Supreme Court Annual Digest 2021 - Part 3 [Citations 501 to 766]

511. Retrospective Seniority Cannot Be Claimed From A Date When An Employee Is Not Even Borne In Service

[Case: State of Bihar v. Arbind Jee; Citation: LL 2021 SC 510]

The Supreme Court observed that retrospective seniority cannot be claimed from a date when an employee is not even borne in service. The Bench comprising Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy observed that seniority benefit can accrue only after a person joins service and to say that benefits can be earned retrospectively would be erroneous.

512. Supreme Court Dismisses Adani Gas Ltd Plea Seeking Authorization For City Gas Distribution Network In Ahmedabad District With Rs 10 Lakh Costs

[Case: Adani Gas Ltd. v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 511]

The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by Adani Gas Ltd seeking authorisation for city gas distribution network in three areas of Ahmedabad District in Gujarat with a cost of Rupees 10 lakhs. The Court has held the exclusion of Adani Gas Ltd from the disputed areas as "justified in the overall facts and circumstances". A Bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Hrishikesh Roy also overruled a two judge bench judgment in Adani Gas Ltd. v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 641, on the scope of the "deemed authorisation" clause under the proviso to Section 16 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006.

513. Insurance Surveyor's Report Not Sacrosanct, But Consumer Forum Cannot Subject It To 'Forensic Examination

[Case: Khatema Fibres Ltd. v. New India Assurance Company Ltd; Citation: LL 2021 SC 512]

The Supreme Court observed that though an insurance surveyor's report is not so sacrosanct, a Consumer Forum which is primarily concerned with an allegation of deficiency in service cannot subject it to 'forensic examination of its anatomy'. "Once it is found that there was no inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance of the duties and responsibilities of the surveyor, in a manner prescribed by the Regulations as to their code of conduct and once it is found that the report is not based on adhocism or vitiated by arbitrariness, then the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum to go further would stop", the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian said.

514. 'Court Cannot Rewrite Statutory Language' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Madras HC Order Reading Down Advance Notice Condition For Broadcasters Under Rule 29(4) Of Copyright Rules

[Case: Saregama India Limited v. Next Radio Limited & Ors; Citation: LL 2021 SC 513]

The Supreme Court set aside an interim order passed by the Madras High Court in a writ petition filed by some broadcasters/FM Radios challenging Rule 29(4) of Copyright Rules, 2013. "Craftsmanship on the judicial side cannot transgress into the legislative domain by re-writing the words of a statute. For then, the judicial craft enters the forbidden domain of a legislative draft.", the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna observed.

515. Validity Of Sanction Order Can Also Be Raised In The Course Of Trial

[Case: Major M.C. Ashish Chinappa v. Central Bureau of Investigation; Citation: LL 2021 SC 514]

The Supreme Court observed that the validity of sanction order can also be raised in the course of trial. Taking note of the fact that, in this case, the cognizance has already been taken and trial is in progress, the bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari referred to the following observations made in Dinesh Kumar v. Chairman, Airport Authority of India (2012) 1 SCC 532 : "In our view, having regard to the facts of the present case, now since cognizance has already been taken against the appellant by the trial Judge, the High Court cannot be said to be have erred in leaving the question of validity of sanction open for consideration by the trial court and giving liberty to the appellant to raise the issue concerning validity of sanction order in the course of trial. Such course is in accord with the decision of this Court in Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab (2007) 1 SCC 1 and not unjustified."

516. 'Constitutional' Power To Punish For Contempt Cannot Be Taken Away Even By Legislative Enactment

[Case: Suraz India Trust v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 515]

The Supreme Court observed that its power to punish for contempt is a constitutional power which cannot be abridged or taken away even by legislative enactment. "Motivated and calculated attempts to bring down the image of the judiciary in estimation of public and impair the administration of justice must bester themselves to uphold their dignity and the majesty of law", the Supreme Court has observed in the order in which it held Suraz India Trust Chairman Rajiv Daiya guilty of contempt of court for scandalising the Court.

