughter-in-law when her husband was abroad. "Being a lady, the appellant, who was the mother-in-law, ought to have been more sensitive vis-à-vis her daughter-in-law. When an offence has been committed by a woman by meting out cruelty to another woman, i.e., the daughter-in-law, it becomes a more serious offence. If a lady, i.e., the mother-in-law herein does not protect another lady, the other lady, i.e., daughter-in-law would become vulnerable", observed a bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna.
Case Title: Union of India And Anr. v. Shaikh Istiyaq Ahmed And Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 41
The Supreme Court has delivered a notable judgment laying down the principles for repatriation of prisoners as per the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003. The Court discussed the issue whether the sentence imposed by a foreign court on an Indian convict, who has been repatriated to India, can be higher than the sentence for a similar offence in India. The Court held that the duration of the sentence will be governed by the agreement of transfer between the foreign country and India. The Indian Government can modify the sentence of the foreign court only if such sentence is "incompatible with Indian law". However, the Court added that merely because the foreign court's sentence is higher than that under the Indian law, it does not become "incompatible with Indian law". "Incompatibility" herein would signify being contrary to the fundamental laws of India.
Case Title: The Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. Versus The Registrar, Cooperative Societies And Others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 42
The Supreme Court has held that an amendment that has retrospective applicability and takes away the benefit which was already available to an employee under the existing set of rules would divest the employee of his vested/accrued rights and thus, will violate the rights guaranteed under A.14 and A.21 of the Constitution. "...if the employee who had already been promoted or fixed in a particular pay scale, if that is being taken away by the impugned scheme of rules retrospectively, that certainly will take away the vested/accrued right of the incumbent which may not be permissible and may be violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution", the Court observed.
Case Title: Lawyers Voice v. State of Punjab
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 43
The Supreme Court has appointed former Supreme Court judge Justice Indu Malhotra to head the Committee to enquire into the security lapse which happened during the visit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Punjab on January 5. The Court opined that the "questions cannot be left to one-sided enquiry" and a judicially trained mind needs to oversee the probe. The Director-General of the National Investigation Agency or his nominee not below the rank of IG, Director General of Police of Union Territory of Chandigarh, ADGP (Security) of Punjab and the Registrar General of the Punjab and Haryana High Court (who has seized the records relating to PM's visit) are the other members of the Committee.
Case Title: Hardev Singh v. Prescribed Authority, Kashipur And Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 44
The Supreme Court held that if subletting is in derogation of the terms of the Lease Deed, then the sub-lessee continues to be the ostensible tenure holder of land and the lessee the real holder for the purposes of Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. A Bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari dismissed the appeals filed challenging the order of the Uttarakhand High Court, which refused to extend the benefits of independent tenure holder to sub-lessees as the subletting itself was in violation of the pre-conditions stipulated in the Government Lease Deed.
Case Title: Phoenix ARC Private Limited v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 45
The Supreme Court observed that a writ petition challenging proceedings under SARFAESI Act initiated by private banks/Asset Reconstruction Companies is not maintainable. "If proceedings are initiated under the SARFAESI Act and/or any proposed action is to be taken and the borrower is aggrieved by any of the actions of the private bank/bank/ARC, borrower has to avail the remedy under the SARFAESI Act and no writ petition would lie and/or is maintainable and/or entertainable.", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna said. The court said that the activity of the bank/ARC (of lending the money to the borrowers) cannot be said to be as performing a public function which is normally expected to be performed by the State authorities.
Case Title: Shri Kshetrimayum Maheshkumar Singh vs The Manipur University & Ors
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 46
The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal against Manipur High Court's order upholding the decision of Manipur University to reduce reservation in admission for Scheduled Caste candidates from 15% to 2%, OBC quota from 27% to 17% and increase for Scheduled Tribes candidates from 7.5% to 31%, in terms of amendment to the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act 2006. A Bench comprising Justice Nageswara Rao and Justice Hima Kohli has issued the direction in an appeal challenging Manipur High Court's order which upheld the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, in 2012 under which the Manipur University was required to follow the reservation norms of 2% for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste [SC], 31% for the Scheduled Tribes [ST] and 17% for the Other Backward Classes [OBC] for purposes of admission in the University.
Case Title: Government Of NCT Of Delhi Through Its Secretary & Ors. V. Om Prakash & Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 47
The Supreme Court has observed that once the High Court has passed an order of lapsing acquisition proceedings by virtue of Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("Act"), landowners cannot revert back on the plea that they are entitled to seek release of land in terms of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian was considering a Special Leave Petition assailing Delhi High Court's order dated September 23, 2014 ("impugned judgement"). In the impugned judgement, the High Court had allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents holding that acquisition proceedings stand lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Act.
