Supreme Court Judgements Order VIII Rule 1A(3) : Refusing To Permit Production Of Additional Documents Even If There Is Some Delay Will Be Denial Of Justice: Supreme Court Case Title: Levaku Pedda Reddamma vs Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma | CA 4096 OF 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 533 The Supreme Court observed that refusing permission to a party in a...
Supreme Court Judgements
Case Title: Levaku Pedda Reddamma vs Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma | CA 4096 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 533
The Supreme Court observed that refusing permission to a party in a civil suit to produce additional documents even if there is some delay will lead to denial of justice.
In such cases, the trial Court can impose some costs rather than to decline the production of the documents itself, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed.
In this case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court affirming the order passed by the trial Court refusing to permit the defendant to produce additional documents in terms of Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The defendant approached the Apex Court.
Case Name: Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. A. Balakrishna And Anr.| Civil Appeal No. 689 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 534
The Supreme Court bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and A.S. Bopanna, held that a liability in respect of a claim arising out of a Recovery Certificate under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 would be a "financial debt" within the meaning of Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and a holder of such Recovery Certificate would be a "financial creditor" under Section 5(7) of the IBC.
It further held that a person would be entitled to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) within a period of three years from the date on which such Recovery Certificate is issued.
"..we hold that a liability in respect of a claim arising out of a Recovery Certificate would be a "financial debt" within the meaning of clause (8) of Section 5 of the IBC. Consequently, the holder of the Recovery Certificate would be a financial creditor within the meaning of clause (7) of Section 5 of the IBC. As such, the holder of such certificate would be entitled to initiate CIRP, if initiated within a period of three years from the date of issuance of the Recovery Certificate"
Case Title: Pragya Higher Secondary School vs National Institute of Open Schooling | WP(C) 343/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 535
Allowing a writ petition filed by a school, the Supreme Court observed that National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) has a duty to fix examination centres in a manner to enable students to appear in the examination with certainty and ease.
"It is for NIOS to go an extra mile rather than expecting the students to walk long distances from villages and towns to take the examination", the bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and PS Narasimha observed.
Case Name: Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority Etc. v. Shakuntla Education And Welfare Society And Ors. Etc.| Civil Appeal Nos. 4178-4197 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 536
Recently, the Supreme Court reiterated that change in policy by the Government, if guided by reason and done in public interest, would prevail over private agreements entered between Governments and private parties.
The Court held : "...it is more than settled that a change in policy by the Government can have an overriding effect over private treaties between the Government and a private party, if the same was in the general public interest. The additional requirement is that such change in policy is required to be guided by reason".
"when a policy is changed by the State, which is in the general public interest, such policy would prevail over the individual rights/interests"
A Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai allowed an appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh assailing the order of the Allahabad High Court, which had set aside its policy decision to issue additional notices seeking additional premium from original allottees of the plots developed by the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority in Gautam Budh Nagar.
Case Name: Shri M.L.Patil (Dead) Through LRs v. State of Goa And Anr.| Civil Appeal No. 4100 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 537
The Supreme Court, recently, held that arrears of pension cannot be denied on the ground of delay in approaching the Court as pension is a continuous cause of action.
A Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna set aside the order of the High Court to the extent it denied arrears of pension. It held that the appellant are entitled to pension at the revised rates from the day they turn 60. Furthermore, arrears of pension were directed to be paid to the appellant within a period of four weeks.
- GUJCOTOC Act Can't Be Invoked If Only One Chargesheet Has Been Filed Against Accused : Supreme Court
Case Title: MOHAMAD ILIYAS MOHAMAD BILAL KAPADIYA v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 538
Opining that for invoking the provisions of the draconian Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015, it is necessary that more than one charge-sheet must have been filed in respect of an activity which can be said to have
been undertaken by one as a member of an organised crime syndicate on behalf of such syndicate, the Supreme Court on Monday released the petitioner on bail.
The bench of Justices B. R. Gavai and Hima Kohli was hearing an SLP against the January decision of the Gujarat High Court rejecting the application filed by the petitioner/applicant for grant of bail in connection with a 2021 FIR for offence under Sections 3(1)(2), 3(2) and 3(4) of the GUJCTOC Act.
