Supreme Court Monthly Digest- October 2019

Md. Abrar vs. Meghalaya Board of Wakf

The Supreme Court held that there is no legal bar on cognatic heirs of the waqif from succeeding to mutawalliship. The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Ajay Rastogi reiterated that in order to establish a claim of hereditary succession to mutawalli-ship, the intention of the waqif, as manifested either through the directions given in the waqf deed or the creation of a custom, is of paramount importance.

Female Descendant Cannot Be Mutawalli If Wakif Intended To Exclude Them

Syeda Nazira Khatoon (D) vs. Syed Zahiruddin Ahmed Baghdadi

The Supreme Court observed that, though women can also hold the office of Mutawalli under Mohammedan law, but if the wakif intended to create the Mutawalliship only in favour of male descendants, a female descendant cannot stake any claim to the Mutawalliship of the wakf estate. The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Ajay Rastogi observed thus while affirming the cancellation of the appointment of one Nazira Khatoon as the permanent Mutawalli of a wakf estate.

Specific Performance- Illegal Agreement To Sell Can't Be Enforced In Favour Of Plaintiff

Narayanamma vs. Govindappa

The Supreme Court observed that an agreement contrary to law cannot be enforced by the court in favour of plaintiff in a suit for specific performance, even if the defendant, who was also party to such illegality stands benefitted by it.

Police Cannot Attach Immovable Property Under Sec.102 CrPC During Investigation

Nevada Properties Private Limited V. State Of Maharashtra And Anr

The Supreme Court held that police does not have the power to attach immovable property during investigation under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judgment was delivered by the bench comprising CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna. However, police does have authority to freeze moveable properties of the accused, clarified the bench.

Crucial Date For Deciding Bonafide Requirement Of Landlord Is The Date Of Application For Eviction

D. Sasi Kumar vs. Soundararajan

The crucial date for deciding the bonafide requirement of landlord is the date of application for eviction, the Supreme Court reiterated. The High Court, in this case, while setting aside the concurrent eviction orders passed by Rent Control Authorities under, had observed that the bonafide occupation as sought should be not only on the date of the petition but it should continue to be there on the date of final adjudication of rights.

Section 34 Arbitration Act- Additional Evidence Can Be Adduced Only In Exceptional Cases

Canara Nidhi Limited vs. M. Shashikala

The Supreme Court held that proceedings under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act will not ordinarily require anything beyond the record that was before the arbitrator and only in exceptional case, additional evidence can be permitted to be adduced. The bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice AS Bopanna was considering an appeal against a High Court order which grant opportunity to a party to Section 34 Proceedings to adduce additional evidence.

Chief Judicial Magistrates Competent To Entertain Applications U/s 14 SARFAESI Act

Authorized Officer, Indian Bank v D Visalakshi and others

In an important judgment, the Supreme Court held that a Chief Judicial Magistrate is equally competent to deal with the application moved by the secured creditor under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI).

Section 138 NI Act: Legal Heirs Of Deceased Convict Can Challenge Conviction

M. Abbas Haji vs. T.N. Channakeshava

The Supreme Court held that legal heirs of a deceased accused convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act have a right to challenge the conviction of their predecessor only to show that he was not guilty of any offence.

Donee Not Required To Examine Attesting Witness If There Is No Specific Denial Of Execution Of Gift

Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel vs. Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai

The Supreme Court held that, when the execution of the gift deed was not specifically denied in the suit filed, it is not necessary for the Donee to examine one of the attesting witnesses in terms of proviso to Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Section 102 CrPC- Expression 'Any Property' Does Not Include 'Immovable Property'

Nevada Properties Private Limited Vs. State Of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court held that the expression 'any property' appearing in Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not include 'immovable property'. The bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Sanjiv Khanna observed thus while holding that a power of a police officer under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code to seize any property, which may be found under circumstances that create suspicion of the commission of any offence, would not include the power to attach, seize and seal an immovable property.

IBC- Article 137 Limitation Act Applies To Section 7 Applications; Not Article 62

Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave Vs. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd.

The Supreme Court held that Article 62 of the Limitation Act would only apply to suits and not to "an application" which is filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which would fall only within the residuary Article 137.

