Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise Index-August 15-21

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Can a person who is ineligible to be an arbitrator nominate another arbitrator? Supreme Court refers issue to larger bench. JSW Steel Limited v. South Western Railway, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 693

Award of Tender - Contractor cannot be blacklisted for life - One cannot be blacklisted for life. The order of blacklisting to the extent that it has not specified the period cannot be sustained. Chauhan Builders Raibareli v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 694

Award of Tender - There is no public duty on the part of the State to indicate the HSN code for GST rates in the tender document - Para 56- We are at a loss to further understand how in the name of producing a level playing field, the State, when it decides to award a contract, would be obliged to undertake the ordeal of finding out the correct HSN Code and the tax applicable for the product, which they wish to procure. This is, particularly so when the State is not burdened with the liability to pay the tax. The liability to pay tax, in the case before us, is squarely on the supplier. (Para 47) Union of India v. Bharat Forge Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 691

Central Administrative Tribunal - Punishment for contempt imposed on Advocate for alleged intemperate behaviour in court- SC sets aside CAT order as no trial was conducted - We would think that in the facts of this case, denial of a right of trial which is contemplated also under Section 14(1)(c) of the Act as also Rule 15 of the Rules has resulted in miscarriage of justice. (Para 26) Mehmood Pracha v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 692

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - Order VII Rule 11 does not provide that the court is to discharge its duty of rejecting the plaint only on an application - The power under Order VII Rule 11 is available to the court to be exercised suo motu - It would take a clear case where the court is satisfied. The Court has to hear the plaintiff before it invokes its power besides giving reasons under Order VII Rule 12. (Para 68) Patil AutomationPvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Private Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 678

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VIII Rule 6A - A counter claim can be set up only "against the claim of the plaintiffs" - Since there was no claim of the plaintiffs regarding the property, the defendants were barred to raise any counter claim on these properties as it has nothing to do with the plaintiffs - A counter claim can be made by the defendant, even on a separate or independent cause of action. (Para 16) Satyender v. Saroj, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 679

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XLVII Rule 1 - A review application would be maintainable on (i) discovery of new and important matters or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, were not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him when the decree was passed or the order made; (ii) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) for any other sufficient reason - Scope of review jurisdiction discussed. (Para 11- 25) S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 685

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XLVII Rule 1 - In order to satisfy the requirements prescribed in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, it is imperative for a party to establish that discovery of the new material or evidence was neither within its knowledge when the decree was passed, nor could the party have laid its hands on such documents/evidence after having exercised due diligence, prior to passing of the order. (Para 33) S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 685

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 114 , Order XLVII - Distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error apparent on the face of the record - An erroneous decision can be corrected by the Superior Court, however an error apparent on the face of the record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction - A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review. (Para 26) S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 685

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 114, Order XLVII Rule 1 - "for any other sufficient reason" means "a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule". (Para 26) S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 685

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 -Section 374 - Appeals from convictions - High Court cannot enhance the sentence of the accused without putting the accused to prior notice. Radheyshyam v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 687

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 397 - Scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction - At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage the final test of guilt is to be applied - The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in the proceeding. (Para 22-23) X v. Amit Kumar Tiwari, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 681

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 397 and 482 - Although it is open to a High Court entertaining a petition under Section 482/ Section 397 CrPC to quash the charges framed by the trial court, yet the same cannot be done by weighing the correctness or sufficiency of the evidence - At the stage of charge the Court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that prima facie case of commission of offence alleged has been made out against the accused person - Once the trial court has framed a charge against an accused the trial must proceed without unnecessary interference by a superior court and the entire evidence from the prosecution side should be placed on record. Any attempt by an accused for quashing of a charge before the entire prosecution evidence has 19 come on record should not be entertained sans exceptional cases. (Para 21) X v. Amit Kumar Tiwari, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 681

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 397 and 482 - Appeal against Madhya Pradesh High Court Judgment discharging rape accused on the ground of delay to register FIR - Allowed - Perverse and utterly incomprehensible - Unfortunate father of the deceased had to come before this Court seeking justice - It was expected of the State to challenge the illegal order passed by the High Court. Barring a few exceptions, in criminal matters the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of the social interests 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 interests of the community to book. X v. Amit Kumar Tiwari, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 681