48. Rights Of Parents Irrelevant When Court Decides Custody Of Their Child: Supreme Court
Case Title: Vasudha Sethi vs Kiran V. Bhaskar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 48
The Supreme Court has observed that the rights of the parents are irrelevant when a Court decides the issue of custody of their minor child. The issue of custody of a minor, whether in a petition seeking habeas corpus or in a custody petition, has to be decided on the touchstone of the principle that the welfare of a minor is of paramount consideration, the bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka observed. In this case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court issued several directions while allowing a petition for habeas corpus filed by the husband seeking custody of the minor child. The mother was directed to return to USA along with minor child on or before 30.09.2021. Challenging this order, the mother approached the Apex Court.
Case Title: Sharada Dayadhish Shetty v. The Director, CSIR-NCL And Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 49
The Supreme has Court held any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research ("CSIR") is public premises under Section 2(e)(2)(ii) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. "A perusal of the written statement filed by the respondent before the District Judge shows that it was averred that National Chemical Laboratory (NCL) is a constituent laboratory of CSIR. It is an autonomous body under the auspices of Department of Science and Industrial Research, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India. Hon'ble the Prime Minister of India is the ex- officio President and the Minister-in-charge of the Ministry or Department dealing with CSIR is the ex-officio Vice President of CSIR", the Court noted. A bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian refused to entertain an appeal challenging the order passed by the Bombay High Court, which chose not to interfere with an eviction order passed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 for a premises belonging to CSIR.
Case Title: Disabled Rights Group v Union of India
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 50
A Bench of Justices D.Y.Chandrachud and A.S.Bopanna has directed the University Grants Commission to finalize guidelines for the inspection of educational institutions and commence inspection work proactively. The Bench was hearing a Miscellaneous Application arising out of the Apex Court's judgement dated 15.12.2017 - in Disabled Rights Group & Another v Union of India- wherein the Court had accepted the suggestions by the petitioner that educations institutions must ensure proper infrastructure in including special classrooms, sports facilities, libraries, laboratories, teaching methods, recreational facilities etc.
Case Title: State of Orissa & Ors v. Prasanta Kumar Swain
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 51
While considering a SLP assailing Orissa High Court's order, the Supreme Court recently deprecated the High Court's action of disposing a writ petition without applying its mind to the grounds or challenge of submission. While setting aside the High Court's judgement and remitting the proceedings back for a fresh decision, the bench in State of Orissa & Ors v. Prasanta Kumar Swain, the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna observed, "Ex facie, there has been no application of mind by the High Court to the grounds of challenge or to the submissions. In fact, the concluding line of the order of the High Court indicates that the decision will not be treated as a precedent. This was an inappropriate manner of disposing of a substantive petition under Article 226 of the Constitution since the High Court is duty bound to apply its mind to whether the judgment of the Tribunal is sustainable on facts and law."
Case Title: Deepak Sharma vs State of Haryana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 52
Taking custody of jewellery for safety cannot constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the Supreme Court observed. In this case, an FIR was filed by the complainant against her husband and in-laws under Sections 323, 34, 406, 420, 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Complainant's brother in law (who was employed in Texas in the United States of America) was arrayed as one of the accused. The Apex Court was considering an appeal against the order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which dismissed an application filed by him for permission to travel back to the United States of America.
Case Title: Nagar Panchayat, Kymore v. Hanuman Prasad Dwivedi
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 53
Holding that a stale claim cannot be revived by a representation, the Supreme Court has set aside a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which directed the reinstatement of an employee with back-wages. The Court noted that in an earlier proceeding, the High Court had upheld the termination of the services of the employee for misconduct. Fifteen years later, the employee filed a representation seeking reinstatement, and the High Court directed the consideration of the same, leading to a second round of litigation which resulted in the impuged judgment delivered on September 1, 2020.
Case Title: M/s. Premier Sea Foods Exim Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Caravel Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 54
The Supreme Court has held that a reference to Section 37 instead of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would not matter as long as the jurisdictional court has the power to adjudicate the appeal. "Even if the appeal under Section 37 would not be maintainable, objection/appeal under Section 34 would be maintainable. Reference to wrong provision, as long as power exists would not matter", the Court observed. A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi allowed an appeal filed challenging the order of the Madras High Court, wherein the arbitrator's order rejecting the application of the appellant to revive its counterclaim was affirmed.
55. Cryptic & Casual Bail Orders Without Relevant Reasons Liable To Be Set Aside : Supreme Court
Case Title: Manoj Kumar Khokhar v. State of Rajasthan And Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 55
The Supreme Court held that bail cannot be granted by a cryptic and causal order without considering the material aspects of the case. The Apex Court further clarified that even if no new circumstances have developed after the grant of bail, the State is entitled to seek cancellation of bail, if it had been granted ignoring material aspects which establish a prima facie case against the accused. A Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna allowed the appeal filed challenging the order of the Rajasthan High Court granting bail to the accused without assigning reasons for the same.
