Supreme Court Weekly Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise Index (Citation 956 - 978) [November 14 – 20, 2022]

Civil Trial - Once a document has been admitted in evidence, such admission cannot be called in question at any stage of the suit or proceedings on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. Objection as to admissibility of a document on the ground of sufficiency of stamp, has to raised when the document is tendered in evidence. Thereafter, it is not open to the parties, or even the court to reexamine the order or issue. Sirikonda Madhava Rao v. N. Hemalatha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 970

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint - The case on behalf of the petitioner is that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in the suit. The aforesaid cannot be a ground to reject the plaint at the threshold in exercise of powers under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. Gurdev Singh v. Harvinder Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 963

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI - Execution Proceedings - Execution Court must dispose of the execution proceedings within six months from the date of filing - It is duty bound to record reasons in writing when it is unable to dispose of the matter - Direction issued in Rahul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi (2021) 6 SCC 418 is meant to be observed. Bhoj Raj Garg v. Goyal Educational and Welfare Society, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 976

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXII Rule 2 - When the legal representative has been brought on record in appeal though from an interlocutory order, such impleadment will enure towards the proceedings in the suit itself. (Para 11 - 12) Maringmei Acham v. M. Maringmei Khuripou, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 958

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Section 439(2) - Cancellation of bail cannot be ordered merely for any perceived indiscipline on the part of the accused before granting bai - The powers of cancellation of bail cannot be approached as if of disciplinary proceedings against the accused - In a case where bail has already been granted, its upsetting under Section 439(2) CrPC is envisaged only in such cases where the liberty of the accused is going to be counteracting the requirements of a proper trial of the criminal case - Unless a strong case based on any supervening event is made out, an order granting bail is not to be lightly interfered. (Para 19 - 20) Bhuri Bai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 956

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 428 - An indispensable requirement to invoke Section 428 of Cr.P.C. is that there must be a conviction. The conviction must be followed by a sentence of imprisonment. It must be for a term and it should not be imprisonment in default of payment of fine - However, for it to be invoked the existence of detention undergone by the convict during investigation, enquiry or trial in the 'same case' is indispensable. If these requirements are satisfied, the convict would be entitled to the set off for the period of detention which he has undergone. (Para 12) Vinay Prakash Singh v. Sameer Gehlaut, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 974

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail - SLP against order of HC that imposed anticipatory bail condition that accused will return the salary which she has received while working as a Panchayat Teacher - Allowed - Additional condition of returning the amount drawn by her as salary on appointment as Panchayat Teacher is neither justified nor required under the law while grant of pre-arrest bail to her - HC direction in not sustainable legally and hence set aside. Divya Bharti v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 961

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - Rape accused granted bail by the High Court observing that allegations are matter of trial and there is no need of custodial trial - Even the observation that there is no need of further custodial trial is also not relevant aspect while considering the bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The same may have some relevance while considering the application for anticipatory bail - Relevant aspects which are required to be kept in mind while considering the bail application are: Seriousness of the offence alleged; material collected during the investigation; statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 of Cr.PC, etc.- HC directed to reconsider the bail application afresh. X v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 972

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14, 226 - Arbitrariness - When an act is to be treated as arbitrary? The court must carefully attend to the facts and the circumstances of the case. It should find out whether the impugned decision is based on any principle. If not, it may unerringly point to arbitrariness. If the act betrays caprice or the mere exhibition of the whim of the authority it would sufficiently bear the insignia of arbitrariness. In this regard supporting an order with a rationale which in the circumstances is found to be reasonable will go a long way to repel a challenge to state action. No doubt the reasons need not in every case be part of the order as such. If there is absence of good faith and the action is actuated with an oblique motive, it could be characterised as being arbitrary. A total non-application of mind without due regard to the rights of the parties and public interest may be a clear indicator of arbitrary action. A wholly unreasonable decision which is little different from a perverse decision under the Wednesbury doctrine would qualify as an arbitrary decision under Article 14. Ordinarily visiting a party with the consequences of its breach under a contract may not be an arbitrary decision. (Para 48) MP Power Management Company Ltd. v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 966

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Judicial Review in Contractual matters - Even if it is a non-statutory contract, there is no absolute bar in dealing with a cause of action based on acts or omission by the State or its instrumentalities even during the course of the working of a contract - A monetary claim arising from a contract may be successfully urged by a writ applicant but the premise would not be a mere breach of contract. Being part of public law, the case must proceed on the basis of there being arbitrariness vitiating the decision. The matter should not fall within a genuinely disputed question of facts scenario. The dispute which must be capable of being resolved on a proper understanding of documents which are not in dispute may furnish a cause of action in a writ court. - Principles summarized. (Para 78, 54) MP Power Management Company Ltd. v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 966