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Mediation lightens the load of the judges- Section 12A contemplated only for a class of suits not requiring urgent relief- suits which contemplate urgent interim relief, the Law-giver has carefully vouch-safed immediate access to justice as contemplated ordinarily through the courts. The carving out of a class of suits and selecting them for compulsory mediation, harmonises with the attainment of the object of the law. The load on the Judges is lightened. They can concentrate on matters where urgent interim relief is contemplated and, on other matters, which already crowd their dockets. (Para 54) Patil AutomationPvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Private Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 678

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Pre-institution mediation - Section 12A not a procedural provision- Exhausting pre-institution mediation by the plaintiff, with all the benefits that may accrue to the parties and, more importantly, the justice delivery system as a whole, would make Section 12A not a mere procedural provision. The design and scope of the Act, as amended in 2018, by which Section 12A was inserted, would make it clear that Parliament intended to give it a mandatory flavour. (Para 43) Patil AutomationPvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Private Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 678

Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Section 12A - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - In a clear case, where on allegations in the suit, it is found that the suit is barred by any law, as would be the case, where the plaintiff in a suit under the Act does not plead circumstances to take his case out of the requirement of Section 12A, the plaint should be rejected without issuing summons. (Para 68) Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Private Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 678

Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Section 12A - Pre-institution mediation declared to be mandatory- any suit instituted violating the mandate of Section 12A must be visited with rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11. This power can be exercised even suo moto by the court- Declaration with effect from 22.08.2022. (Para 84) Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Private Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 678

Compassionate Appointment - Financial criteria for compassionate appointment given in a Compassionate Appointment Scheme cannot be ignored - Rules which provide for a financial criteria for appointment on Compassionate ground are valid and lawful rules which have to be construed strictly, as otherwise the quota reserved for compassionate appointment would be filled up excluding others who might be in greater and/or far more acute financial distress. (Para 20-22) Central Bank of India v. Nitin, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 690

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Criminal Appeal - In cases of concurrent findings of fact this Court will not ordinarily interfere with the said findings, in exceptional circumstances, this Court is empowered to do so. If this Court finds that the appreciation of evidence and findings is vitiated by any error of law or procedure or found contrary to the principles of natural justice, errors of record and misreading of the evidence, or where the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly perverse, this Court would not be powerless to reappreciate the evidence. (Para 26) Khema @ Khem Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 689

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Section 14 - Procedure where contempt is in the face of the Supreme Court or a High Court - contemplates opportunity is provided to contemnor to make his defence - evidence to be taken as may be necessary. (Para 10) Mehmood Pracha v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 692

Courts Act, 1918 (Punjab); Section 41 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 100 - In the State of Haryana a court in second appeal is not required to formulate a substantial question of law, as what is applicable in Haryana is Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and not Section 100 of CPC - But only such decisions are to be considered in second appeal which are contrary to law or to some custom or usage having the force of law or the court below have failed to determine some material issue of law or custom or usage having the force of law - Second appeal is not a forum where court has to re-examine or re-appreciate questions of fact settled by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. (Para 10-15) Satyender v. Saroj, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 679

Criminal Trial - Oral testimony may be classified into three categories, namely: (1) Wholly reliable. (2) Wholly unreliable. (3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way — it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. (Para 21-22) Khema @ Khem Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 689

Criminal Trial - Previous enmity is a double­ edged sword. On one hand, it provides motive to the crime and on the other, there is a possibility of false implication. (Para 20) Khema @ Khem Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 689

Evidence Act 1872 - Dying Declaration - When can be relied upon - Conditions - It could thus be seen that the Court is required to examine as to whether the dying declaration is true and reliable; as to whether it has been recorded by a person at a time when the deceased was fit physically and mentally to make the declaration; as to whether it has been made under any tutoring/duress/prompting. The dying declaration can be the sole basis for recording conviction and if it is found reliable and trustworthy, no corroboration is required. In case there are multiple dying declarations and there are inconsistencies between them, the dying declaration recorded by the higher officer like a Magistrate can be relied upon. However, this is with the condition that there is no circumstance giving rise to any suspicion about its truthfulness. In case there are circumstances wherein the declaration has not been found to be made voluntarily and is not supported by any other evidence, the Court is required to scrutinize the facts of an individual case very carefully and take a decision as to which of the declarations is worth reliance. (Para 9) Makhan Singh v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 677