Case Title: M/S Mangilal Vishnoi vs National Insurance Company Ltd, CA 291/2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 56
The Supreme Court has held that denying the insurance coverage under the Employees Compensation Act 1923 for the reason that deceased was engaged as a "helper" and not a "cleaner" is wholly unjustified, considering the absence of any clear demarcation of duties and the fact that the terms "Helper" and "Cleaner" are interchangeably used. A Bench comprising Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V Ramasubramanian observed that the High Court has accepted the Insurance Company's appeal on a "make-believe argument that Cleaner or Helper engaged by the employer are engaged in two different duties and that a Helper is not covered by the insurance policy".
Case Title: Devas Multimedia Private Ltd vs Antrix Corporation Ltd and another
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 57
The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Devas Multimedia challenging the orders passed by the NCLT and NCLAT allowing the winding up on a petition filed by ISRO's commercial arm Antrix Corporation Ltd. A bench comprising Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V Ramasubramanian dismissed the appeals filed by Devas Multimedia and its shareholder Devas Employees Mauritius Pvt Ltd. The Court undertook a detailed analysis of Rule 5 of the Companies (Winding up) Rules, 2020 and notes that the purpose of advertisement is to provide an opportunity to all the stakeholders to either support or oppose the proceedings and to serve as a warning to all those dealing with the company so that they would know there there is an element of risk involved. The Court also notes that advertisement has been said to cause more harm to the company than the benefits it brings.
Case Title: Seethakathi Trust Madras v. Krishnaveni
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 58
The Supreme Court has observed that a decree for obtaining specific performance of a decree cannot be obtained behind the back of a bona fide purchaser especially when the transaction has taken place prior to the institution of the suit for specific performance. A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, setting aside a judgment of the Madras High Court, observed: "...it is not possible for us to accept that a decree could have been obtained behind the back of a bona fide purchaser, more so when the transaction had taken place prior to the institution of the suit for specific performance".
Case Title: B.L. Kashyap And Sons Ltd. v. JMS Steels And Power Corporation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 59
The grant of leave to defend (with or without conditions) is the ordinary rule; and denial of leave to defend is an exception, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment in which it discussed the scope of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The bench comprising Justices Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari observed that a prayer for leave to defend is to be denied in such cases where the defendant has practically no defence and is unable to give out even a semblance of triable issues before the Court.
Case Title: Bhagwani v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 60
The Supreme Court commuted death sentence awarded on a man convicted of rape and murder of eleven year old girl. The court, however, took into account 'the barbaric and savage manner in which the offences of rape and murder were committed', sentenced him to life imprisonment for a period of 30 years during which he shall not be granted remission. Bhagwani was convicted and sentenced to death by the Trial Court under Sections 363, 366A, 364, 346, 376D, 376A, 302, 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5(g) (m) read with Section 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the appeal filed by him and confirmed the death sentence.
61. Subordinate Legislation/Statutory Rules Also A 'Law' Under Section 23 Contract Act: Supreme Court
Case Title: G.T. Girish v. Y. Subba Raju (D)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 61
The Supreme Court held that Subordinate Legislation in the form of Statutory Rules is a 'law' under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. Section 23 of the Contract Act states that the consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless it is forbidden by law. The court was considering an appeal that arose from a specific performance suit in which the defendant pointed out that Bangalore Rules of Allotment, 1972 Rule 18(2) had an embargo against alienation for a period of ten years and therefore the contract is not lawful. The issue raised was whether the enforcement of an agreement to sell expressly or impliedly, lead to palpably defeat this Rule.
Case Title : Bank of Baroda and another v. MBL Infrastructures Ltd and others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 62
The Supreme Court has delivered an important judgment interpreting the scope of Section 29A(h) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Section 29A IBC specifies the categories of persons who are not eligible to be resolution applicants. Sub-section (h) of Section 29A refers to persons whose guarantees stand invoked by the creditors of the corporate debtor. The exact wordings of the provision are as follows : "has executed a guarantee in favour of a creditor in respect of a corporate debtor against which an application for insolvency resolution made by such creditor has been admitted under this Code and such guarantee has been invoked by the creditor and remains unpaid in full or part".
Case Title: Atlanta Limited Thr. Its Managing Director v. Union of India Represented By Chief Engineer Military Engineering Service
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 63
The Supreme Court reiterated that the Appellate Court exercising power under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 ought not to reassess or re appreciate evidence or examine the sufficiency of the evidence. The Apex Court also held that the arbitral award ought not to be challenged on the ground that the arbitrator had drawn his own conclusion or had failed to appreciate facts. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India, N.V. Ramana and Justices A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli allowed an appeal assailing the order passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, which had set aside the order and decree of the Single Judge upholding the arbitral award to the extent that it granted money for idle hire charges and value of tools and machineries.