Case Title: Ardhendu Kumar Das vs State of Odisha & ors, Sumanta Kumar Ghadei vs State of Orissa & Ors
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 539
The Supreme Court dismissed two petitions filed against the construction and redevelopment works undertaken by the Odisha Government at the iconic Shree Jagannath Temple premises at Puri. Terming the petitions as frivolous and contrary to public interest, the Court dismissed them with a cost of Rupees one lakh each.
"In the recent past it is noticed that there's a mushrooming growth of PILs.Many such petitions are either publicity interest litigation or personal interest litigation. We deprecate the practice of filing such PIL as it is a waste of judicial time and it needs to be nipped in the bud so that development work is not stalled", the bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Hima Kohli observed.
Case Title : In Re : TN Godavarman Thirumalpad versus Union of India
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 540
In a significant order, the Supreme Court directed that each protected forest should have an Eco Sensitive Zone (ESZ) of 1 kilometre.
The Court further directed that no permanent structure will be allowed within the ESZ. Mining within national wildlife sanctuary or national park cannot be permitted and thus will not be allowed.
If the existing ESZ goes beyond the 1 km buffer zone or if any statutory instrument prescribes a higher limit, then such an extended boundary shall prevail.
A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and Aniruddha Bose passed the directions in applications filed in the TN Godavarman Thirumulpad case.
Case Name: Vallal Rck v. M/s. Siva Industries And Holdings Limited And Ors| Civil Appeal Nos. 1811-1812 of 2022
The Supreme Court held that when 90% or more of the creditors decide that it will be in the interest of all the stakeholders to permit Settlement Plan filed by promoter of the Corporate Debtor and withdraw Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process as per Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the adjudicating authority (NCLT) or the appellate authority (NCLAT) cannot sit in appeal over such commercial wisdom of Committee of Creditors (CoC).
Supreme Court Updates
A vacation bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and BV Nagarathna on Monday insisted for physical presence of lawyers for arguing cases instead of making their appearance through video conferencing.
"We come to court everyday. Only lawyers who are physically present, we'll give them indulgence," the bench remarked.
The remarks came in cases where Senior Advocate(s) Mukul Rohatgi, AM Singhvi appeared virtually.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted Former Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh liberty to file an application before the Bombay High Court seeking early listing of his bail application in the money laundering case which is being investigated by the ED. The Court observed that it hopes and trusts that the High Court will hear the matter will be expeditiously heard.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed Chhattisgarh Government's plea challenging bail granted to suspended Additional Director General of Police Gurjinder Pal Singh's in case filed against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegations of disproportionate assets. A vacation bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Hima Kohli observed that the petition filed by State of Chattisgarh challenging High Court's 12th May order is "nothing but a totally unwarranted exercise on behalf of state".
"While considering an application for bail, the status of applicant is not to be considered . As an ordinary citizen is entitled to his rights under constitution, equally a high ranking officer can't be denied right the under constitution", the Bench said.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday passed an interim order to direct the Pharmacy Council of India to process applications of colleges which had challenged imposition of a moratorium issued by PCI on opening of new pharmacy colleges for a period of five years with effect from the academic year 2020-21 before the High Courts.
The bench has directed that no final decision regarding grant of approval or non-approval shall be taken till the outcome of the present petitions.
"By way of interim order, though we direct the Pharmacy Council of India to accept and process the applications of the applicants who were writ petitioners before the High Court, no final decision regarding grant of approval or non-approval shall be taken till the outcome of the present petitions", the Court ordered.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday stated that it does not "appreciate" the manner in which a Single Judge of the Uttarakhand High Court has disposed off various criminal writ petitions in a "cyclostyled manner"- without looking into the merits and only with a direction to the police to follow the judgment of the top court in Arnesh Kumar's case before proceeding to make arrests.
Justice BR Gavai, judge of the Supreme Court, remarked in a lighter vein on Wednesday that a lawyer may have to use more persuasive skills before the Registry to get urgent listing of a case.
"We are granting you circulation. Now you've to persuade the Registry. You have to use your persuasive skills there more than here", Justice Gavai told a lawyer who was mentioning a matter for urgent listing.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed concerns at the manner in which the Punjab & Haryana High Court had conducted Punjab and Haryana Superior Judicial Services Main Written Examination- 2019.
"The High Court is conducting examinations for District Judges... courts come down heavily on educational institutions when they conduct exams in a flip flop manner. The manner in which the exam has been conducted is troubling us," the vacation bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and BV Nagarathna remarked.