Evidence Act 1872; Section 32 - Dying Declaration - Case of two dying declarations, both contradictory, both recorded by judicial magistrates- Court relies on the dying declaration recorded after medical examination. (Para 16,17) Makhan Singh v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 677

Income Tax Act 1961; Section 260A - Appeals against orders of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) will lie only before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the assessing officer is situated. Even if the case or cases of an assessee are transferred in exercise of power under Section 127 of the Act, the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer has passed the order, shall continue to exercise the jurisdiction of appeal. This principle is applicable even if the transfer is under Section 127 for the same assessment year(s). (Para 33) Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh v. ABC Papers Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 686

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 127 - by administrative order a 'case' can be transferred from one Assessing Authority to another Assessing Officer located in a different State - power of transfer under Section 127 relates to the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Authorities, not the ITAT of High Court - appellate jurisdiction of a High Court cannot dependent upon pure executive power exercised under Section 127 - transfer of a case from one judicial forum to another judicial forum, without the intervention of Court is against the independence of judiciary - even when cases of an assessee are transferred, the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer has passed the order, shall continue to exercise appellate jurisdiction - this would be true even when the transfer is under Section 127 for the same assessment year. [Para Nos. 19, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 33] Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh v. ABC Papers Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 686

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 260A - provides for a statutory appeal to the High Court against every order of the ITAT - does not specify the High Court before which an appeal would lie in cases where Tribunals operated for plurality of States - benches of the ITAT are constituted to exercise jurisdiction over more than one state; functions as the administrative discretion of the President - jurisdiction exercised by the benches of the ITAT do not follow the structure contemplated in Article 1 of the Constitution, which divides the Union into States and Union Territories - the appropriate High Court would be the one where the Assessing Authority is situated. [Para Nos. 13.3, 14, 15, 18, 30, 33] Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh v. ABC Papers Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 686

Mediation - Concerns regarding dearth of trained and skilled mediators and lack of infrastructure - Knowledge of the laws, which are the subject matter of the suits under the Act, is indispensable for a Mediator to effectively discharge his duties. His role is supreme and it is largely shaped by his own knowledge of the law that governs commercial cases - The effective participation of the bar which must be adequately remunerated for its service will assist in mediation evolving. The concerned High Court may also undertake periodic exercise to establish a panel of trained mediators in District and Taluka levels as per need. (Para 74) Patil AutomationPvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Private Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 678

Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Imposed a cost of Rupees one lakh on the Union Government for incorrectly mentioning the name of a coal mining company in the list of the illegal coal block allotments made in the "Coalgate" scam. BLA Industries Pvt Ltd v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 683

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 - Complaint filed before the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice issued under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 is not maintainable, the complainant cannot be permitted to present the very same complaint at any later stage. His remedy is only to file a fresh complaint; and if the same could not be filed within the time prescribed under Section 142(b), his recourse is to seek the benefit of the proviso, satisfying the court of sufficient cause. (Para 5-9) Gajanand Burange v. Laxmi Chand Goyal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 682

Penal Code 1860; Section 304B - Offence of dowry death - the legislative intent of incorporating IPC section 304­B was to curb the menace of dowry death with a firm hand-in dealing with cases under section 304­B, such legislative intent has to be kept in mind- a strong message must go in the society that a person who commits such an offence of dowry death and/or the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act shall be dealt with an iron hand. Ajhola Devi v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 695

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002; Section 3 - Accused no.1 acquitted of scheduled offence - Prosecution of Wife and son of the accused under PMLA Act - The view as taken by the Trial Court in this matter had been a justified view of the matter and the High Court was not right in setting aside the discharge order despite the fact that the accused No. 1 had already been acquitted in relation to the scheduled offence and the present appellants were not accused of any scheduled offence. Parvathi Kollur v. State by Directorate of Enforcement, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 688

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 - Furthermore, the disabled are entitled to the fundamental right of equality enshrined in Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India, the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under Article 19 including the right to carry out any occupation, profession, the right to life under Article 21, which has now been interpreted to mean the right to live with dignity, which has to be interpreted liberally in relation to the disabled. (Para 30) Net Ram Yadav v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 684