Case Title: Sushil Kumar vs State of Haryana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 64
In judicial review proceedings, the Courts are concerned with the decision-making process and not the decision itself, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment this week. In this case, the appellant, a head constable, had approached the High Court seeking retrospective promotion with effect from 21.01.2004. His grievance was that he should have been promoted in the year 2004 itself and that the delay in appointing him in 2008 is illegal and arbitrary. The Single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that selection is not a matter of right. Writ appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench. In appeal, it was contended that the Inspector General of Police (IG) has no power to interfere with the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police (SP). That when the SP has forwarded the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), the IG does not act as the appellate authority and cannot substitute his decision to that of the DP.
Case Title: Renaissance Hotel Holding Inc v. B. Vijaya Sai
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 65
The Supreme Court observed that, in an action for infringement, when the trade mark of the defendant is identical with the registered trade mark of the plaintiff and that the goods or services of the defendant are identical with the goods or services covered by registered trade mark, the Court shall presume that it is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public. In an infringement action, an injunction would be issued as soon as it is proved that the defendant is improperly using the trademark of the plaintiff, the bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna observed.
Case Title: Indian Overseas Bank And Ors. v. Om Prakash Lal Srivastava
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 66
In a case of a bank clerk forging signatures to encash a Demand Draft, the Supreme Court held that it is not necessary to call for a handwriting expert in departmental proceedings. The Court upheld the procedure adopted by the inquiry officer to compare the signatures himself, from a "banker's eye". The Supreme Court has held that the test of criminal proceedings ought not to be applied in departmental proceedings to call for handwriting experts to examine signatures. The Apex Court clarified that the standard of proof in departmental proceedings was based on 'preponderance of probability' and therefore somewhat lower than that of criminal proceedings based on 'proved beyond reasonable doubt'.
67. Supreme Court Grants Reprieve To A Software Developer Who Was "Hounded" By Her Employer
Case Title: Ms Sarita Singh v. M/s Shree Infosoft Private Limited
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 67
The Supreme Court has granted reprieve to a software developer who was "hounded" by her employer which instituted a suit claiming money spent on her "overseas deputation" after she resigned from the company. The Court has affirmed that "a deputation involves a tripartite consensual agreement between the lending employer, borrowing employer and the employee", and "a transient business visit without any written agreement detailing terms of deputation will not qualify as a deputation."
68. High Court Cannot Issue Direction To State To Form A New Policy: Supreme Court Reiterates
Case Title: Krishan Lal & Ors. V. Vini Mahajan Secretary & Anr.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 68
The Supreme Court recently reiterated that the High Court cannot issue direction to the State to form a new policy. The bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar was considering SLP assailing Punjab and Haryana High Court's order dated March 27, 2017 of rejecting the contempt petition filed by the petitioners for non compliance of the direction given on August 27, 2014. The High Court had opined that it was not a case for initiating contempt action as there was no intentional non compliance by the Department in the order dated August 27, 2014.
69. Confessional Statement Recorded Under Section 67 NDPS Act Inadmissible, Reiterates Supreme Court
Case Title: State By (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 69
The Supreme Court reiterated that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. The bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justices Surya Kant, Hima Kohli was considering an appeal filed by Narcotics Control Beauro challenging the orders passed by the High Court of Karnataka released on bail the persons accused of the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 8A read with Sections 20(b), 21, 22, 27A, 27B, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The court noted that except for the voluntary statements of accused/co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, there was no substantial material available with the prosecution at the time of arrest to connect the accused with the allegations levelled against them of indulging in drug trafficking.
70. Reach Out To Children Orphaned Due To COVID To Pay Compensation : Supreme Court Directs States
Case Title: Gaurav Bansal v. Union of India
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 70
The Supreme Court has directed the States to reach out to children who were orphaned due to COVID-19 for paying them ex-gratia compensation of Rs 50,000. The Court noted that the orphans may not be in a position to submit applications to claim compensation and hence the State authorities should reach out to them. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights(NCPCR) has told the Court that about 10,000 children have become orphans in the pandemic, as per the data uploaded by the States in the Bal Swaraj portal.
Case Title: Arunachala Gounder (Dead) Vs Ponnusamy
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 71
The Supreme Court observed that inherited property of a female Hindu dying issueless and intestate, goes back to the source. "If a female Hindu dies intestate without leaving any issue, then the property inherited by her from her father or mother would go to the heirs of her father whereas the property inherited from her husband or father-in-law would go to the heirs of the husband", the bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari observed in a judgment arising out of a partition suit.
Case Title: State of UP v. Jai Dutt
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 72
The mere fact that no fracture was noticed and/or found cannot take the case out of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code when the deceased died due to head injury, the Supreme Court observed while convicting a murder accused. The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed that the injury on the head can be said to be causing injury on the vital part of the body for attracting Section 302 IPC.
