Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 914-933]Tottempudi Salalith v State Bank Of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 914M/S Unibros v. All India Radio, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 918Debasish Paul v. Amal Boral, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 919Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Waqf v. M/S Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 920Manmohan Gopal v. State Of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 921Ambalal Parihar v. State...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 914-933]
Tottempudi Salalith v State Bank Of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 914
M/S Unibros v. All India Radio, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 918
Debasish Paul v. Amal Boral, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 919
Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Waqf v. M/S Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 920
Manmohan Gopal v. State Of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 921
Ambalal Parihar v. State of Rajasthan and ors, Criminal Appeal No.3233 of 2023, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 922
Munilakshmi v. Narendra Babu 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 924
Assets Care and Reconstruction Enterprises Limited V. The State Of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 925
Mrs. Kalyani Rajan v. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 926
The State of Telangana & Ors. V. M/S Tirumala Constructions 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 927
Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd. v Hdfc Bank Ltd, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 929
Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner v. Gordhan Dass Thr. LRs 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 930
M.A Biviji v. Sunita & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 931
Indrakunwar v.State of Chattisgarh2023 LiveLaw (SC) 932
Sabbir(Dead) The. LRs v. Anjuman 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 933
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: Tottempudi Salalith v State Bank Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 914
The Supreme Court has held that in a composite application filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) based on several Recovery Certificates issued by Debt Recovery Tribunal, if any of the Recovery Certificate(s) is barred by limitation, then the same can be segregated from composite claim. However, as the decree (Recovery Certificate) would still be alive, it can be treated as a claim made in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in view of Public Announcement.
Case Title: M/S UNIBROS v. ALL INDIA RADIO
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 918
Recently, the Supreme Court, while rendering an arbitral award as patently illegal and being in conflict with the “public policy of India”, held that a claim for damages cannot as a matter of course result in an arbitral award without proof of the claimant having suffered injury. The present decision emphasised the importance of substantial evidence in awarding claims for loss of profit.
“A claim for damages, whether general or special, cannot as a matter of course result in an award without proof of the claimant having suffered injury. The arbitral award in question, in our opinion, is patently illegal in that it is based on no evidence and is, thus, outrightly perverse; therefore, again, it is in conflict with the “public policy of India” as contemplated by section 34(2)(b) of the Act.,” Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta.
Case Title: Debasish Paul v. Amal Boral, Civil Appeal No.6565 Of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 919
In the context of tenancy laws, the Supreme Court on Wednesday held that Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 ( Extension of prescribed period in certain cases) cannot be used to extend the time limit prescribed, when a lesser time period has been specifically provided under the relevant act for a particular purpose.
Case Title: MUMTAZ YARUD DOWLA WAKF V. M/S BADAM BALAKRISHNA HOTEL PVT. LTD. & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 920
After a prolonged litigation, the Supreme Court, in a noteworthy judgment, finally granted relief to the owner of a suit property (Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf) in favour of whom the decree was already granted back in 2002.
In a judgment authored by Justice M. M. Sundresh, it called out the dilatory tactics adopted by respondents while setting aside the impugned order and restoring the order passed by the executing court in favour of appellant/ suit property owner.
Case Details: Manmohan Gopal V. State Of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 921
The Supreme Court recently directed sale of ancestral property of a man to pay arrears of maintenance of Rs. 1.25 Crores to his wife under its inherent powers under Article 142.
A bench of Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar relied on decisions of the Apex Court in Subrata Roy Sahara V Union Of India [2014] 12 SCR 573 and Delhi Development Authority V. Skipper Construction 1996 (2) Suppl. SCR 295 to observe that the Supreme Court is not powerless, but can issue appropriate directions, and even decrees, for doing complete justice between the parties.
Judges Taking Up Cases Not Assigned By Chief Justice Is An Act Of 'Gross Impropriety': Supreme Court
Case Title: Ambalal Parihar vs State of Rajasthan and ors, Criminal Appeal No.3233 of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 922
The Supreme Court recently said that the judges should refrain from taking up cases not specifically assigned to them by the Chief Justice of the Court. If not, the roster notified by the Chief Justice will have no meaning, the Court said.
The Apex Court said that taking up cases not assigned by the Chief Justice is an act of 'gross impropriety'.