Rent Controller's Power To Strike Out Defence Of Tenant On Failure To Pay Rent Is Discretionary

Dina Nath (D ) vs. Subhash Chand Saini

The Supreme Court held that the power to strike out the defence vested in the Rent Controller under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is discretionary and not mandatory. Mere failure to pay rent on the part of the tenant is not enough to justify an order striking out the defence and it is only a wilful failure or deliberate default or volitional of non-performance that can call for the exercise of the extraordinary power vested in the Court, the bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra, Justice MR Shah and Justice Ajay Rastogi held.

Father's Self Acquired Property Given To Son By Will/Gift Retains Character Of Self Acquired Property Unless The Deed Intends Otherwise

Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel and ors v Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai

The Supreme Court held that as per Mitakshara Law of Succession, father's self-acquired property given to son by way of Will/gift will retain the character of self acquired property and will not become ancestral property, unless a contrary intention is expressed in the testament.The bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta was dealing with an appeal from the High Court of Gujarat.

Right Of Minority Educational Institutions Not Absolute; Are Amenable To Regulations

Andhra Kesari College of Education & Anr V. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors

While turning down the plea challenging certain G.O.Ms issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court observed that the right of minority institutions is not absolute, and is amenable to regulation and that the protection granted to Minority Educational Institutions to admit students of their choice is subject to reasonable restrictions.

Medium Of Instruction Of School Irrelevant To Discover Whether It Is A Linguistic Minority Institution Or Not

Chandana Das (Malakar) v. State of West Bengalwhile

The Supreme Court observed that the medium of instruction, whether it be Hindi, English, Bengali or some other language would be wholly irrelevant to discover as to whether the said school was founded by a linguistic minority for the purpose of imparting education to members of its community. The bench comprising Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice R. Subhash Reddy and Justice Surya Kant made this observation answering reference made to it after a division bench delivered split verdict in an appeal against the judgment of Calcutta High Court.

Date Of Default Alone Is Relevant For Triggering Limitation For Winding Up Petition: SC Dismisses IL&FS Petition Against La-Fin

Jignesh Shah & Anr. V. Union of India

The Supreme Court held that the the date of default alone is relevant for the limitation of filing of a winding up petition against a company. It cannot be said that the limitation period will start only after the company has gone into commercial insolvency or has lost the substratum of its business, added the Court.

Fundamental Right Of Minorities To Administer Educational Institutions Cannot Be Waived

Chandana Das (Malakar) v. State of West Bengal

The Supreme Court reiterated that the fundamental right of Minorities under Article 30 of the Constitution of India to administer educational institutions cannot be waived. The bench comprising Justice RF Nariman, Justice R.Subhash Reddy and Justice Surya Kant was answering a reference which arose out of a split judgment by division bench (Justice TS Thakur and Justice R Banumathi) in which one of the judges (Justice Banumathi) held that the school having accepted the special constitution in terms of Rule 8(3) of the Rules, the school is estopped from contending that it is a minority institution governed by special rules to be framed by the State under Rule 33 of the Rules.

Concession In Law Made By Lawyer Not Binding On Client

Director Of Elementary Education,Odisha & Ors. V. Pramod Kumar Sahoo

The Supreme Court observed that concession by a counsel (lawyer) as to matters of law before a Court is not binding on the client. In this case, Odisha Administrative Tribunal had allowed an application filed by Pramod Kumar Sahoo, a Teacher. In his OA, the applicant had claimed that he is entitled to pay scale of Rs.840 to Rs.1240 from the very day of his appointment and pay scale of Rs. 1080-1800 after Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1989 as amended in the year 1990.

A Plaintiff Can Claim Title To The Property Based On Adverse Possession

Krishnamurthy S. Setlur (D) vs. O. V. Narasimha Setty (D)

A plaintiff can claim title to the property based on adverse possession, the Supreme Court reiterated. In this case, the appeal arose from a suit filed by a plaintiff who claimed that he was in possession of the land from 1963 to 1981 claiming ownership as against defendant and that his possession had matured into title.

Witnesses To Sale Deed/Will Need Not Necessarily Know Its Contents Hemkunwar Bai vs. Sumersingh

The Supreme Court observed that the witnesses to documents such as Sale Deeds and Wills need not necessarily know what is contained in them. The plaintiff in the suit had prayed for a declaration that she be declared to be the owner in possession of the suit property and also prayed that the defendants be injuncted from interfering in her possession. It was contended that the two sale-deeds and the Will in favour of defendants are sham and fraudulent documents and not binding upon her. The Trial Court decreed the Suit. However, the High court dismissed the Suit allowing the appeal filed by the defendants.