Case Title: Neil Aurelio Nunes and Ors v. Union of India & Ors
Citaiton : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 73
The Supreme Court has held that there is no prohibition for introducing reservation for socially and educationally backward classes (or the OBCs) in Post-Graduate courses. "In our opinion, it cannot be said that the impact of backwardness simply disappears because a candidate has a graduate qualification", the Court said. The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna was considering the writ petitions filed by NEET aspirants challenging the Central Government's decision to introduce 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes ("OBC") and 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Section ("EWS") in NEET All India Quota.
74. Conduct Of Plaintiff Crucial In A Suit Of Specific Performance: Supreme Court
Case Title: Shenbagam v. KK Rathinavel
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 74
The Supreme Court observed that the conduct of a plaintiff is very crucial in a suit for specific performance and the same has to be assessed by the Courts. In evaluating whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his obligations under the contract, it is not only necessary to view whether he had the financial capacity to pay the balance consideration, but also assess his conduct throughout the transaction, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna said. The court observed thus while allowing an appeal filed against Madras High Court judgment that had confirmed the decree for specific performance.
Case Title: Competition Commission of India v. State of Mizoram And Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 75
The Supreme Court held that even though lottery is a regulated commodity under the Regulation Act, anti-competitive elements in business related to lotteries would continue to be governed by the Competition Act, 2002. The Apex Court further held that there was no bar on the Competition Commission of India to investigate anti-competitive practices like bid rigging, collusive bidding and cartelisation in the tendering process for lottery business, which is in the nature res extra commercium. A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh allowed an appeal assailing the order of the Gauahati High Court, which had set aside the preliminary order of the Competition Commission of India ("CCI") and the report of the Director General, primarily, on the ground that CCI had no jurisdiction to inquire into allegations of bid rigging, collusive bidding, and cartelisation in the tender process for appointment of selling agents and distributors for lotteries organised by State.
Case Title: Bangalore Development Authority Vs State Of Karnataka
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 76
The Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Act are not applicable for the acquisitions made under the Bangalore Development Authority Act. The bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna observed that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, continue to apply for acquisitions made in the BDA Act so far as they are applicable as it is a legislation by incorporation.
77. Revisional Jurisdiction Of NCDRC Extremely Limited, Reiterates Supreme Court
Case Title: Sunil Kumar Maity v. State Bank Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 77
The Supreme Court observed that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi observed.
Case Title : The Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Union of India and others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 78
The Supreme Court has held that in the event of a conflict between a statement in an advertisement and service regulations, the latter shall prevail. The Court added that an erroneous advertisement would not create a right in favour of applicants who act on such representation. The Court further held that "regulations framed by statutory authorities have the force of enacted law and in the event of a conflict between an executive instruction, an office of memorandum in this case and statutory regulations, the latter prevails."
Case Title: State of Gujarat v. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 79
The Supreme Court reinstated the order of the Revenue levying demand of purchase tax and imposing penalty on Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited (erstwhile Essar Steel Ltd.) for availing tax benefits without fulfilling all the eligibility criteria/condition of the Scheme For Special Incentives to Prestigious Units floated by the Gujarat Government in 1991. The Court held that tax exemption notifications must be construed strictly( State of Gujarat v. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited). "An exception and/or an exempting provision in a taxing statute should be construed strictly and it is not open to the court to ignore the conditions prescribed in industrial policy and the exemption notifications".
Case Title: Smruti Tukaram Badade v. The State Of Maharashtra and Anr
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 80
Noting that "the need for and importance for setting up special facilities which cater to the creation of a safe and barrier-free environment for recording the evidence of vulnerable witnesses has been engaging the attention of this court over the last two decades", the Supreme Court issued comprehensive directions in this regard. The bench of Justices Chandrachud and Surya Kant was hearing a Miscellaneous Application as to the wider issue on the need to set up vulnerable witness court rooms in compliance with the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Bandu. In 2019, notices were directed to be issued to all the High Courts through the Registrars of the respective High Courts, for status report with regard to the establishment of the vulnerable witness deposition court rooms in compliance of the directions of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Bandu [(2018) 11 SCC 163].
Case Title: Brijesh Chandra Dwivedi (Dead) & Thr LRs vs Sanya Sahayak & Ors
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 81
While dealing with the case of an employee's dismissal from service after being found guilty of driving under influence of alcohol, the Supreme Court of India has observed that merely because no major accident occurred leneincy can't be shown for the micconduct of drunken driving. The Court stated that driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol is not only a misconduct but it is an offence also. "Nobody can be permitted to drive the vehicle under the influence of alcohol", Supreme Court said. A Bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna made the observation in a civil appeal filed by an employee charged with causing an accident under influence of alcohol, against Allahabad High Court's judgement dismissing a writ petition refusing to set aside the order of his dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
Case Title: Keshav v. Gian Chand
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 82
The Supreme Court observed that voluntariness and animus are necessary for the execution of a valid gift deed. "When a person obtains any benefit from another, the court would call upon the person who wishes to maintain the right to gift to discharge the burden of proving that he exerted no influence for the purpose of obtaining the document.", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna observed.