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Quo Warranto - SLP against Madras HC judgment dismissing petition seeking a writ of quo warranto against Vice Presidents of ITAT appointed in January 2020 alleging that procedure for selection was contrary to the decision in Roger Mathew vs South Indian Bank Limited (2020) 6 SCC 1 - Dismissed - No recourse to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to seek a writ of quo warranto could have been taken - There is no challenge to the eligibility - We have not entered upon the correctness of the reasoning of the High Court - Petitioner granted liberty to intervene in the pending proceedings in the petition instituted by the Madras Bar Association. Aniruthan v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 960

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 18 - Without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act, the borrowers approached the High Court by filing the writ application - Practice of entertaining the writ application by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution without exhausting the alternative statutory remedy deprecated. (Para 34) Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B. Sreenivasulu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 967

Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 298, 162 - For the purpose of Article 298, the broader concept of State, as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution, which, no doubt, would include a fully owned Government Company, is inapposite and inapplicable - A Company, would not be entitled to exercise the executive power contemplated in Article 162 of the Constitution, which is the power with the Union or the State Governments. (Para 17) MP Power Management Company Ltd. v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 966

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 194H - Contract Act, 1870; Section 182 - Application of Section 194H of the IT Act to the Supplementary Commission amounts earned by the travel agent - Section 194H is to be read with Section 182 of the Contract Act. If a relationship between two parties as culled out from their intentions as manifested in the terms of the contract between them indicate the existence of a principal­agent relationship as defined under Section 182 of the Contract Act, then the definition of "Commission" under Section 194H of the IT Act stands attracted and the requirement to deduct TDS arises. Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. C.I.T., Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 959

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 271C - If the recipient of income on which TDS has not been deducted, even though it was liable to such deduction under the IT Act, has already included that amount in its income and paid taxes on the same, the Assessee can no longer be proceeded against for recovery of the short fall in TDS. However, it would be open to the Revenue to seek payment of interest under Section 201(1A) for the period between the date of default in deduction of TDS and the date on which the recipient actually paid income tax on the amount for which there had been a shortfall in such deduction. (Para 56) Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. C.I.T., Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 959

Interpretation of Contract - Contract between FCI and transport contractors - Whether the demurrages imposed on the Corporation by the Railways can be, in turn, recovered by the Corporation from the contractors as "charges" recoverable under this clause? The Corporation in the present contract has chosen not to include the power to recover demurrages and as such the expression "charges" cannot be interpreted to include demurrages - Demurrage is undoubtedly a charge, however, such a textual understanding would not help us decipher the true and correct intention of the parties to the present contract. Food Corporation of India v. Abhijith Paul, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 975

Interpretation of Contract - Scope of contractual expressions must be understood as intended by the parties to the contract - The process of interpretation, though the exclusive domain of the Court, inheres the duty to decipher the meaning attributed to contractual terms by the parties to the contract - Words and expressions used in the contract are principal tools to ascertain such intention. While interpreting the words, courts look at the expressions falling for interpretation in the context of other provisions of the contract and also in the context of the contract as a whole. These are intrinsic tools for interpreting a contract. As a principle of interpretation, courts do not resort to materials external to the contract for construing the intention of the parties. There are, however, certain exceptions to the rule excluding reference or reliance on external sources to interpret a contract. One such exception is in the case of a latent ambiguity, which cannot be resolved without reference to extrinsic evidence. Latent ambiguity exists when words in a contract appear to be free from ambiguity; however, when they are sought to be applied to a particular context or question, they are amenable to multiple outcomes - Extrinsic evidence, in cases of latent ambiguity, is admissible both to ascertain where necessary, the meaning of the words used, and to identify the objects to which they are to be applied. (Para 17, 27) Food Corporation of India v. Abhijith Paul, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 975

Interpretation of Contract - The rights and duties of the parties to the contract subsist or perish in terms of the contract itself. Even if a party to the contract is a governmental authority, there is no place for discretion vested in the officers administering the contract. Discretion, a principle within the province of administrative law, has no place in contractual matters unless, of course, the parties have expressly incorporated it as a part of the contract. It is the bounden duty of the court while interpreting the terms of the contracts, to reject the exercise of any such discretion that is entirely outside the realm of the contract. (Para 22 - 24) State of Madhya Pradesh v. SEW Construction Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 977