Issue Of Invalidity Of Sanction To Be Raised During Trial, Not At Stage Of Discharge Application

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Vs. Pramila Virendra Kumar Agarwal

The Supreme Court held that though the absence of sanction can be agitated during stage of discharge application, but the issue of invalidity of the sanction is to be raised during the trial.

NDPS Act - Non Production Of Entire Contraband By Itself Not A Ground For Acquittal

State of Rajasthan V. Sahi Ram

The Supreme Court held that non-production of contraband material, by itself, is not a ground for acquittal, if its seizure is otherwise proved. On this ground, the bench of Justices U U Lalit and Vineet Saran set aside the acquittal ordered by the High Court in a case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985.

[Exception 4 To Section 300 IPC] Accused Party Armed With Weapons Can't Claim the Benefit Of Sudden Fight

Guru @ Gurubaran vs. State

The Supreme Court observed that when the accused party came armed at the scene of crime, it clearly indicates that the occurrence did not take place in the heat of passion, upon a sudden quarrel to claim the exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. In this appeal the contention of the accused convicted for murder was that the offence was not of murder but may amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and that the case would fall within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

Is A Wife Divorced By Husband On Ground Of Desertion Entitled To Maintenance ? SC Answers

Dr. Swapan Kumar Banerjee vs. State of WB

The Supreme Court observed that a wife, who has been divorced by the husband, on the ground that the wife has deserted him, is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bench comprising Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose, refusing the plea to refer this issue to a larger bench, observed that this view has been consistently taken by the Supreme Court and is in line with both the letter and spirit of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Article 137 Limitation Act Applies To Proceedings For Cancellation Of Probate/Letter Of Administration

Ramesh Nivrutti Bhagwat vs. Dr. Surendra Manohar Parakhe

The Supreme Court observed that Article 137 of the Limitation Act, which provides for 3 year limitation period, applies to the proceedings under Indian Succession Act for moving an application for cancellation of probate or letters of administration.

Inherent Powers Under Article 142 Can Be Invoked To Dissolve Marriage Which Has Broken Down Irretrievably

R. Srinivas Kumar vs. R. Shametha

The Supreme Court observed that it can exercise its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for dissolution of a marriage where it finds that the marriage is totally unworkable, emotionally dead, beyond salvage and has broken down irretrievably, even if the facts of the case do not provide a ground in law on which the divorce could be granted.

Services Given By Incorporated Clubs To Members Exempted From Service Tax

Chief Commissioner of Central Excise & Service and others v Ranchi Club Ltd

The Supreme Court held that services given by an incorporated club to its members are exempted from service tax. In the case the bench comprising Justices R F Nariman, Surya Kant and Ramasubramanian upheld the judgments of High Courts of Gujarat and Jharkhand which ruled out service tax liability on clubs for service to their members on the reasoning that there were no distinct legal entities of 'service provider' and 'service recipient' in a transaction between a members' club and its members.

Non-Mentioning Of Correct Provision Not Fatal To Application If The Power To Pass Order Is Available With Court

Pruthvirajsinh Nodhubha Jadeja (D) vs. Jayeshkumar Chhakaddas Shah

The Supreme court observed that mere non-mentioning of an correct provision is not fatal to the application if the power to pass such an order is available with the court. In the appeal the bench comprising Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Anniruddha Bose observed that JCS as an assignee of the rights of the original plaintiff, had a right to be impleaded as a plaintiff in place of MMT.

Applying 'Residual Doubt Theory', SC Commutes Death Penalty Awarded For Rape-Murder Of Minor

Ravishankar @ Baba Vishwakarma V. State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court applied "residual doubt theory" to commute the death penalty awarded to a person for rape and murder of a 13 year old girl. As per this theory, a higher standard of proof than used at the conviction stage is used to assess whether the convict deserves death penalty.

Disputes Arising Out Of Immovable Property 'Actually Used' In Trade Or Commerce Alone Are 'Commercial Disputes'

Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP

The Supreme Court held that, in order to fall within Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, the immovable property must be "used exclusively" or "being used exclusively" in trade or commerce. The bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice AS Bopanna made it clear that the words 'used exclusively in trade or commerce' denotes "actually used" and it cannot be either "ready for use" or "likely to be used" or "to be used".