Case Title: Joseph Stephen vs Santhanasamy
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 83
The Supreme Court observed that a High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure cannot convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. "If the order of acquittal has been passed by the trial Court, the High Court may remit the matter to the trial Court and even direct retrial. However, if the order of acquittal is passed by the first appellate court, in that case, the High Court has two options available, (i) to remit the matter to the first appellate Court to rehear the appeal; or (ii) in an appropriate case remit the matter to the trial Court for retrial.", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna observed.
84. Mandamus Cannot Be Issued To Provide For Reservation: Supreme Court
Case Title: State of Punjab v. Anshika Goyal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 84
The Supreme Court observed that no mandamus can be issued to the State Government to provide for reservation. The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed thus while quashing a direction issued by Punjab and Haryana High Court to provide for a sports quota of 3% in Government Medical/Dental Colleges in the State of Punjab. In this case, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana allowed writ petitions and directed the State to issue a notification providing for 1% reservation/quota for children/grand children of terrorist affected persons/Sikh riots affected persons in all private unaided non-minority Medical/Dental institutions in the State of Punjab. The court further directed that the said reservation/quota shall apply to management quota seats as well. It further directed that the fresh notification shall also provide for a sports quota of 3% in Government Medical/Dental Colleges. The State of Punjab challenged this judgment before the Apex Court.
Case Title: Sunil Kumar v. The State of Bihar
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 85
The Supreme Court pulled up the Patna High Court while hearing a challenge to a decision of the High Court granting bail to the accused. Setting aside the decision and quashing the bail granted, a Division Bench of M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna noted that the High Court did not record reasons for the grant of bail, not considering the gravity nature and seriousness of the offences alleged against the accused. In the present matter, the Patna High Court had released the respondent accused on bail in connection with alleged charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 427, 504, 506, 307, and 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Case Title: Musst Rehana Begum vs State of Assam & Anr
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 86
The Supreme Court recently observed that a High Court's decision to allow the criminal proceeding to proceed for offences under Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code - which deal with bigamy - despite the Family Court's finding that the wife did not have a subsisting prior marriage, would constitute an abuse of the process. The Cout observed reference to the Family Court's conclusive findings will not amount to relying on evidentiary materials which are subject matter of trial. The observation was made considering that in the present case, the appellant wife and her husband (second respondent) were parties to the decision of the Family Court and no contentious material or disputed issues of evidence arise.
Case Name: Assistant Commissioner (ST) And Ors. v. M/s. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 87
The Supreme Court has observed that non-extension of e-way bill would not automatically amount to evasion of tax, especially when the non-delivery of goods within the validity period of the e-way bill was due to external factors, like, traffic blockage. A Bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy dismissed an appeal filed by the Revenue Department assailing the order of the Telangana High Court, which had set aside the order, imposing tax and penalty passed by a Deputy Sales Tax Officer, with cost.
Case Title: Manno Lal Jaiswal vs State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 88
The Supreme Court reiterated that the gravity and nature of the offences alleged against the accused are relevant considerations while considering his bail application. In this case, the accused persons allegedly attacked the deceased by sword, hockey, stick and rod and killed the son of the complainant. Taking note of this, the Sessions Court rejected their bail application. The Allahabad High Court allowed the bail application by making the following observation: "The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, prima facie, quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail."
Case Title: Sunil Kumar vs State of Bihar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 89
The same bench, in another judgment, allowing an appeal against the Patna High Court order granting bail to murder accused, made similar observations. In this case, the younger brother of the deceased Shardanand Bhagat lodged F.I.R against the accused named in the F.I.R. for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 427, 504, 506, 307 and 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act for having assaulted them and killed his elder brother Shardanand Bhagat, who succumbed to the bullet injury. The High Court granted bail to the accused.
Case Title: B.B. Patel v. DLF Universal Ltd
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 90
The Supreme Court observed that Section 12-B of the Monopolies And Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 Act empowers the MRTP Commission to grant compensation only when any loss or damage is caused to a consumer as a result of a monopolistic, restrictive or unfair trade practice. The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna noted that there are five ingredients to constitute an offence of unfair trade under the MRTP Act.
