JUDGMENTS THIS WEEKPunjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act- Any Dispute With Respect To Mutation Entry Can Only Be Before Revenue Authorities : Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh observed that any dispute with respect to mutation entry can only be before the revenue authorities only.This observation is in the context of Section 13 of...
JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh observed that any dispute with respect to mutation entry can only be before the revenue authorities only.
This observation is in the context of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.
In this case, the plaintiff challenged a mutation entry of 1955 by filing a suit before a civil court. The High Court allowed the second appeal holding that the suit before the Civil Court challenging the mutation entry was not maintainable at all and there was a bar of filing the civil suit.
When the witnesses are related/interested, their testimonies have to be scrutinized with greater care and circumspection, the Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Ajay Rastogi and BV Nagarathna observed while acquitting accused in a murder case.
Jabbar Ali and others were convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 IPC and the Gauhati High Court had dismissed their appeals.
Before the Apex Court, the appellants mainly contended that the prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses in the present case and that the witnesses were related to each other and that all the witnesses have given contradictory versions as to who gave the fatal blow to deceased.
The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered in an appeal against Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, explained the test for determining whether a case involves substantial question of law.
The bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari said that the appropriate test for determining whether the question of law raised in the case is substantial would be to see whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties.
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar has recently set aside a decision of the Jharkhand High Court to impose a precondition for anticipatory bail that the accused would have to deposit a Demand Draft of Rs. 10 lakhs as ad interim victim compensation in favour of his wife. This appeal arose out of a dowry harassment case in which the complainant had instituted a criminal complaint against her husband before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, which was later converted into a first information report, for offences under Section 498A and other ancillary provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Vikram Nath recently set aside a decision of a High Court allowing DNA testing to determine the paternity of two children to verify a claim made by their mother that she had been "forced to cohabit and develop a physical relationship" with her brother-in-law. This appeal had arisen out of a dowry harassment case in which the complainant had lodged a first information report against her husband and his brother under Sections 498A, 323, and 354 and other ancillary provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Division Bench, allowing the appeal preferred by the accused, held that the trial court had accepted the application of the complainant "mechanically". By this order, which eventually came under the scanner of the apex court, the trial court had directed the appellants and the children "to give blood samples to a specified hospital for obtaining an expert opinion on DNA fingerprint test".
The Supreme Court observed that the question whether the cheque in question had been issued for a time barred debt or not cannot be decided in a petition under Section 482 CrPC.
The bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and J B Pardiwala observed that this question is a matter of evidence.
In this case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Acts on the ground that on the date of summoning the accused the legally enforceable debt was time barred. The High Court observed that there is no averment in the entire complaint as regards any kind of acknowledgment of the said debt by the accused within the period of three years i.e. within the limitation period of recovering the debt.
The Supreme Court has held that the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor of a University will be illegal when the Search Committee recommended only one name instead of a panel of 3-5 names as mandated by the University Grants Commission Regulations 2013.
A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar, while setting aside the appointment of Rajasree M.S. as the Vice-Chancellor of A.P.J. Abdul Kalam University, held that the appointment of VC will be "void-abinitio" if it was not made as per the UGC Regulation
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and V. Ramasubramanian recently set aside the conviction of a Bengal sweetmeat shop-owner for allegedly selling adulterated paneer on the ground that there was no "whisper in the complaint or in the evidence" as to whether the departure from prescribed standards or composition could be attributed only to inescapable natural causes.
In other words, to drive home a conviction for adulteration under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the Public Analyst, whose opinion formed the basis of the prosecution, had to examine whether the proviso to the definition of 'adulteration' in Section 2(ia)(m) would be attracted. This proviso engrafted an exception for 'primary food' inasmuch as where their quality or purity fell below the prescribed standards or where their constituents were present in quantities beyond the prescribed limit of variability "solely due to natural causes" and this departure was beyond "the control of human agency", such articles of food would not be deemed to be adulterated.
