JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Right Of Preemption A Maligned, Feudal, Archaic And Outmoded Law, Reiterates Supreme CourtCase name: Punyadeo Sharma vs Kamla DeviCitation: 2022 LIVELAW (SC) 23The Supreme Court observed that the right of pre-emption is a maligned law and are characterised as 'feudal, archaic and outmoded'.In this case, the appellants are purchasers of the land in question vide sale...
JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK
1. Right Of Preemption A Maligned, Feudal, Archaic And Outmoded Law, Reiterates Supreme Court
Case name: Punyadeo Sharma vs Kamla Devi
Citation: 2022 LIVELAW (SC) 23
The Supreme Court observed that the right of pre-emption is a maligned law and are characterised as 'feudal, archaic and outmoded'.
In this case, the appellants are purchasers of the land in question vide sale deed dated 9.2.1990. The sale deed was presented for registration but the registration was completed on 7.1.1992. The proceedings for pre-emption of the land were initiated in terms of Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1 19611 on 31.3.1992.
The bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat held that "any other Court" is wide enough to include the Constitutional Courts i.e. the High Court and the Supreme Court.
2. NCLT Must Pass Reasonable Order For Fees & Expenses Of Resolution Professional : Supreme Court
Case Title: Devarajan Raman v Bank of India Limited
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 24
The Supreme Court has held that the NCLT/NCLAT must make a reasonable assessment of the fees and expenses payable to the Interim Resolution Profession and cannot pass an order in an ad-hoc manner.
The Court held that an order assigning reasons must be passed in respect of fees of resolution professional; otherwise, it will amount to abdication.
A judgement delivered by a Bench of Justices D.Y.Chandrachud and A.S.Bopanna, while considering a dispute relating to the payment of costs and expense incurred by a Resolution Professional, set aside impugned order and judgement of NCLAT and NCLT that awarded an ad-hoc amount to the Interim Resolution Professional without any consideration of the actual amount due as per technical and financial bid.
3. Preventive Detention Order Liable To Be Quashed If Detenu's Representation Is Considered After Long Delay :Supreme Court
Case Title: S. Amutha v. The Government Of Tamil Nadu & Ors
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 25
The Supreme Court recently quashed a detention order after noting that the authority considered the representation of the detenu after a long delay.
The Court observed that in the matter of considering representation made against detention order, the Competent Authority is duty-bound to do so with "utmost despatch".
The bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar was considering a special leave petition assailing order dated November 18, 2021 passed by the Madras High Court, Bench at Madurai ("impugned order").
4. Suo Motu Orders Extending Limitation Apply Also To Delay Which Could Have Been Condoned : Supreme Court
Case Title: Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. v. Stanford Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. SLP(C) No. 17298 of 2021
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 26
The Supreme Court has observed that the period of limitation which could have been condoned by a Court or a Tribunal is also excluded from the limitation period up to 07.10.2021 in view of the orders passed suo motu by the Top Court to extend limitation period in the wake of COVID-19.
"Even as held by this Court in the subsequent orders even the period of limitation which could have been extended and/or condoned by the Tribunal/Court is excluded and/or extended even up to 07.10.2021", observed the Supreme Court.
Holding so, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of Madras High Court, which relied on its direction dated 08.03.2020 in Suo Moto Writ (Civil) No 3 of 2020 titled In Re Cognizancefor Extension of Limitation to condone the delay in filing written statements in a commercial suit.
5. Class 12 Exam: Supreme Court Quashes CBSE Policy To Treat Improvement Exams Marks As Final; Directs To Give "Better Of Two" Option To Students
Case Title: Sukriti & Ors v CBSE & Ors | WP(c) 1214/2021
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 27
The Supreme Court has struck down Clause 28 of CBSE Policy which held that marks in the later (improvement) exams will be considered final for the assessment of Class 12 exams for the last academic year. The Bench further directed that the CBSE shall provide the option to the candidate to accept the better of the two marks obtained for the final declaration of the results.