No Levy Of Sales Tax On Supply Of Food & Drinks By Clubs To Its Members

State of West Bengal v Calcutta Club Ltd

The Supreme Court held that there is no levy of sales tax on the supply of food and beverages by members' clubs, whether incorporated and unincorporated, to its members. Answering a reference in the case, a three judges bench comprising Justices R F Nariman, Surya Kant and Rama Subramanian held that the "doctrine of mutuality" , as propounded in the case CTO v. Young Men's Indian Assn., (1970) 1 SCC 462, continued to operate even after the 46th amendment to the Constitution which inserted Article 366(29-A).

Road Traffic Offences Can Be Prosecuted Under Both IPC & Motor Vehicles Act: SC Sets Aside Gauhati HC Directive

The State Of Arunachal Pradesh V.Ramchandra Rabidas @ Ratan Rabidas & Anr.

The Supreme Court observed that road traffic offences can be prosecuted under Motor Vehicles Act as well as Indian Penal Code. The bench comprising Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Khanna observed thus while setting aside the direction issued by the Gauhati High Court to States of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh that road traffic offences shall be dealt with only under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and not under the provisions of Indian Penal Code.

"Institutional Preference" In PG Medical Courses Permissible Even After Introduction Of NEET

Yatinkumar Jasubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat

The Supreme Court observed that "Institutional Preference" in the Post Graduate Medical Courses is permissible even after the introduction of the NEET Scheme. The bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra, Justice MR Shah and Justice BR Gavai observed that the Institutional Preference to the extent of 50% has been approved by the Supreme Court in various judgments.

Accused Charged With Food Adulteration Cannot Be Acquitted Merely Because Deficiency Was Marginal

Raj Kumar vs. State of UP

The Supreme Court observed that if the standards prescribed under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, are not complied with, the accused charged with adulteration cannot be acquitted only on the ground that the deficiency is marginal.

Power Of Attorney Holder Cannot Depose In Respect Of Matters Which The Principal Alone Have Personal Knowledge

Mohinder Kaur vs. Sant Paul Singh

The Supreme Court observed that a power of attorney holder cannot depose for the principal in respect of matters of which the principal alone can have personal knowledge and in respect of which the principal is entitled to be cross¬-examined.

Date Of Coming Into Force Of IBC Wholly Irrelevant To The Triggering Of Any Limitation For Applications

Sagar Sharma vs. Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd.

The Supreme Court observed that the date of coming into force of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code does not and cannot form a trigger point of limitation for applications filed under the Code. The bench comprising Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice V. Ramasubramanian reiterated that, since such "applications" are petitions which are filed under the Code, it is Article 137 of the Limitation Act which will apply to such applications.

Discrimination Against SC-STs Still Prevalent; Cannot Presume They May Misuse Provisions Of Law As A Class

Union of India V. State of Maharasthra & Ors.

While withdrawing the conditions imposed by the March 20, 2018 judgment for arrest of a person under the SC/ST Act, the Supreme Court observed that the discrimination against the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is still prevalent in various parts of the country The bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra, Justice MR Shah and Justice BR Gavai observed that there can be no presumption that the members of the SC and ST may misuse the provisions of law as a class. It would be against the basic human dignity to treat all of them as a liar or as a crook person and cannot look at every complaint by such complainant with a doubt, the bench observed.

Candidates Must Also Disclose Criminal Cases In Which Cognizance Has Been Taken By Court

Satish Ukey vs. Devendra Gangadharrao Fadnavis

The Supreme Court observed that a contesting candidate must mandatorily disclose not only case(s) in which charges have been framed but also case(s) in which cognizance has been taken by the Competent Court. The bench of CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose held thus while setting aside the clean chit given to Maharashtra CM Devendra Fadnavis by the Bombay High Court in a case alleging furnishing false information in the election affidavit submitted during 2014 assembly polls.

Land Used For Quarrying Not Exempted From Applicability Of Kerala Land Reforms Act

H Nazar vs. Mathew K. Jacob

The Supreme Court upheld the Judgment of Kerala High Court that the land which is used for quarrying is not covered by the expression 'commercial site' and therefore not exempted from the applicability of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963.