A party faced the ire of the Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar for taking a cheque dishonour dispute to the level of apex level before agreeing to settle the matter with the complainant. The appellant had approached the Supreme Court challenging the concurrent orders of conviction passed by three courts against him for the offence of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant finally agreed to settle the matter by paying the complainant Rs 69 lakhs. However, the Court was not impressed with the settlement made after 10 years of litigation, and termed it a "tyranny of justice" as far as the complainant is concerned, as he had had no option but to compromise now.
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh observed that any dispute with respect to mutation entry can only be before the revenue authorities only.
This observation is in the context of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.
In this case, the plaintiff challenged a mutation entry of 1955 by filing a suit before a civil court. The High Court allowed the second appeal holding that the suit before the Civil Court challenging the mutation entry was not maintainable at all and there was a bar of filing the civil suit.
In a recent order, the Supreme Court of India has reiterated the importance of conducting a psychological evaluation of convicts who have been awarded death sentences.
"However, we are of the view that the assessment as regards conduct of the accused, if made before the final submissions are advanced, will go a long way in rendering assistance……In series of death sentence cases, this Court has been passing certain directions so that psychological evaluation of the concerned convict can be ascertained", a Bench of Chief Justice UU Lalit, Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi observed.
Cheque Bounce Complaint Cannot Be Transferred As Per Convenience Of Accused: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that a complaint under Section 138 cannot be transferred as per the convenience of the accused.
Justice Abhay S. Oka observed thus while dismissing a transfer petition filed by an accused seeking transfer of a cheque bounce complaint.
After noticing that the petitioner is a woman and a senior citizen, the judge observed that she can always seek exemption from personal appearance.
The Supreme Court observed that a Modified Vapour Absorption Chillers cannot be categorized as a Heat Pump to avail concessional tariff benefits under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
Customers do not purchase MVAC because it produces hot water and in commercial parlance it is used for air conditioning and refrigeration and not at all for heating purpose, the bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy noted.
The Supreme Court recently set aside the bail granted to two persons accused in an NDPS case.
"In the face of the mandate of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the High Court could not and ought not to have released the accused on bail", the bench of CJI UU Lalit and Justice Bela M. Trivedi observed.
As per the prosecution case, about 13 kgs of morphine was found in a car which was driven by Md. Jakir Hussain who, in a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act also named his owner accused Abdul Hai. During the course of investigation, it was found that contraband material in question was to be handed-over to accused -Khalil Uddin, an owner of a tea shop. The Gauhati High Court granted bail to Abdul Hai and Khalil Uddin and aggreived with this, the State approached the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna observed that if a court restricts the anticipatory bail upto framing of charge, the order should discuss the peculiar facts and circumstances which warranted such restriction.
In this case, the Allahabad High Court restricted the anticipatory bail granted to the accused only till framing of the charge.
In response to the Special Leave Petition filed by the accused, ASG KM Nataraj justifying the order by relying on a decision in Nathu Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2021 (6) SCC 64. In the said decision, it was held that though normally, the anticipatory bail should not be granted for a specific period, if the facts and circumstances are so made out, the Court can limit the tenure of the anticipatory bail. ASG requested time to file counter affidavit so as to substantiate the reasons for limiting the period of anticipatory bail.
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath observed that there Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board KIADB can acquire lands for a single company to set up an industry.
In this case, the land acquisition by KIADB was for two companies viz. M/s MSPL Ltd. and M/s AARESS Iron and Steel Ltd. [AISL is fully owned subsidiary of MSPL]. Allowing writ appeal filed by a land owner, the Karnataka High Court (Division Bench) quashed the notifications under Sections 3(1), 1(3) and 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966. One of the issues that were raised in appeal before the Apex Court was whether the acquisition for a single company could be said to be for public purpose and could be made under the 1966 Act? This issue arose since, in the impugned judgment, the High Court held that KIADB cannot acquire lands for a single company/private industrialist and the same is improper exercise of power and also not in public interest.
Statutes Are To Be Read In Their Plain Language : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that the Courts should refrain from expressing value judgments and policy views in order to interpret statutes.
Statutes are to be read in their plain language and not otherwise, the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath observed.
In this case, the land acquisition by KIADB was quashed by Karnataka High Court (Division Bench). While considering the appeals, the Apex Court bench noted the following observations made in the judgment of the High court.