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - A person appointed under quota for Persons With Disabilities was allowed to choose his place of posting as per a beneficial circular issued by the Government- Later, in the state seniority list, his seniority was downgraded for having opted for transfer - The State relied on a provision in the service rules as per which a person will choose seniority within a district on transfer as per his request - The Court held that provision cannot alter state wise seniority - Also, the Court held that the benefit given to disabled persons as per the circular cannot be rendered otiose by imposing conditions. Net Ram Yadav v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 684

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - One of the hindrances / disadvantages faced by the physically disabled persons is the inability to move freely and easily. In consideration of the obstacles encountered by persons with disabilities, the State has issued the said notification/circular dated 20th July 2000 for posting disabled persons to places of their choice, to the extent feasible. The object of this benefit to the physically disabled is to, inter alia, enable the physically disabled to be posted at a place where assistance may readily be available. The distance from the residence may be a relevant consideration to avoid commuting long distances. The benefit which has been given to the disabled through the Circular/Government Order cannot be taken away by subjecting the exercise of the right to avail of the benefit on such terms and conditions, as would render the benefit otiose. (Para 31) Net Ram Yadav v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 684

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - The marginalization of the disabled/handicapped is a human rights issue, which has been the subject matter of deliberations and discussion all over the world. There is increasing global concern to ensure that the disabled are not sidelined on account of their disability. (Para 26) Net Ram Yadav v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 684

Tender - A company submitted bids for a tender floated for Diesel Locomotive Work. The company argued that since the HSN for GST rate was not mentioned in the tender document, it wrongly added 18% GST in its bid, and lost out to other bidders who included 5% GST - The company appraoched the High Court which directed that HSN code should be mentioned to ensure a "level playing field" - Supreme Court reversed the High Court's view. Union of India v. Bharat Forge Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 691

UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions Affiliated to It) Regulations, 2009 - National Eligibility Test (NET) as minimum stipulation for appointment as Lecturer in any university - candidates who had acquired their Ph.D. in compliance with the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M. Phil / Ph.D. Degree) Regulations 2009 introduced on 01.06.2009, were exempt from qualifying in the NET. [Para No. 4] University of Kerala v. Merlin J.N., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 680

UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions Affiliated to It) Regulations, 2010 - NET exemption for candidates who had acquired their Ph.D. degrees in accordance with the 2009 Ph.D. Regulations continued - batches of PhD holders who had been awarded their doctoral degrees prior to the cut-off date under the 2009 UGCR, suddenly became disentitled to claim exemption and were forced to appear and qualify in the NET to continue with employment - UGC decided to extend NET exemption to both pre-2019 and post 2009 PhD holders - Central Government did not agree - array of litigation followed - UGC amended Regulation in 2016 and 2018 to clarify both pre and post 2009 PhD holders are exempted from taking NET - intention to protect the pre-2009 Ph.D. holders, who may have been appointed in various universities and taught for many years, is abundantly clear from the language used in the amendments. [Para Nos. 6, 14, 17, 18] University of Kerala v. Merlin J.N., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 680

UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions Affiliated to It) Regulations, 2016 - being a clarificatory amendment is retrospective in nature - language of the amended provisions also spells out retrospective application. [Para Nos. 18, 19, 23, 24] University of Kerala v. Merlin J.N., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 680

UGC Regulations 2016 exempting PhD holders from NET Qualification will apply retrospectively. University of Kerala v. Merlin J.N., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 680

Writ Jurisdiction - Judicial review in contractual matters - limited scope of interference- unless the state action is clearly arbitrary, illegal, mala fide or contrary to the statute, courts would be loathe to interfere. (Para 23) Union of India v. Bharat Forge Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 691

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Ajhola Devi v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 695
2. BLA Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 683
3. Central Bank of India v. Nitin, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 690
4. Chauhan Builders Raibareli v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 694
5. Gajanand Burange v. Laxmi Chand Goyal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 682
6. JSW Steel Limited v. South Western Railway, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 693
7. Khema @ Khem Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 689
8. Makhan Singh v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 677
9. Mehmood Pracha v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 692
10. Net Ram Yadav v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 684
11. Parvathi Kollur v. State by Directorate of Enforcement, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 688
12. Patil AutomationPvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Private Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 678
13. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh v. ABC Papers Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 686
14. Radheyshyam v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 687
15. S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 685
16. Satyender v. Saroj, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 679
17. Union of India v. Bharat Forge Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 691
18. University of Kerala v. Merlin J.N., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 680
19. X v. Amit Kumar Tiwari, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 681