Doctrine Of Prudence: SC Commutes Death Penalty Awarded To Man Convicted For Murder Of Wife, 4 Kids

Sudam @ Rahul Kaniram Jadhav V. State of Maharasthra

Partly allowing his review petition, the Supreme Court commuted the death penalty awarded to Sudam @ Rahul Kaniram Jadhav, convicted for murder of his wife and four children.

Arbitration - Sec 14 Limitation Act Applicable If Sec 34 Petition Filed At The First Instance Was Within Time

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. M/s Tejparas Associates & Exports Pvt. Ltd.

The Supreme Court observed that Section 14 of the Limitation Act would be applicable to the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 if the petition under Section 34 (at the first instance) was filed within time.

IBC Has Overriding Effect Over Tea Act; Central Govt. Consent Not Required For Initiating Insolvency Proceedings

Duncans Industries Ltd vs. A. J. Agrochem

The Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code would have an overriding effect over the Tea Act, 1953 and even without such consent of the Central Government, the insolvency proceedings under Section 7 or Section 9 of the IBC initiated by the operational creditor shall be maintainable. The bench of Justice Arun Mishra, Justice MR Shah and Justice BR Gavai dismissed the appeal filed against the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal which had held that it would be maintainable.

Section 9A CPC (Maharashtra)- Question Of Limitation Cannot Be Decided As A Preliminary Issue

Nusli Neville Wadia vs. Ivory Properties

The Supreme Court observed that, under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable in the state of Maharashtra, question of limitation cannot be decided as a preliminary issue. The bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra, Justice MR Shah and Justice BR Gavai observed that under the provisions of Section 9A and Order XIV Rule 2, it is open to decide preliminary issues if it is purely a question of law and not a mixed question of law and fact by recording evidence.

Change In Govt. Policy Due To Overriding Public Interest Must Be Given Due Weight While Considering Claim Of Legitimate Expectation

Kerala State Beverages (M and M) Corporation Limited V. P.P. Suresh & Ors, Etc. Etc. & Ors.

The Supreme Court observed that overriding public interest can be a reason for change in policy of the Government and that has to be given due weight while considering the claim of legitimate expectation. The bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta set aside the Kerala High Court judgment which directed the Government to implement its policy reserving daily wage employment vacancies to displaced arrack workers.

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Judicial Officers Not To Be Initiated Merely Because They Passed Wrong Order

The Supreme Court observed that disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against Judicial Officers merely on the basis that a wrong order has been passed by them or merely on the ground that the judicial order is incorrect. To err is human and not one of us, who has held judicial office, can claim that we have never passed a wrong order, the bench comprising Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose observed while quashing all the orders passed against a Judicial officer in a disciplinary proceedings against him.

Independence And Fearlessness Of Judiciary Not Only Expected From Superior Courts But Also From District Judiciary

Krishna Prasad Verma V. State of Bihar

While quashing disciplinary action taken against a judicial officer, the Supreme Court observed that independence and fearlessness of judiciary is not only expected at the level of the Superior Courts but also from the District judiciary.

SC Confirms By 2:1 Majority Death Penalty For Rape-Murder Of Infant; Justice Reddy Dissents

Ravi v State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court confirmed by 2:1 majority death penalty to a man found guilty for murder and rape of a two year old girl. While the majority comprising Justices R F Nariman and Surya Kant upheld the death penalty confirmed by the Bombay High Court in the case, Justice Subhash Reddy dissented.

SC Affirms Death Penalty To 'Tantric' Couple Who Killed Infant For Human Sacrifice

Ishwari Lal Yadav V. State of Chhattisgarh

The Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence awarded to a 'tantric' couple accused of murdering a boy, by performing the ritual of human sacrifice. The bench of Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice R. Subhash Reddy and Justice Surya Kant, after examining the evidence on record, unanimously held that the instant case is a case of "rarest of rare cases" where death sentence" can be imposed.

Article 227- Availability Of Appellate Remedy Under CPC Can Be 'Near Total Bar' For Exercising Supervisory Jurisdiction

Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai vs. Tuticorin Educational Society

The Supreme Court has observed that the availability of an appellate remedy in terms of the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure can be construed as a 'near total bar' for the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The bench comprising of Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice V. Ramasubramanian was considering an appeal against an order of the High Court passed under Article 227 of the Constitution, vacating an interim order of injunction granted by the trial Court, the plaintiffs have come up with this appeal.