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Rising rate of juvenile delinquency in India is a matter of concern and requires immediate attention - We have started gathering an impression that the leniency with which the juveniles are dealt with in the name of goal of reformation is making them more and more emboldened in indulging in such heinous crimes - It is for the Government to consider whether its enactment of 2015 has proved to be effective or something still needs to be done in the matter before it is too late in the day. (Para 79) State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Shubam Sangra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 965

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - The benefit of the principle of benevolent legislation attached to the Juvenile Justice Act would thus be extended to only such cases wherein the accused is held to be a juvenile on the basis of at least prima facie evidence inspiring confidence regarding his minority as the benefit of the possibilities of two views in regard to the age of the alleged accused who is involved in grave and serious offence which he is alleged to have committed and gave effect to it in a well-planned manner reflecting his maturity of mind rather than innocence indicating that his plea of juvenility is more in the nature of a shield to dodge or dupe the arms of law, cannot be allowed to come to his rescue. (Para 72) State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Shubam Sangra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 965

Juvenility Claims - Age Determination Techniques - There are better techniques available and are used for determination of age across the world. For example, the United States Immigration Department uses 'wisdom teeth' technique for determination of age - Another technique is 'epigenetic clock' technique - Such techniques should be introduced in our country as well. (Para 75) State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Shubam Sangra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 965

Kathua rape-murder case - SC sets aside the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua and the Jammu and Kashmir High Court which held that one of the accused in the Kathua rape-murder case was a juvenile - The accused was not a juvenile at the time of commission of the offence and should be tried the way other co-accused were tried in accordance with the law. Law to take its own course. State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Shubam Sangra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 965

Limitation Act, 1963; Section 14 - Exclusion of time is different, and cannot be equated with condonation of delay. The period once excluded, cannot be counted for the purpose of computing the period for which delay can be condoned - For exclusion of time under Section 14, the conditions stipulated in Section 14 have to be satisfied. Laxmi Srinivasa R and P Boiled Rice Mill v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 964

Motor Accident Compensation Claims - Even in cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor-accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future prospects as well - Law regarding determination of compensation discussed - "Just compensation" should include all elements that would go to place the victim in as near a position as she or he was in, before the occurrence of the accident - Courts should be mindful that a serious injury not only permanently imposes physical limitations and disabilities but too often inflicts deep mental and emotional scars upon the victim. (Para 29-32, 139) Sidram v. Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 968

Motor Accident Compensation Claims - Notional Income - It is not necessary to adduce any documentary evidence to prove the notional income of the victim and the Court can award the same even in the absence of any documentary evidence - The Court should ensure while choosing the method and fixing the notional income that the same is just in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, neither assessing the compensation too conservatively, nor too liberally. (Para 59) Sidram v. Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 968

Motor Accident Compensation Claims - Pecuniary Expenses and Non- Pecuniary Loss - "Future Medical Expenses" and "Attendant Charges" would fall within the ambit of Pecuniary Expenses - "Pain and suffering" would be categorized as a non-pecuniary loss as it is incapable of being arithmetically calculated. Therefore, when compensation is to be awarded for pain and suffering, special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account including the victim's age, the unusual deprivation the victim has suffered, the effect thereof on his or her future life. (Para 67, 93) Sidram v. Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 968

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 21 - The quantity of neutral substance(s) is not to be excluded and to be taken into consideration along with actual content by weight of the offending drug, while determining the "small or commercial quantity" of the Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances. Intelligence Officer, Thiruvananthapuram v. K.K. Naushad, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 978

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Sections 138, 141 - For maintaining the prosecution under Section 141 of NI Act, arraigning of the company as an accused is imperative and non-impleadment of the company would be fatal for the complaint. (Para 19-21) Pawan Kumar Goel v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 971

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Sections 138, 141, 142 - Whether the amendment in the complaint and the impleadment of an additional accused subsequent to filing of the complaint is pemissible? The argument that an additional accused can be impleaded subsequent to the filing of the complaint merits no consideration, once the limitation prescribed for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 142 of NI Act has expired. More particularly, in view of the fact that neither any effort was made by the petitioner at any stage of the proceedings to arraign the company as an accused nor any such circumstances or reason has been pointed out to enable the Court to exercise the power conferred by proviso to Section 142, to condone the delay for not making the complaint within the prescribed period of limitation. (Para 22-23) Pawan Kumar Goel v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 971