Case Title: Ashish Shelar And Ors. Versus The Maharashtra Legislative Assembly & Anr.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 91
The Supreme Court has quashed the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly's resolution of July 5, 2021, which suspended 12 BJP MLAs for a period of one year for alleged disorderly behaviour in the house. The Court held that the resolution to suspend the MLAs beyond the session is "unconstitutional", "illegal" and "beyond the powers of the assembly". It held that such suspension could be limited only to the ongoing session, which was the Monsoon Session of 2021(case :Ashish Shelar And Ors. Versus The Maharashtra Legislative Assembly & Anr). "...we have no hesitation in allowing these writ petitions and to declare that the impugned resolution directing suspension of the petitioners beyond the period of the remainder of the concerned Monsoon Session held in July 2021 is non-est in the eyes of law, nullity, unconstitutional, substantively illegal and irrational. The impugned resolution is, thus, declared to be ineffective in law, insofar as the period beyond the remainder of the stated Session in which the resolution came to be passed."
Case Title: K. Arumuga Velaiah v. P.R. Ramasamy
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 92
A document of partition which provides for effectuating a division of properties in future is not compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, the Supreme Court has observed. The bench comprising of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna observed that a document which does not by itself create a right or interest in immovable property, but merely creates a right to obtain another document, does not require registration and is accordingly admissible in evidence.
Case Title: Deepak S/o Laxman Dongre Vs State Of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 93
The Supreme Court observed that externment is not an ordinary measure and it must be resorted to sparingly and in extraordinary circumstances. The effect of the order of externment is of depriving a citizen of his fundamental right of free movement throughout the territory of India and therefore the restriction imposed by passing an order of externment must stand the test of reasonableness., the bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka observed. In this case, a resident of District Jalna was directed to remove himself outside the limits of District Jalna within 5 days. Invoking powers under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, the competent authority had passed this order of externment on the ground that his activities are very dangerous and the offences registered against him under the Indian Penal Code are of grave and serious nature which are causing disturbance to the public at large. The Bombay High Court dismissed his writ petition challenging this order.
Case Title: Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta and Other Connected Matters, SLP(c) No.30621/2011
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 94
The Supreme Court has delivered the judgment in the issue relating to reservation in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Centre and States had urged the Supreme Court to settle the confusion regarding the norms for reservation in promotions saying that several appointments have been stalled due to ambiguities. A Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna and B.R.Gavai had reserved judgment on October 26, after hearing the matter following the reference answered in 2018 by a 5-judge bench in the case Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta. The bench made the following pronouncements: i. Court cannot lay down any yardstick to determine inadequacy of representation. ii. State is obligated to collect quantifiable data regarding adequacy of representation. iii. Cadre should be unit for collection for quantifiable data for reservation. The collection cannot be with respect to the entire class/class/group, but it should be relatable to Grade/Category of post to which promotion is sought. Cadre should be the unit for collecting quantifiable data. it would be meaning less if collection of data is w.r.t the entire service. iv. Nagaraj judgment of 2006 would have a prospective effect. v. The conclusion in BK Pavitra (II) approving the collection of data on the basis of groups and not cadres is contrary to the dictum in Jarnail Singh.
Case Title: M/s. Griesheim GmbH (Now Called Air Liquide Deutschland GmbH v. Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 95
The Supreme Court held that a High Court of Delhi, having original civil jurisdiction, can entertain a petition for executing a money decree(in excess of Rs.20 lakhs)of a foreign Court which is notified as a superior Court of reciprocating territory under Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The term "District Court" referred under Section 44A of the Code refers to the local limits of the jurisdiction of a principal civil Court of original jurisdiction and it includes the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of a High Court. A Bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka allowed an appeal assailing the order of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, which held that High Courts have no jurisdiction to execute foreign decrees under Section 44A even when it falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court, as Section 44A is an independent provision distinct from execution of domestic decrees.
96. State Cannot Dictate What Decisions Can Or Cannot Be Taken By A Public Trust: Supreme Court
Case Title: Parsi Zoroastrian Anjuman, Mhow v. The Sub-Divisional Officer/The Registrar of Public Trusts And Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 96
The Supreme Court held that self-governed organisations, such as public trusts, cannot be subjected to overarching state control in derogation of principles of autonomy and democratic decision making. The Apex Court was of the view that public control cannot be expanded even by law, to the extent that it renders freedom of association, envisaged in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, 1950, meaningless. "The aim of public control is to ensure that the trust is administered efficiently and smoothly. The state interest is that far, and no more; it cannot mean that the state can dictate what decisions can or cannot be taken."
Case Title: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. RD Sharma
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 97
"Equal pay for equal work" is not a fundamental right vested in any employee, though it is a constitutional goal to be achieved by the Government, the Supreme Court remarked in a judgment. The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Bela M. Trivedi observed that the equation of post and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary. Therefore ordinarily courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions, the court added.