The Supreme Court in December had asked the Central Board of Secondary Education(CBSE) to reconsider its policy of treating the marks in the improvement exams of Class 12 as final over the marks tabulated as per the Standard Formula.
6. Employees Of Autonomous Bodies Can't Claim Same Service Benefits As Government Employees : Supreme Court
Case name: State of Maharashtra vs Bhagwan
Citation: 2022 LIVELAW (SC) 28
The Supreme Court observed that the employees of the autonomous bodies cannot claim, as a matter of right, the same service benefits on par with the Government employees.
The State Government and the Autonomous Board/Body cannot be put on par and the the employees of the latter are governed by their own Service Rules and service conditions, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
The court also observed that interference by the Judiciary in a policy decision having financial implications and/or having a cascading effect is not at all warranted and justified.
7. 'State & Director Of Prosecution Failed In Duties' : Supreme Court Pulls Up Gujarat Govt For Not Appealing Against Bail Order In Murder Case
Case Title: Jayaben V. Tejas Kanubhai Zala & Anr.| Criminal Appeal No.1655 Of 2021 & Jayaben V. Jaysukhbhai Devrajbhai Radadiya & Anr.| Criminal Appeal No.1656 Of 2021
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 29
The State of Gujarat and its Director of Prosecution came under the criticism of the Supreme Court for not filing appeal against a High Court order granting bail to the accused in a case where a Dalit man was brutally murdered while he was collecting scrap outside a factory.
A bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna noted that the High Court's bail order was "most perfunctory and casual", but the State did not appeal against it.
Aggrieved with the High Court order, the complainant(the widow of the victim) filed appeal before the Supreme Court.
While allowing the appeal and setting aside the High Court's judgement in Jayaben V. Tejas Kanubhai Zala & Anr, the bench said,
"By not filing the appeals by the State against the impugned judgments and orders releasing the accused on bail in such a serious matter, the State has failed to protect the rights of the victim. We are of the opinion that this was the fit case where the State ought to have preferred the appeals challenging the orders passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail. In criminal matters the party who is treated as the aggrieved party is the State which is the custodian of the social interest 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 interest of the community to book."
8. Application Seeking Exemption From Surrendering Is Not Required To Be Filed Along With SLPs Against Cancellation Of Bail: Supreme Court
Case name: Mahavir Arya Vs State Govt. NCT Of Delhi
Citation: 2022 LIVELAW (SC) 30
The Supreme Court observed that an application seeking exemption from surrendering is not required to be filed along with a special leave petitions against cancellation of bail orders.
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, while considering one such case, noted that large number of such applications for exemptions are routinely filed when there is no need to adopt such a procedure at all.
"The officers of the Registry must know the Supreme Court Rules like the back of ones hand. Order XXII Rule 5, applies only to cases where the petitioner is 'sentenced to a term of imprisonment' and it cannot be confused with simple orders of cancellation of bail.", the judge said.
9. Supreme Court Restores Limitation Extension; Period From 15.03.2020 Till 28.02.2022 Excluded From Limitation
Case Details: In Re Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 31
Taking note of the surge in COVID-19 cases across the country, the Supreme Court has ordered the extension of limitation period for filing of cases and applications in courts and tribunals.
"The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings", the Court ordered.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice Surya Kant passed the order on an application filed by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) in the suo motu case In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation.
10. Charitable Education Institutions Not Exempted From Payment Of Electricity Duty Under Maharashtra Electricity Duty Act 2016: Supreme Court
Case Name: State of Maharashtra v. Shri Vile Parle Kelvani Mandal And Ors.
Citation: 2022 LIVELAW (SC) 32
The Supreme Court has held that Charitable Education Institutions are not entitled to the exemption from payment of electricity duty post 08.08.2016 as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Electricity Duty Act, 2016.
A bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna allowed the appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra assailing the order of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, which had granted the educational institutions run by a public trust the right to exemption from paying electricity duty under the Maharashtra Electricity Duty Act, 2016.