Holding that orders of High Court would prevail over the Tribunal's in case of contradicting orders passed by High Court and NGT, the Supreme Court on Wednesday quashed the proceedings before National Green Tribunal which halted the construction works at Rushikonda Hills in Visakhapattanam.
"The contradicting orders of High Court and the National Green Tribunal would leave to anamolous situation, as authorities wouldn't know which order to follow. In such a case, orders of the Constitutional Court would prevail over orders of the Tribunal", the Supreme Court stated.
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a writ petition preferred by Mumbai City District Gym Association challenging the election process which was notified on April 29, 2022.
A vacation bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and BV Nagarathna said, "You've failed the Bombay High Court and you come to the Supreme Court? You people are politicizing the games. We don't appreciate filing petitions against election matters?"
10. 'Arya Samaj Has No Business Giving Marriage Certificates' : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to accept a marriage certificate issued by Arya Samaj while considering the bail application of an accused against whom FIR was registered for offences relating to kidnap and rape of a minor under Sections 363, 366A, 384, 376(2)(n), 384 IPC and Section 5(L)/6 of the POCSO Act.
Rejecting the submissions of the counsel that prosecutrix who had levelled allegations of rape was a major girl and marriage between the petitioner and the prosecutrix had already taken place at Arya Samaj, the vacation bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and BV Nagarathna said :
"Arya Samaj has no business giving marriage certificate. This is the work of authorities. Show the real certificate."
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice in SLP assailing Himachal Pradesh High Court's order of setting aside a notice issued by a Medical College in the State of HP which made the candidates who had been allocated PG seats in previous rounds of State Counselling ineligible to participate in further rounds of counselling including Mop Up round.
12. Reasons For Declining Security Clearance Can't Be Disclosed To MediaOne : Centre To Supreme Court
The Central Government has filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court stating that the reasons for declining security clearance for Malayalam news channel MediaOne cannot be disclosed to the channel owners as it involves issues relating to national security. The Centre further stated that principles of natural justice are not applicable when issues relating to national security are involved. The intelligence inputs relating to the security clearance cannot be shared with the channel.
The Supreme Court has issued notice on a plea urging that an Insurance Company, if impleaded as a party respondent under the Motor Vehicles Act, can question the quantum of compensation as a person against whom a claim is made.
The bench of Justices S. K. Kaul and M. M. Sundresh was hearing the SLP against a March decision of the Bombay High Court at Goa dismissing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award made under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (said Act).
14. Advocate's Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Establishment Of Bar Council In Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh
A practising advocate from Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has approached Supreme Court seeking establishment of the Bar Council in Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. It has been argued in the petition that the entire Legal Fraternity in Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has no Government established body where they can get themselves enrolled and take benefits of the Bar Council as compared to the other states of India.
BJP leader Jagjit Singh has approached Supreme Court seeking CBI Probe in the murder of Punjabi Singer Sidhu Moosewala. Investigation has been sought in the FIR 103/2022 which was registered on May 29, 2022 at PS City 1 Mansa, District Mansa u/s 302, 307, 341, 148, 149, 427 & 120-B of Indian Penal Code 1860 and u/s 25 & 27 of Arms Act 1959. Singh has argued in the petition that the brutal killing of Sidhu Moosewala near his house in his village has completely shaken public confidence in the govt led by the State of Punjab.
The Supreme Court recently allowed the prayer of a death row convict to have an interview with a mitigating investigator associated with Project 39A of National Law University Delhi to submit a report regarding mitigating circumstances.
The Court opined that it would be essential to have the particulars regarding the character and behaviour of accused, on record, in death penalty matters for a complete assessment. The Apex Court thought it would be beneficial if the assessment of the conduct of the accused can be done before the final submissions are advanced before it.
A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking directions to identify minorities at district level for the purposes of granting benefits under Article 29 and 30 of the Constitution. The petition seeks to declare the 1993 notification of the Central Government declaring Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsi and Jain as minority at national level, is arbitrary, irrational and contrary to Articles 14, 15, 21, 29 and 30 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court recently agreed to consider whether the High Court under Article 226 can extend the time period mentioned in the One Time Settlement ("OTS") even when under the OTS a specific time limit was fixed and concession was granted.
The bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna agreed to examine the question while considering a Special Leave Petition assailing Punjab and Haryana High Court's order dated March 10, 2022.
The Supreme Court recently directed the State of Odisha to reconsider its decision of paying only Rs 9,000 per month to the Home Guards working under State's Home Department for more than 15 years.