Case Title: Amar Nath vs Gian Chand
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98
The Supreme Court observed that the production of the original power of attorney is not necessary, if the document is presented for registration by the power of attorney holder who executed the document on the strength of it. "The inquiry contemplated under the Registration Act, cannot extend to question as to whether the person who executed the document in his capacity of the power of attorney holder of the principal, was indeed having a valid power of attorney or not to execute the document or not," the bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and PS Narasimha. In this case, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he is the owner in possession of that property and the mutation showing the sale in favor of the first defendant, by the second defendant, was null and void, and that the second defendant was not having any authority to sell the land owned by the plaintiff, and hence the defendant be restrained from interfering with the ownership and possession of the plaintiff.
Case Title: The Director, Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. v. K. Sudheesh Kumar & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 99
The Supreme Court has observed that Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme has nothing to do with the next promotional post and what the employee would be entitled would be the immediate next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands. The bench of Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna was considering a civil appeal assailing Kerala High Court's order dated October 23, 2019 in which the court while setting aside Central Administrative Tribunal's order declared that the respondents are entitled to grade pay of Rs 6600 on their third financial upgradation as per the MACP Scheme and thereby be paid the pension accordingly with effect from April, 2015.
Case Title: Dayalu Kashyap v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 100
The Supreme Court, in an order passed, rejected an interpretation that if the personal search is vitiated by violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the recovery made otherwise also would stand vitiated. "We cannot give such an extended view", the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh said while dismissing an appeal filed by an accused who was concurrently (by the Trial Court and Chhattisgarh High Court) convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act.
Case Title: Subhash Chander And Ors. v. M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 101
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka has held that the jurisdiction of civil courts are excluded from landlord-tenant disputes when they are specifically covered by the provisions of the State Rent Acts, which are given an overriding effect over other laws. The Court held this while explaining the interplay between the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings) Act, 1976 and the Haryana (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973.
Case Title: Ajaya Kumar Das Vs. Divisional Manager
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 102
The Supreme Court observed that interest on compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923, shall be paid from the date of the accident and not the date of adjudication of the claim. In appeal, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Dinesh Maheshwari noted that Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act stipulates that the Commissioner shall direct the employer to pay interest of 12% or at a higher rate, not exceeding the lending rates of any scheduled banks specified, if the employer does not pay the compensation within one month from the date it fell due.
Case Title: The Chief Personnel Officer & Ors. v. A Nishanth George
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 103
The Supreme Court has reiterated that the Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff notified by the Railways ("LARSGESS Scheme") provides an avenue for backdoor entry into service and is contrary to the mandate of Article 16 which guarantees equal opportunity in matters of public employment. The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna was considering civil appeals assailing Madras High Court's judgements dated March 21, 2018 and September 3, 2019.
While allowing the appeal(s) and setting aside the impugned judgment(s) the bench observed, "We have addressed in detail the history of the LARSGESS scheme and the doubt expressed on its validity by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kala Singh (supra) which eventually led to the decision of the Union government to terminate the scheme. While noticing the above backdrop, the three judge Bench of this Court in Manjit (supra) clearly noted that the Scheme provided an avenue for backdoor entry into service and was contrary to the mandate of Article 16 which guarantees equal opportunity in matters of public employment. In this backdrop, the impugned judgment of the High Court of Madras issuing a mandamus for the appointment of the respondent cannot be sustained."
Case Title: Shiv Developers Through Its Partner Sunilbhai Somabhai Ajmeri Vs Aksharay Developers
Citiation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 104
The Supreme Court held that to attract the bar of Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932, the contract in question must be the one entered into by partnership firm with the third-party defendant and must also be the one entered into by the plaintiff firm in the course of its business dealings. The bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath observed that Section 69(2) is not a bar to a suit filed by an unregistered firm, if the same is for enforcement of a statutory right or a common law right.
Case Title: Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Resoursys Telecom
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 105
The author of the tender document is the best person to interpret its documents and requirements, the Supreme Court reiterated in a judgment delivered on Monday (31 Jan 2022). The bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath observed that the interference by the Court would arise only if the questioned decision suffers from illegality, irrationality, mala fide, perversity, or procedural impropriety. The court added that a decision of the administrative authority cannot be called arbitrary or whimsical merely because it does not appear plausible to the Court.
Case Title: Jayahari & Anr v. State of Kerala and Anr
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 106
The Supreme Court recently quashed a cheating FIR lodged by a businessman based in Gulf, stating that he being a man well versed in commerce should have checked the valuation of the property before entering into the transaction. The bench of Justices UU Lalit and Bela M Trivedi was considering a criminal appeal assailing Kerala High Court's judgment dated September 29, 2020 by which the High Court had rejected the application filed u/s 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings initiated pursuant to the FIR. While allowing the appeal the bench in Jayahari & Anr v. State of Kerala and Anr said, "As the facts on record show the complainant is a businessman working in Gulf. A man, well versed in commerce, would certainly be expected to check the valuation of the property before entering into any transaction. The dispute in question being purely civil in nature, the adoption of remedy in a criminal court would amount to abuse of the process of Court."