11. Circumstances Under Which An Appeal Would Be Entertained Against An Order Of Acquittal: Supreme Court Explains
Case name: Rajesh Prasad vs State of Bihar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 33
In a judgment delivered last week, the Supreme Court summarized the circumstances under which an appeal would be entertained by it from an order of acquittal.
The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna also summarized circumstances under which the Supreme Court may entertain an appeal against an order of acquittal and pass an order of conviction
The Court said that it is only in rarest of rare cases, where the High Court, on an absolutely wrong process of reasoning and a legally erroneous and perverse approach to the facts of the case, ignoring some of the most vital facts, has acquitted the accused, that the same may be reversed by this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution
12. Sec 498A IPC Conviction Should Not Be Maintained When There Is A Genuine Settlement Of Matrimonial Disputes : Supreme Court
Case name: Rajendra Bhagat vs State of Jharkhand
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 34
Emphasizing the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes, the Supreme Court set aside conviction of a man under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC').
The Apex Court bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath opined that maintaining of conviction of the appellant of the offence under Section 498-A IPC would not be securing the ends of justice. With such conviction being maintained and the appellant losing his job, the family would again land itself in financial distress which may ultimately operate adverse to the harmony and happy conjugal life of the parties, the bench said.
13. Magistrate Must Be Conscious Of Consequences While Passing Order U/Sec 156(3) CrPC; Must Examine Relevant Materials: Supreme Court
Case name: Suresh Kankra vs State Of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 35
The Supreme Court observed that a Judicial Magistrate is required to be conscious of the consequences while passing an Order under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
It being a judicial order, relevant materials are expected to be taken note of, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh said while quashing an FIR registered pursuant to an order passed by a Magistrate.
In this case, an FIR alleging an offence of rape was lodged against the petitioner. Before the High Court, he contended that the entire complaint is fostered against the petitioner who is a retired person by his estranged sister-in-law out of the family dispute. That he is not even the resident of that area and a similar complaint was given by her against his son which was closed on investigation as false and motivated. That he was actually attending the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat at the time of the alleged incident and a number of litigations going on between the parties. The High Court refused to quash the FIR holding that facts being in the realm of dispute, discretion under Section 482 CrPC cannot be exercised.
14. Builder's Failure To Obtain Occupation Certificate Is A 'Deficiency In Service' Under Consumer Protection Act: Supreme Court
Case name: Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 36
The Supreme Court observed that the failure of a builder to obtain occupation certificate is a deficiency in service under Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The flat purchasers are well within their rights as 'consumers' to pray for compensation as a recompense for the consequent liability such as payment of higher taxes and water charges by the owners arising from the lack of an occupancy certificate, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna observed.
15. Section 304B IPC- Demand Of Money For Construction Of A House Is A 'Dowry Demand': Supreme Court
Case name: State of Madhya Pradesh vs Jogendra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 37
The Supreme Court observed that demand of money for construction of a house is a 'dowry demand' to attract offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.
The word "Dowry" ought to be ascribed an expansive meaning so as to encompass any demand made on a woman, whether in respect of a property or a valuable security of any nature, the bench of CJI NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli said.
16. High Court Cannot Enter Into Merits Of The Claim In An Appeal Under Section 37 Arbitration Act: Supreme Court
Case name: Haryana Tourism Limited vs M/s Kandhari Beverages Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 38
The Supreme Court observed that a High Court cannot enter into the merits of the claim in an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
In this case, the arbitrator directed a party to pay a sum of Rs. 9.5 lakhs.The other party filed objection petition before Additional District Judge, Chandigarh under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act against the award passed by the arbitrator. The said petition was dismissed. Thereafter, a further appeal before the High Court under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act was filed. The said appeal was allowed by the High Court which considered the merits of the claim and has quashed and set aside the award passed by the arbitrator as well as the order passed by Additional District Judge, Chandigarh.