The Supreme Court recently set aside a decision of a High Court allowing DNA testing to determine the paternity of two children to verify a claim made by their mother that she had been "forced to cohabit and develop a physical relationship" with her brother-in-law. This appeal had arisen out of a dowry harassment case in which the complainant had lodged a first information report against her husband and his brother under Sections 498A, 323, and 354 and other ancillary provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Division Bench comprising of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Vikram Nath, allowing the appeal preferred by the accused, held that the trial court had accepted the application of the complainant "mechanically". By this order, which eventually came under the scanner of the apex court, the trial court had directed the appellants and the children "to give blood samples to a specified hospital for obtaining an expert opinion on DNA fingerprint test".
The Supreme Court has held that the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor of a University will be illegal when the Search Committee recommended only one name instead of a panel of 3-5 names as mandated by the University Grants Commission Regulations 2013.
A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar, while setting aside the appointment of Rajasree M.S. as the Vice-Chancellor of A.P.J. Abdul Kalam University, held that the appointment of VC will be "void-abinitio" if it was not made as per the UGC Regulation
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar, issued notice in a plea filed by a medical student desirous of giving up her seat at Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, and participating in second round of counselling of NEET-PG 2022-23. Last year she took admission at the said college and this year she has appeared for NEET-PG 2022-23. The college authorities are demanding payment of the balance tuition fee of two remaining years in the three years course, in terms of the Bond furnished at the time of admission, to release her original documents.
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli, on October 21, issued notice in the transfer petition filed by National Medical Commission in relation to the pleas challenging the validity of its decision to stipulate fee of 50% seats in Private Medical Colleges & Deemed Universities at par with the fee in the Government Medical Colleges in the respective States and Union Territories. The NMC is seeking to transfer to Supreme Court or to any one High Court all similar challenges pending before different High Courts.
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and V. Ramasubramanian recently set aside the conviction of a Bengal sweetmeat shop-owner for allegedly selling adulterated paneer on the ground that there was no "whisper in the complaint or in the evidence" as to whether the departure from prescribed standards or composition could be attributed only to inescapable natural causes.
In other words, to drive home a conviction for adulteration under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the Public Analyst, whose opinion formed the basis of the prosecution, had to examine whether the proviso to the definition of 'adulteration' in Section 2(ia)(m) would be attracted. This proviso engrafted an exception for 'primary food' inasmuch as where their quality or purity fell below the prescribed standards or where their constituents were present in quantities beyond the prescribed limit of variability "solely due to natural causes" and this departure was beyond "the control of human agency", such articles of food would not be deemed to be adulterated.
A party faced the ire of the Supreme Court for taking a cheque dishonour dispute to the level of apex level before agreeing to settle the matter with the complainant. The appellant had approached the Supreme Court challenging the concurrent orders of conviction passed by three courts against him for the offence of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Before the Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar, the appellant finally agreed to settle the matter by paying the complainant Rs 69 lakhs. However, the Court was not impressed with the settlement made after 10 years of litigation, and termed it a "tyranny of justice" as far as the complainant is concerned, as he had had no option but to compromise now.
The Supreme Court has rejected Union Minister Ajay Mishra Teni's prayer to transfer a Government appeal challenging his acquittal in a 22-year-old murder case from Allahabad High Court's Lucknow bench to Prayagraj Bench.
Instead, the bench of Chief Justice UU Lalit and Justice Bela M. Trivedi made a request to the High Court to hear the appeal for disposal on November 10, 2022, the date given by the High Court and agreed upon by Senior Counsels for both the sides.
The Supreme Court comprising of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S. Oka will examine the validity of the age restriction of 35 years for conducting pre-conception and pre-natal diagnostic tests.
The court issued notice in a petition filed in 2019 by a lawyer Meera Kaura Patelwho contended that the age restriction of 35 years in Section 4(3)(i) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 is a restriction on the reproductive rights of women. The PCPNDT Act prohibits pre-natal sex selection. The law was made to curb the evil of female foeticide.
Decided To Abolish Revenue Police System, Uttarakhand Govt Tells Supreme Court
The Supreme Court closed a special leave petition filed by the State of Uttarakhand challenging the Uttarakhand High Court direction to abolish 'Revenue Police System'.