“If the Courts allow such sharp practices, the roster notified by the Chief Justice will have no meaning. The Judges have to follow discipline and ought not to take up any case unless it is specifically assigned by the Chief Justice. A Judge can take up a case provided either the cases of that category have been assigned to him as per the notified roster or the particular case is specifically assigned by the Chief Justice. Taking up a case not specifically assigned by the Chief Justice is an act of gross impropriety” a bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal said.
Case title: Munilakshmi v. Narendra Babu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 924
The Supreme Court has cancelled the bail granted to a man accused of conspiring to murder his wife after she refused consent for mutual divorce, upon noticing the "sudden somersault" taken by vital witnesses like the deceased's family members and the accused's history of using influence of police and goons.
The Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and Section 311 of CrPC to order a fresh examination of witnesses.
Case Title: Assets Care and Reconstruction Enterprises Limited V. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 925
The Supreme Court has expressed surprise at an order of the Bombay High Court that first admitted a writ petition but then refused to consider prayer for interim relief on the ground that an alternate remedy was available to the party.
The Apex Court remitted the matter back to the High Court directing it to consider whether the interim relief needs to be granted or not
Case Title: Mrs. Kalyani Rajan v. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 10347 Of 2010
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 926
The Supreme Court while deciding a case of medical negligence held that principles of Res Ipsa Locutor get attracted where circumstances strongly suggest partaking in negligent behaviour by the person against whom an accusation of negligence is made. Res ipsa loquitur means “the thing speaks for itself”.
State Amendments Made To VAT Acts After GST Came Into Effect Are Invalid: Supreme Court
Case Title: The State of Telangana & Ors. V. M/S Tirumala Constructions., Civil Appeal No(S). 1628 Of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 927
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, while deciding the appeals arising from judgments of Telangana, Gujarat, and Bombay High Court with respect to the validity of VAT Amendment Act in their respective states, made several significant findings regarding Section 19 of the Constitution (101st Amendment) Act (Amendment), 2016, which allowed the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax.
The Court held: “The amendments in question, made to the Telangana VAT Act, and the Gujarat VAT Act, after 01.07.2017 were correctly held void, for want of legislative competence, by the two High Courts (Telangana and Gujarat High Court). The judgment of the Bombay High Court is, for the above reasons, held to be in error; it is set aside; the amendment to the Maharashtra Act, to the extent it required pre-deposit is held void.”
Case Title: Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd. v Hdfc Bank Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 929
Rents receivable by a borrower can be assigned to a lender as an "actionable claim" as per the Transfer of Property Act,1882(TPA), held the Supreme Court while deciding a dispute between the Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd and the HDFC Bank Ltd.
The bench comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta observed that under Section 3 of TPA, actionable claim means (a) claim to an unsecured debt, other than a debt secured by mortgage of immovable property, hypothecation or pledge; and (b) beneficial interest in a movable property. Both these are recognised as enforceable. Section 130 of TPA provides the manner in which Actionable claims can be transferred.
Case Title: URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BIKANER V. GORDHAN DASS (D) THROUGH LRs.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 930
The Supreme Court recently delivered a split verdict on whether notice must be given to possessors in a land acquisition proceeding by the acquiring authority under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, when their names were not reflected in the revenue records, despite having the land.
Justice Misra was of the view that if the name of the owner is not reflected on the land records, the state is not expected to make a roving inquiry into the same. In such a case, serving notice on the owners entered in the land records is sufficient compliance of the statutory obligation, he held.
However, Justice Roy held that even though land acquisition by acquiring authority is permitted for public purposes, not adhering to the procedure prescribed, could prejudice the landowners and other interested persons.
Case Title: M.A Biviji v. Sunita & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 931
The Supreme Court, while hearing a set of appeals pertaining to the medical negligence matter, observed that to hold a medical practitioner liable for negligence, a higher threshold limit must be met. This is to ensure that these doctors are focused on deciding the best course of treatment as per their assessment rather than being concerned about possible persecution or harassment that they may be subjected to in high-risk medical situations.
Case Details: Indrakunwar v.State of Chattisgarh
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 932
While deciding a criminal appeal, the Supreme Court recently considered a significant question of law- whether an accused woman is required to disclose aspects relating to her private life in a criminal trial.
The Court was deciding an appeal filed by a woman who was accused of killing her own child and was convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.