17. Article 227 - Supervisory Jurisdiction Is Not To Correct Every Error When Final Finding Is Justified : Supreme Court
Case name: Garment Craft vs Prakash Chand Goel
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 39
Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not to correct a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment delivered on Tuesday (11 Jan 2022).
The bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi observed that the power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to.
18. 'Cruelty Committed By A Woman Against Another Woman More Serious' : Supreme Court Upholds 80 Yr Old Mother-in-Law's Conviction Under Section 498A IPC
Case Title: Meera v. State By the Inspector of Police Thiruvotriyur Police Station Chennai| Criminal Appeal No. 31 Of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 40
Observing that when cruelty is committed by one woman against another woman the offence becomes more serious, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a mother-in-law for the offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
The mother-in-law was found guilty of having committed cruelty against the daughter-in-law when her husband was abroad.
"Being a lady, the appellant, who was the mother-in-law, ought to have been more sensitive vis-à-vis her daughter-in-law. When an offence has been committed by a woman by meting out cruelty to another woman, i.e., the daughter-in-law, it becomes a more serious offence. If a lady, i.e., the mother-in-law herein does not protect another lady, the other lady, i.e., daughter-in-law would become vulnerable", observed a bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna.
19. Foreign Court's Sentence On Repatriated Indian Convict Not To Be Reduced Just Because It Is Higher Than Similar Sentence In India : Supreme Court
Case Name: Union of India And Anr. v. Shaikh Istiyaq Ahmed And Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 41
The Supreme Court has delivered a notable judgment laying down the principles for repatriation of prisoners as per the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003.
The Court discussed the issue whether the sentence imposed by a foreign court on an Indian convict, who has been repatriated to India, can be higher than the sentence for a similar offence in India. The Court held that the duration of the sentence will be governed by the agreement of transfer between the foreign country and India. The Indian Government can modify the sentence of the foreign court only if such sentence is "incompatible with Indian law". However, the Court added that merely because the foreign court's sentence is higher than that under the Indian law, it does not become "incompatible with Indian law". "Incompatibility" herein would signify being contrary to the fundamental laws of India.
20. Rules Taking Away Vested Rights Of Employees Retrospectively Violate Articles 14 & 21 Of Constitution : Supreme Court In Bank Pensioners Case
Case Title: The Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. Versus The Registrar, Cooperative Societies And Others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 42
The Supreme Court has held that an amendment that has retrospective applicability and takes away the benefit which was already available to an employee under the existing set of rules would divest the employee of his vested/accrued rights and thus, will violate the rights guaranteed under A.14 and A.21 of the Constitution.
"...if the employee who had already been promoted or fixed in a particular pay scale, if that is being taken away by the impugned scheme of rules retrospectively, that certainly will take away the vested/accrued right of the incumbent which may not be permissible and may be violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution", the Court observed.
21. PM Security Lapse : Supreme Court Appoints Former SC Judge Justice Indu Malhotra As Enquiry Committee Head
Case Title: Lawyers Voice Vs State of Punjab
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 43
The Supreme Court has appointed former Supreme Court judge Justice Indu Malhotra to head the Committee to enquire into the security lapse which happened during the visit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Punjab on January 5.
The Court opined that the "questions cannot be left to one-sided enquiry" and a judicially trained mind needs to oversee the probe. The Director-General of the National Investigation Agency or his nominee not below the rank of IG, Director General of Police of Union Territory of Chandigarh, ADGP (Security) of Punjab and the Registrar General of the Punjab and Haryana High Court (who has seized the records relating to PM's visit) are the other members of the Committee.
22. Sub-Lessee Can't Acquire Status Of Tenure Holder Under UP Land Ceiling Act If Sub-Lease Was Contrary To Conditions: Supreme Court
Case Name: Hardev Singh v. Prescribed Authority, Kashipur And Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 44
The Supreme Court held that if subletting is in derogation of the terms of the Lease Deed, then the sub-lessee continues to be the ostensible tenure holder of land and the lessee the real holder for the purposes of Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.
A Bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari dismissed the appeals filed challenging the order of the Uttarakhand High Court, which refused to extend the benefits of independent tenure holder to sub-lessees as the subletting itself was in violation of the pre-conditions stipulated in the Government Lease Deed.
23. Writ Petition By Borrowers Challenging SARFAESI Proceedings Initiated By Private Banks/ARCs Not Maintainable: Supreme Court
Case name: Phoenix ARC Private Limited vs Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 45
The Supreme Court observed that a writ petition challenging proceedings under SARFAESI Act initiated by private banks/Asset Reconstruction Companies is not maintainable.
"If proceedings are initiated under the SARFAESI Act and/or any proposed action is to be taken and the borrower is aggrieved by any of the actions of the private bank/bank/ARC, borrower has to avail the remedy under the SARFAESI Act and no writ petition would lie and/or is maintainable and/or entertainable.", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna said.
The court said that the activity of the bank/ARC (of lending the money to the borrowers) cannot be said to be as performing a public function which is normally expected to be performed by the State authorities.
24. Supreme Court Upholds Manipur University's Decision To Reduce SC Quota To 2%, OBC Quota To 17% & Increase ST Quota To 31%
Case Title: Shri Kshetrimayum Maheshkumar Singh vs The Manipur University & Ors
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 46
The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal against Manipur High Court's order upholding the decision of Manipur University to reduce reservation in admission for Scheduled Caste candidates from 15% to 2%, OBC quota from 27% to 17% and increase for Scheduled Tribes candidates from 7.5% to 31%, in terms of amendment to the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act 2006.
A Bench comprising Justice Nageswara Rao and Justice Hima Kohli has issued the direction in an appeal challenging Manipur High Court's order which upheld the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, in 2012 under which the Manipur University was required to follow the reservation norms of 2% for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste [SC], 31% for the Scheduled Tribes [ST] and 17% for the Other Backward Classes [OBC] for purposes of admission in the University.
25. Once Land Acquisition Proceedings Lapse Under Section 24(2) RFCTLARR Act, Owner Cannot Seek Release Of Land Under Section 48 Of 1894 Act : Supreme Court
Case Title: Government Of NCT Of Delhi Through Its Secretary & Ors. V. Om Prakash & Ors.|Civil Appeal No. 199 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 47
The Supreme Court has observed that once the High Court has passed an order of lapsing acquisition proceedings by virtue of Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("Act"), landowners cannot revert back on the plea that they are entitled to seek release of land in terms of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian was considering a Special Leave Petition assailing Delhi High Court's order dated September 23, 2014 ("impugned judgement").
In the impugned judgement, the High Court had allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents holding that acquisition proceedings stand lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Act.
26. Rights Of Parents Irrelevant When Court Decides Custody Of Their Child: Supreme Court
Case name: Vasudha Sethi vs Kiran V. Bhaskar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 48
The Supreme Court has observed that the rights of the parents are irrelevant when a Court decides the issue of custody of their minor child.
The issue of custody of a minor, whether in a petition seeking habeas corpus or in a custody petition, has to be decided on the touchstone of the principle that the welfare of a minor is of paramount consideration, the bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka observed.
In this case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court issued several directions while allowing a petition for habeas corpus filed by the husband seeking custody of the minor child. The mother was directed to return to USA along with minor child on or before 30.09.2021. Challenging this order, the mother approached the Apex Court.
27. CSIR Premises Are 'Public Premises' Under Public Premises (Eviction Of Unauthorised Occupants) Act : Supreme Court
Case Name: Sharada Dayadhish Shetty v. The Director, CSIR-NCL And Anr.
Citation: 2022 LIVELAW (SC) 49
The Supreme has Court held any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research ("CSIR") is public premises under Section 2(e)(2)(ii) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
"A perusal of the written statement filed by the respondent before the District Judge shows that it was averred that National Chemical Laboratory (NCL) is a constituent laboratory of CSIR. It is an autonomous body under the auspices of Department of Science and Industrial Research, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India. Hon'ble the Prime Minister of India is the ex- officio President and the Minister-in-charge of the Ministry or Department dealing with CSIR is the ex-officio Vice President of CSIR", the Court noted.
A bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian refused to entertain an appeal challenging the order passed by the Bombay High Court, which chose not to interfere with an eviction order passed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 for a premises belonging to CSIR.
28. Supreme Court Directs UGC To Finalise Guidelines For Inspection of Educational Institutions To Ensure Implementation of RPWD Act
Case Title: Disabled Rights Group v Union of India
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw(SC) 50
A Bench of Justices D.Y.Chandrachud and A.S.Bopanna has directed the University Grants Commission to finalize guidelines for the inspection of educational institutions and commence inspection work proactively.
The Bench was hearing a Miscellaneous Application arising out of the Apex Court's judgement dated 15.12.2017 - in Disabled Rights Group & Another v Union of India- wherein the Court had accepted the suggestions by the petitioner that educations institutions must ensure proper infrastructure in including special classrooms, sports facilities, libraries, laboratories, teaching methods, recreational facilities etc.
29. Article 226 - High Court Should Apply Its Mind To Grounds Of Challenge While Disposing Writ Petition : Supreme Court
Case Title: State of Orissa & Ors v. Prasanta Kumar Swain| Civil Appeal No 154 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 51
While considering a SLP assailing Orissa High Court's order, the Supreme Court recently deprecated the High Court's action of disposing a writ petition without applying its mind to the grounds or challenge of submission.
While setting aside the High Court's judgement and remitting the proceedings back for a fresh decision, the bench in State of Orissa & Ors v. Prasanta Kumar Swain, the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna observed,
"Ex facie, there has been no application of mind by the High Court to the grounds of challenge or to the submissions. In fact, the concluding line of the order of the High Court indicates that the decision will not be treated as a precedent. This was an inappropriate manner of disposing of a substantive petition under Article 226 of the Constitution since the High Court is duty bound to apply its mind to whether the judgment of the Tribunal is sustainable on facts and law."
30. Taking Custody Of Jewellery For Safety Cannot Constitute Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC: Supreme Court
Case name: Deepak Sharma vs State of Haryana
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 52
Taking custody of jewellery for safety cannot constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the Supreme Court observed.
In this case, an FIR was filed by the complainant against her husband and in-laws under Sections 323, 34, 406, 420, 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Complainant's brother in law (who was employed in Texas in the United States of America) was arrayed as one of the accused. The Apex Court was considering an appeal against the order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which dismissed an application filed by him for permission to travel back to the United States of America.
31. Stale Claim Cannot Be Revived By A Representation : Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Direction To Reinstate Employee
Case Title: Nagar Panchayat, Kymore v. Hanuman Prasad Dwivedi| Civil Appeal Nos 289-290 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 53
Holding that a stale claim cannot be revived by a representation, the Supreme Court has set aside a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which directed the reinstatement of an employee with back-wages.
The Court noted that in an earlier proceeding, the High Court had upheld the termination of the services of the employee for misconduct. Fifteen years later, the employee filed a representation seeking reinstatement, and the High Court directed the consideration of the same, leading to a second round of litigation which resulted in the impuged judgment delivered on September 1, 2020.
32. 'Reference To Wrong Provision, As Long As Power Exists Would Not Matter': Supreme Court On Maintainability Of Appeal Under Section 34 Instead Of Section 37 Arbitration Act
Case Name: M/s. Premier Sea Foods Exim Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Caravel Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 54
The Supreme Court has held that a reference to Section 37 instead of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would not matter as long as the jurisdictional court has the power to adjudicate the appeal.
"Even if the appeal under Section 37 would not be maintainable, objection/appeal under Section 34 would be maintainable. Reference to wrong provision, as long as power exists would not matter", the Court observed.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi allowed an appeal filed challenging the order of the Madras High Court, wherein the arbitrator's order rejecting the application of the appellant to revive its counterclaim was affirmed.