Article 14 Does Not Forbid Reasonable Classification For The Purposes Of Legislation

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation V. Danish Khan

The Supreme Court upheld a compassionate appointment regulation of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation which barred dependents of a deceased employee from claiming compassionate appointment in case of death of an employee while travelling in the vehicle of the Corporation. The bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta observed that observed that though Article 14 of the Constitution of India forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation.

Specific Relief- Mere Extension Of Time For Deposit Will Not Absolve Plaintiff Of Obligation To Prove Readiness & Willingness

Ravi Setia vs Madan Lal and others

The Supreme Court held that mere extension of time for deposit of balance sale consideration will not absolve the plaintiff of obligation to prove readiness and willingness to perform his part in an agreement for sale. The grant of extension of time cannot ipso facto be construed as otherwise demonstrating readiness and willingness on part of the plaintiff, observed the bench comprising Justices Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee.

Purchaser Of Goods For Commercial Purpose Is A Consumer If He Uses It Himself For Earning His Livelihood

Sunil Kohli vs. M/s. Purearth Infrastructure Ltd.

The Supreme Court reiterated that if the commercial use of goods is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, such purchaser of goods is a "consumer'". The bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice MR Shah was considering an appeal against the order of National Consumer Commission which dismissed a complaint on the ground of maintainability.

Rights Of Victim & Society At Large Not Subservient To Rights Of Accused

Fainul Khan vs. State of Jharkhand

The Supreme Court, observed that the rights of the victim and the society at large cannot be made subservient to the rights of an accused. The bench of Justice Navin Sinha and Justice BR Gavai was addressing the contention raised on behalf of the accused that proper opportunity to defend was denied under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the incriminating questions put to them were extremely casual and perfunctory in barely two pages. It was contended that all relevant questions with regard to the accusations were not put to the accused.

Child Has Right To The Affection Of Both His Parents

Anuj Chaturvedi V. Jyoti

A child has a right to the affection of both his parents, the Supreme Court remarked while considering a special leave petition filed by a father. Though it refused to interfere with the family court order granting custody of the child to the mother, the bench of Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Surya Kant directed the Family Court to ensure that visitation rights are fixed in such a manner that the child gets to know and love his father.

Mere Error In Framing Substantial Question Of Law Would Not Render A Judgment In Second Appeal To Be Set Aside

Illoth Valappil Ambunhi (D) vs. Kunhambu Karanavan

The Supreme Court observed that mere error in framing a question of law would not render a judgment in Second Appeal liable to be set aside, if it is found that a substantial question of law existed and such question has in fact been answered by the High Court. The bench comprising Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Sanjiv Khanna also observed that perversity in arriving at a factual finding by Courts below can give rise to a substantial question of law, attracting intervention of the High Court in a Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Augusta Westland: SC Quashes Delhi HC Order Staying Proceedings Against Gautam Khitan, Asks HC To Decide Afresh

Union of India V. Gautam Khaitan

The Supreme Court quashed a Delhi High Court order which stayed the proceedings against Gautam Khaitan under the Black Money Act in the Agusta Westland Case. The Bench comprising of Justices Arun Mishra, MR Shah, and BR Gavai also asked Delhi High Court to consider the plea of Khaitan afresh allowing the Centre's plea against the order.

SC Upholds U'khand Rule Of Accelerated Promotion Quota On The Basis Of Higher Edu Qualifications

State of Uttarakhand vs. SK Singh

The Supreme Court upheld a service rule of providing accelerated promotion on the basis of higher educational qualifications. The court was concerned with the promotion quota pertaining to the Irrigation Department cadre of the Uttarakhand State, for promotion from the post of Junior Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer. It carved out a provision for accelerated promotion to the extent of 7.33% for the JEs holding a more advanced qualification, of a Degree in Civil Engineering.

Section 33(2)(b) ID Act- SC Explains Scope Of Enquiry By Labour Court While Granting/Refusing Approval For Discharge/Dismissal Of Workman

John D'Souza vs. Karnataka SRTC

The Supreme Court observed that a Labour Court or Tribunal while holding enquiry under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot invoke the adjudicatory powers vested in them under Section 10(i)(c) and (d) of the Act. They also cannot dwell upon the proportionality of punishment in the process of formation of their prima facie view under Section 33(2)(b), the bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Surya Kant observed .