In the context of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court said: "Although there is a requirement by law to disclose the aspects required to adjudicate in a criminal matter such duty cannot unreasonably and unwarrantedly step over the fundamental right of privacy.
Case Title: SABBIR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS V. ANJUMAN (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 933
The Supreme Court, while dismissing a suit, arising from an Agreement to Sell (ATS), noted that while the ATS was dated 31.07.1975, the suit was filed by the respondent named Anjuman (now represented through legal heirs) on 01.01.1981. Further, the limitation for filing a suit for specific performance, as per Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 is 3 years ‘from the date fixed for performance or if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that the performance is refused.’
News Updates
Case title: Ambalal Parihar v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: Criminal Appeal No.3233 OF 2023
The Supreme Court recently exposed a shocking case of abuse of legal procedures before the Rajasthan High Court where after denial of interim relief under Section 482 CrPC for quashing FIR, the accused (respondents herein) filed a civil writ petition for consolidation of all FIRs and also managed to get protection from any coercive action.
This move was allegedly aimed at circumventing the roster Judge who had denied them relief under criminal jurisdiction. The Court opined that this abuse of the legal process not only undermines the roster system but also disrespects the importance of following established judicial procedures
Case title: Voluntary Arunachal Sena v State of Arunachal Pradesh
Citation: SLP(C) No. 034696 / 2010
The Supreme Court while resuming its hearing in a SLP raising allegations regarding awarding of government tenders by the state government of Arunachal Pradesh, a decade ago, directed the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) to inform the Bench on the following points:
“Whether very close relative(s) to the Executive Head of the State can be awarded Government contracts;
In the event this question is answered in the affirmative, what would be the norms for awarding contract to such persons?
Case title: Government of India, Ministry of Finance v. HDFC Bank Ltd.
Citation: SLP (Criminal) Diary No(s). 37743/2023
The Supreme Court recently issued a notice in a case that raises the issue of whether a property acquired before the alleged act of scheduled offenses under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act(PMLA), 2002 can be called “proceeds of crime” liable to be attached by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).
Another issue that arises in the case is whether the PMLA would override the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act and the Recovery of Debts due to the Banks Ac and Financial Institutions Act.
Speaking of his minority judgment in the recent verdict on the same-sex marriage, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said that it is sometimes a vote of conscience and a vote of the Constitution and that he stands by what he said.
"I do believe it's sometimes a vote of conscience and a vote of the Constitution and I stand by what I said" he said at a panel discussion on 'Perspectives from the Supreme Courts of India and the United States', hosted by Georgetown University in Washington, DC.
Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, who retired as a judge of the Supreme Court on October 20, has taken on a new role as a Distinguished Professor at Dr B.R. Ambedkar National Law University, Sonepat.
Supreme Court To Pronounce Judgment On Manish Sisodia'a Bail Applications On October 30
The Supreme Court will pronounce judgment on the bail applications filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in the Delhi liquor policy scam case on October 30.
Breaking Barriers: How Justice Ravindra Bhat Expanded Scope Of Disability Rights
Justice S Ravindra Bhat, who retired as a Supreme Court judge on October 20, has made immense contributions to the expansion of disability rights jurisprudence in our country. He has advanced a pragmatic and purposive interpretation of the statutory provisions to further inclusivity and accessibility for persons with disabilities in the public sphere.
Supreme Court Notifies 5-Judge Bench To Hear Electoral Bonds Case On October 31
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will start hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Electoral Bonds scheme on October 31.
The bench consists of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra. On October 16, a 3-judge bench comprising CJI, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra had referred the matter to a 5-judge bench "in view of the importance of issue raised".
Justice Ravindra Bhat's Scholarly Legacy: A Look At His Important Judgments
In the world of jurisprudence, there exist those who simply interpret the law, and then there are those exceptional few who redefine it. Justice Ravindra Bhat, who recently retired from the Supreme Court on October 20, 2023, undoubtedly belongs to the latter category.
It would be an injustice to confine Justice Bhat's illustrious career to this single, albeit contentious, ruling. His retirement marked the end of a distinguished judicial career that spanned various dimensions of law, human rights, and social justice. Throughout his distinguished career, his legacy has revolved around the advancement of inclusivity, a redefinition of disability rights, and an unyielding commitment to the cause of social justice.