This is after the Court noticed that the State Cabinet decided to accept the decision of the High Court and to take appropriate steps to implement said directions.
In hilly parts of the State, the civil officials of the Revenue Department have powers and functions of Police. Thus, the revenue officials could perform functions of police like arrest of offenders and investigation.
In a recent order, the Supreme Court of India has reiterated the importance of conducting a psychological evaluation of convicts who have been awarded death sentences.
"However, we are of the view that the assessment as regards conduct of the accused, if made before the final submissions are advanced, will go a long way in rendering assistance……In series of death sentence cases, this Court has been passing certain directions so that psychological evaluation of the concerned convict can be ascertained", a Bench of Chief Justice UU Lalit, Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi observed.
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kolhi, recently (18.10.2022), directed 26 States Governments and Union Territories, and 6 High Courts, that are yet to submit affidavits relating to budget allocation and utilisation of funds for judicial infrastructure in the prescribed format to do so within a period of 4 weeks.
The Supreme Court last week refused to entertain Amnesty International India's petition challenging the Enforcement Directorate's attachment of its bank accounts, in view of the fact that the PMLA Adjudicating Authority passed a provisional attachment order on October 7, 2022.
Reserving the right of Amnesty to challenge the provisional attachment order, the Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition.
The Supreme Court, recently, clarified its judgment dated 19.04.2022 wherein death sentence awarded to a man convicted for raping and murdering a four-year-old girl was commuted to life imprisonment.
In the said judgment, the Court had commuted the death sentence imposed for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as life imprisonment. The Court had further ordered that the sentence of life imprisonment for the remainder of life, imposed for the offence under Section 376A IPC (punishment for causing death of rape victim) will stand modified as life imprisonment for 20 years.
Can a Court impose a condition of payment of maintenance while granting anticipatory bail ? The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar recently issued notice in a special leave petition that raises this question.
In this case, a complaint was filed against the accused by the wife under Sections 323, 379 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Apprehending arrest, the accused approached the Patna High Court. Though it granted him anticipatory bail, it directed that he should pay maintainence of Rs. 10,000.
The Supreme Court has recently by an order granted a last opportunity to the advocates on record to cure the defects of one thousand odd petitions filed before the apex court. The order stated that the batch of petitions that were filed before the apex court between 2014 to 2020 were sent back to the Advocates on Record for rectification and refiling but the Registry has still not received the rectified copies
The Supreme Court of India recently came down heavily on the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) for filing a Special Leave Petition seeking to interfere with a bail order granted by the Allahabad High Court to a man suffering from Malignancy and Cancer.
A Bench of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh observed that the bail order did not warrant an interference of the Court.
"In the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case and taking into consideration the fact that the respondent is suffering from Malignancy and Cancer and thereafter when he has been released on bail, the same is not required to be interfered by this court. The Special Leave Petition stands dismissed."
The Supreme Court recently took exception to how a Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissed almost 45 petitions seeking anticipatory bail on a single day, in the same fashion for non-prosecution.
In this regard, a Division Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar has sought a report from the Registrar of the High Court seeking reasons from the concerned High Court Judge for his rather peculiar conduct.
The Enforcement Directorate has denied the allegation made by the Kerala Government that its plea to transfer the trial of gold smuggling case from the State is "politically motivated".
In a rejoinder filed to the Kerala Government's counter affidavit, the ED stated that the transfer of the case from Kerala is necessary and that the petition had been filed on the basis of material facts leading to reasonable apprehension regarding lack of possibility of free and fair trial in the State.
The Supreme Court verdict determining the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment is likely to come out next week.
The matter was heard by a 5-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, S Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi and JB Pardiwala who held hearing for seven days. It is to be noted that Chief Justice UU Lalit is to retire on 8th November 2022.
EPF Pension Case : Supreme Court Verdict On EPFO Appeals Likely To Be Pronounced Next Week
The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce next week the judgment in the appeals filed by the Employees Provident Fund Organization challenging the Kerala, Rajasthan and Delhi High Court judgments which had quashed the Employee's Pension (Amendment) Scheme, 2014.
A 3-judge bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia had reserved judgment on August 11 after 6-days of hearing.