State Legislature Cannot Enact Law Providing Direct Appeal To Supreme Court

H. S. Yadav V. Shakuntala Devi Parakh

The Supreme Court held that a State Legislature cannot enact a law providing an appeal directly to the Supreme Court of India. The bench comprising Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose struck down Section 13(2) of Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, in so far as it provides an appeal directly to the Supreme Court, holding that the same is totally illegal, ultra vires the Constitution and beyond the scope of the powers of the State Legislature.

Section 24 RFCTLARR Act- Subsequent Purchasers Cannot Seek Declaration That Land Acquisition Proceedings Have Lapsed

Shiv Kumar vs. Union of India

The Supreme Court, held that a subsequent purchaser of the property after issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot invoke the provisions contained in section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The three judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra, observed that the judgment in GNCTD vs Manav Dharam Trust is per incuriam and contrary to several binding precedents.

Execution Of Power Of Attorney Cannot Transfer Title To The Grantee

Shiv Kumar vs. Union of India

The Supreme Court reiterated that GPA sales and SA/GPA/WILL transfers are not legally valid modes of transfer and they do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized or valid mode of transfer of immoveable property. The bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra, Justice MR Shah and Justice BR Gavai made this observation in Shiv Kumar vs. UoI in which it held that a subsequent purchaser of the property after issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot invoke the provisions contained in section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Article 226- HC Cannot Relax Terms & Conditions Of A Tender Notice

Durgawati Devi vs. Union of India

The Supreme Court observed that, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a High Court has no power to relax the terms and conditions of a tender notice. While upholding the Allahabad High Court order that dismissed a challenge against rejection of a candidature of a person who had applied for dealership of Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin Liquid Petroleum Gas Vitrak Yozana (RGGLPGVY).

TADA Offences- FIR Cannot Be Registered Without Sanction Of Competent Authority

Ebha Arjun Jadeja vs. State Of Gujarat

The Supreme Court held that an FIR with respect to commission of an offence under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act cannot be recorded by the police under Section 154 CrPC without sanction of the competent authority. The bar under Section 20-A(1) of TADA Act applies to information recorded under Section 154 of CrPC, the bench comprising Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose held while discharging an accused.

Magistrate Has Power To Order Further Investigation Even In Post Cognizance Stage Until Trial Commences

Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs. State of Gujarat

The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate has power to order further investigation into an offence, even at a post cognizance stage, untill the trial commences. The bench comprising Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice Surya Kant and Justice V. Ramasubramanian set aside a Gujarat High Court order which had held that post-cognizance a Magistrate would have no power to order further investigation into an offence.

Inherent Powers U/s 482 CrPC To Quash Interlocutory Orders Can Be Invoked Only In Exceptional Cases

Hooghly Mills Company Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal

The Supreme Court observed that High Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside an interlocutory order, notwithstanding the bar under Section 397(2). This can only be done in exceptional cases, for example, where a criminal proceeding has been initiated illegally, vexatiously or without jurisdiction, the bench comprising Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Ajay Rastogi said.

Revenue Record Entries Do Not Confer Title To A Property

Prahlad Pradhan vs. Sonu Kumhar

The Supreme Court reiterated that the entries in the revenue records do not confer title to a property, nor do they have any presumptive value on the title. The bench comprising Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Krishna Murari noted that such entries only enable the person in whose favour mutation is recorded, to pay the land revenue in respect of the land in question.

NDPS: Non-Compliance Of Section 50 During 'Personal Search' Cannot Invalidate Recovery From Vehicle

State Of Punjab vs. Baljinder Singh

The Supreme Court observed that merely because there was non-compliance of Section 50 of the Narcotic and Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act as far as "personal search" of the accused was concerned, no benefit can be extended so as to invalidate the effect of recovery from the search of the vehicle. The bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Krishna Murari observed that the mandate of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is confined to "personal search" and not to search of a vehicle or a container or premises.