33. Cryptic & Casual Bail Orders Without Relevant Reasons Liable To Be Set Aside : Supreme Court
Case Name: Manoj Kumar Khokhar v. State of Rajasthan And Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 55
The Supreme Court held that bail cannot be granted by a cryptic and causal order without considering the material aspects of the case. The Apex Court further clarified that even if no new circumstances have developed after the grant of bail, the State is entitled to seek cancellation of bail, if it had been granted ignoring material aspects which establish a prima facie case against the accused.
A Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna allowed the appeal filed challenging the order of the Rajasthan High Court granting bail to the accused without assigning reasons for the same.
34. Employees Compensation Act - Insurer Can't Deny Coverage Saying Deceased Was 'Helper' & Not 'Cleaner' Of Vehicle : Supreme Court
Case: M/S Mangilal Vishnoi vs National Insurance Company Ltd, CA 291/2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 56
The Supreme Court has held that denying the insurance coverage under the Employees Compensation Act 1923 for the reason that deceased was engaged as a "helper" and not a "cleaner" is wholly unjustified, considering the absence of any clear demarcation of duties and the fact that the terms "Helper" and "Cleaner" are interchangeably used.
A Bench comprising Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V Ramasubramanian observed that the High Court has accepted the Insurance Company's appeal on a "make-believe argument that Cleaner or Helper engaged by the employer are engaged in two different duties and that a Helper is not covered by the insurance policy".
IMPORTANT APEX COURT UPDATES
1. 'Future Retail Will Sink With 30,000 Employees If Reliance Deal Doesn't Get Through' : Future Group Lawyers To Supreme Court In Case Against Amazon
In the Amazon-Future case, the Future Group this week submitted before the Supreme Court that being in a financially precarious situation, Future Retail Ltd will "sink with 30,000 employees losing their jobs" if the Rs 26,000 crores deal with the Reliance doesn't go through.
Both FRL and Future Coupons Pvt Ltd argued that FRL should be allowed to go forward with the interlocutory proceedings of the scheme with Reliance to ensure that they would be able to finalise the deal once the dispute with Amazon is concluded.
Senior Advocate Harish Salve appearing for Future Retail submitted: "We first sank because of lockdown when people wouldn't go to shops. We are in this financially precarious situation. Fortunately, banks are willing to wait and say that if the transaction goes through the Reliance deal, we will pay off the banks. The Reliance deal is close to 26,000 crores, and Amazon's stake is 14000 crores. Around 30,000 Jobs will be saved. If you put this all together, let us get to that final stage. Amazon's interests aren't hurt."
Also Read: Amazon Ready To Help Future Retail In Financial Problems : Gopal Subramanium Tells Supreme Court
2. PM Security Lapse : Supreme Court Appoints Former SC Judge Justice Indu Malhotra As Enquiry Committee Head
The Supreme Court has appointed former Supreme Court judge Justice Indu Malhotra to head the Committee to enquire into the security lapse which happened during the visit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Punjab on January 5.
The Court opined that the "questions cannot be left to one-sided enquiry" and a judicially trained mind needs to oversee the probe. The Director-General of the National Investigation Agency or his nominee not below the rank of IG, Director General of Police of Union Territory of Chandigarh, ADGP (Security) of Punjab and the Registrar General of the Punjab and Haryana High Court (who has seized the records relating to PM's visit) are the other members of the Committee.
Also Read: 'Blame Game Between Centre & Punjab, Questions Can't Be Left To One-Sided Enquiries': Supreme Court On PM Security Lapse
3. Supreme Court Stays HC Directions Against OLX India In A Case Of Seller Duping Through Impersonation
The Supreme Court has stayed the directions issued by Punjab and Haryana High Court to OLX India to adopt a screening mechanism with respect to the sellers who could post an advertisement on its Platform.
The bench of Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi was considering a SLP assailing Punjab and Haryana High Court's order dated December 12, 2021.
"Pending further consideration, the effect and operation of the order under challenge to the extent it issued certain directions against and in relation to the petitioner shall remain stayed," the bench ordered while issuing notice.