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Sections 138,141 - Whether it is necessary to specifically state in the complaint that the person accused was in charge of, or responsible for the conduct of the business of the company - the liability arises on account of conduct, act or omission on the part of a person and not merely on account of holding an office or a position in a company. Therefore, in order to bring a case within Section 141 of the Act the complaint must disclose the necessary facts which make a person liable. (Para 26-31) Pawan Kumar Goel v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 971

Penal Code, 1860; Section 498A - Concurrent conviction under Section 498A IPC upheld - Wife's submission that she would not like to contest the appeal and she wants to join her husband and revive their matrimonial life - In this proceeding, we cannot pass any order on that count. For that purpose, the wife may take such steps as may be advised. Considering the overall circumstances, the punishment of rigorous imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant in incarceration. Randeep Singh v. State of U T Chandigarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 962

Practice and Procedure - It is time that the authorities stop filing unnecessary special leave petitions only with the objective of attaining some kind of a final dismissal from this Court every time. Inspector General of Registration v. G. Madhurambal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 969

Precedent - A judgment of a Court is not to be read as the Euclid's Theorem shorn of the facts and the context in which the law has been declared. (Para 11) Vinay Prakash Singh v. Sameer Gehlaut, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 974

Registration Act, 1908; Section 89 - SLP against Madras High Court judgment holding that a registering authority cannot demand stamp duty to keep a copy of a sale certificate on the file of Book No.1 - Dismissed - Issue has been repeatedly settled and a consistent view has been followed for the last 150 years. Inspector General of Registration v. G. Madhurambal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 969

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 13(2) - Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 - It is true that the secured creditor is under an obligation to undertake the exercise and cross­check the description of the mortgaged property at the stage when the initial proceedings under Section 13(2) are initiated or in the later consequential proceedings, but at the same time, mere typographical error due to inadvertence which has not caused any prejudice to the borrowers, that in itself could not be considered to be the ground to annul the process held by the secured creditor which, in our view, is in due compliance with the requirement as contemplated under the provisions of Rules, 2002. (Para 37) Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B. Sreenivasulu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 967

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Section 34 - Section 34 shall be applicable only in a case where the Debt Recovery Tribunal and/or Appellate Tribunal is empowered to decide the matter under the SARFAESI Act. The plaintiff was not challenging the sale/sale certificate. (Para 5.2) Leelamma Mathew v. Indian Overseas Bank, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 973

Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002; Rule 8 - Duty of the authorized officer to take all precautions before putting the secured asset to sell - Before effecting sale of the immovable property (secured assets) the authorised officer shall obtain valuation of the property from an approved valuer and in consultation with the secured creditor and fix the reserve price of the property and may sell the whole or any part of such immovable secured asset. As per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act the seller was bound to disclose any buyer any material defect in the property of which the buyer is not aware and which the buyer could not ordinarily discover. (Para 5.4) Leelamma Mathew v. Indian Overseas Bank, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 973

Statutory Contract - A contract containing prescribed terms and conditions being mandatory under the Statute, results in the contract becoming a Statutory Contract. (Para 19, 26) MP Power Management Company Ltd. v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 966

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Aniruthan v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 960
2. Bhoj Raj Garg v. Goyal Educational and Welfare Society, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 976
3. Bhuri Bai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 956
4. Divya Bharti v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 961
5. Food Corporation of India v. Abhijith Paul, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 975
6. Gurdev Singh v. Harvinder Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 963
7. Inspector General of Registration v. G. Madhurambal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 969
8. Intelligence Officer, Thiruvananthapuram v. K.K. Naushad, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 978
9. Laxmi Srinivasa R and P Boiled Rice Mill v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 964
10. Leelamma Mathew v. Indian Overseas Bank, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 973
11. Maringmei Acham v. M. Maringmei Khuripou, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 958
12. Mohammed Sadiq v. Deepak Manglani, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 957
13. MP Power Management Company Ltd. v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 966
14. Pawan Kumar Goel v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 971
15. Randeep Singh v. State of U T Chandigarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 962
16. Sidram v. Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 968
17. Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. C.I.T., Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 959
18. Sirikonda Madhava Rao v. N. Hemalatha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 970
19. State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Shubam Sangra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 965
20. State of Madhya Pradesh v. SEW Construction Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 977
21. Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B. Sreenivasulu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 967
22. Vinay Prakash Singh v. Sameer Gehlaut, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 974
23. X v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 972