Partnership Deed Cannot Automatically Bind Legal Heirs Of Deceased Partner

S.P. Misra vs. Mohd. Laiquddin Khan

The Supreme Court observed that a partnership deed cannot automatically bind the legal heirs of the deceased partner without acceptance and agreement by them. The bench comprising Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice R. Subhash Reddy noted that, as per Section 42(c), subject to contract between the partners, a firm is dissolved when: (a) if constituted for a fixed term, by the expiry of that term; (b) if constituted to carry out one or more adventures or undertakings, by the completion thereof; (c) by the death of a partner; and (d) by the adjudication of a partner as an insolvent.

Arbitral Award Can Be Interfered With Only If Finding Is Perverse/Contrary To Evidence/Against Public Policy

State of Jharkhand V. HSS Integrated SDN & Anr.

The Supreme Court reiterated that the the award passed by an Arbitral Tribunal can be interfered with in the proceedings under Sections 34 and 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act only in a case where the finding is perverse and/or contrary to the evidence and/or the same is against the public policy.

Section 306 IPC [Abetment Of Suicide] Not Attracted Merely Because The Deceased Was Called A 'Call Girl'

State of West Bengal V. Indrajit Kundu

The Supreme Court upheld a High Court order discharging accused who were accused of abetting suicide of a girl. On appeal, the Apex Court agreed with this view of the High Court and observed that, in this case, there was no goading or solicitation or insinuation by any of the respondents to the victim to commit suicide.

Appeal Cannot Be Disposed Of Without Trial Court Record

Savita vs. State of Delhi

The Supreme Court set aside a judgment of Delhi High Court which disposed of a criminal appeal without the record of the trial court before it. The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana, Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Krishna Murari was considering an appeal against a Delhi High Court order which upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on a man under Sections 498A and 304 IPC by the trial court without the record of the trial court, which was lost during the pendency of the appeal before it.

Statutory Authorities Can Review Orders Only If Concerned Statute Provides Such Power

Naresh Kumar vs. GNCT Delhi

The Supreme Court reiterated that the power of review can be exercised by a statutory authority only when the statute provides for the same. The bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Vineet Saran and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat observed thus while setting aside the order of a collector who reviewed a land acquisition Award.

Domestic Violence Complaint Not Maintainable If The Parties Are Not Living Together In A Shared House Hold

Kamlesh Devi vs. Jaipal

Upheld a dismissal of domestic violence complaint filed by a woman against persons not living with her in a shared household. The woman had filed a complaint against certain persons, claiming that they are her relatives living in the same premises, alleging that they were harassing and abusing her daughters. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while considering the revision petition, observed that no evidence is in record to prove that they have been living in a shared household.

SC Grants Bail To Chidambaram In CBI Case In INX Media Scam

P Chidambaram V. CBI

The Supreme Court granted bail to former Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram in the case registered by CBI on corruption allegations in relation to INX Media FDI transaction. The bench comprising Justices R Banumathi, A S Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy had reserved judgment on October 18 in his petition challenging the September 30 judgment of the Delhi HC that had denied him bail.

Flight Risk Of Economic Offenders Cannot Be Looked At As A National Phenomenon To Deny Bail

P Chidambaram V. CBI

"Flight risk" of economic offenders cannot be looked at as a national phenomenon, said the Supreme Court while rejecting the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's contention against grant of bail to P. Chidambaram. The bench headed by Justice R. Banumathi said that "flight risk" is to be considered on individual basis being uninfluenced by the unconnected cases, more so, when the personal liberty is involved.

Disputed Property Claim Based On Inheritance Cannot Be Decided In A Criminal Proceeding

M. Srikanth vs. State of Telangana

The Supreme Court observed that a disputed property claim based on inheritance can be only in an appropriate civil proceeding and not in a criminal proceeding. The bench of Justice Navin Sinha and Justice BR Gavai quashed a complaint, which it noted is only a civil dispute with regard to inheritance amongst the legal heirs.

Execution- Court Order Required Before Providing Police Assistance To Deliver Possession To Decree Holder

Om Prakash V. Amar Singh

The Supreme Court observed that in execution proceedings, the concerned court's order has to be obtained before providing police assistance to deliver possession to the decree holder.

(Rape) Conviction Cannot Be Solely Based On Statements Made To Police U/s 154/161 CrPC

Narra Peddi Raju vs. State of AP

The Supreme Court, while acquitting a rape accused, observed that the conviction of an accused cannot be based solely on a statement of the witnesses recorded by the Police under Section 161 or 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.