517. 'Non Compoundable' Criminal Cases Of Predominantly Private Nature Can Be Quashed U/s 482 CrPC Even If Compromise Is Reached After Conviction

[Case: Ramgopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 516]

The Supreme Court observed that a High Court can quash criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non-compoundable and the compromise is reached after conviction. The bench comprising CJI NV Ramana and Justice Surya Kant added that criminal proceedings involving non-­heinous offences or where the offences are predominantly of a private nature, can be quashed irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction.

518. Order IX Rule 13 CPC : Supreme Court Holds Defendant Who Refused Summons Not Entitled To Seek Setting Aside Of Ex-Parte Decree

[Case: Vishwabandhu v. Sri Krishna and another; Citation: LL 2021 SC 517]

The Supreme Court set aside a judgment of the High Court, which had allowed the setting aside of an ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and S Ravindra Bhat noted that Sub-Rule (5) of Order V Rule 9 of the Code states inter alia that if the defendant or his agent had refused to take delivery of the postal article containing the summons, the court issuing the summons shall declare that the summons had been duly served on the defendant.

519. Provision For Upper Age Limit Is Mandatory & Can't Be Relaxed; Eligibility Criteria For Public Appointment Must Be Uniform

[Case: The State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Shaheena Masarat and Anr; Citation: LL 2021 SC 518]

Observing that eligibility criteria for appointment to public posts should be uniform, the Supreme Court held that provision relating to upper age limit should be construed as "mandatory" and not "directory". Holding the upper age limit provision to be "directory" would mean that the authority is given unbridled power in giving relaxations to persons of their choice, bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and Sanjiv Khanna observed.

520. Irrigation Department Of State Not An 'Industrial Establishment' Under Section 25L Of ID Act

[Case: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Somdutt Sharma; Citation: LL 2021 SC 519]

Observing that the Irrigation Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh is not an "Industrial Establishment" under Section 25L of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Supreme Court held that to decide as to whether a Department is an Industrial Establishment or not, the test would be to consider the predominant functions and activities of the said Department. "There is no finding recorded that the Irrigation Department of the first appellant is doing manufacturing activity as provided in sub-clause (k) of Section 2 of the Factories Act", the bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka observed.

521. Supreme Court Holds Builder Liable To Compensate Residents Welfare Association For Not Providing Promised Amenities

[Case: The Managing Director (Shri Girish Batra) v. General Secretary (Shri Amol Mahapatra) Royale Garden Residents Welfare Association; Citation: LL 2021 SC 520]

The Supreme Court directed a builder to pay a compensation of Rupees 60 lakhs to a Residents Welfare Association (RWA) for not fulfilling its promises regarding provision of amenities and facilities. A bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian held the builder "Padmini Infrastructure Developers Ltd" liable to compensate Royale Garden RWA of Noida for not building a water softening plant, a second health club & a swimming pool, for failing to put in operation a fire fighting system and provide a Club House as promised in the agreement.

522. Article 136 - Direct Appeal From HC Single Bench Orders Maintainable In Cases Of 'Glaring Errors & Injustices

[Case: Indian Institute of Technology Kharaghpur and others v. Soutrik Sarangi; Citation: LL 2021 SC 521]

The Supreme Court reiterated that existence of alternate remedies is not an absolute bar against the exercise of discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Observing that the discretion under Article 136 is "flexible and sufficiently wide to correct glaring errors and injustices", a bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi entertained a petition filed challenging a single bench order of the High Court, although the appellate remedy to the division bench was not exhausted.

523. Insurance Claim Can Be Rejected If Vehicle Was Used Without Valid Registration

[Case: United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Sushil Kumar Godara; Citation: LL 2021 SC 522]

The Supreme Court observed that an insurance claim can be rejected if a vehicle is used/driven without a valid registration, since that would constitute a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance. The bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela M. Trivedi observed that when an insurable incident that potentially results in liability occurs, there should be no fundamental breach of the conditions contained in the contract of insurance. If on the date of theft, the vehicle had been driven/used without a valid registration, it amounts to fundamental breach, the Court held.

524. Right To Apply For Bail Is An Individual Right Implicit In Articles 14, 19 & 21

[Case: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. State of Rajasthan and Another; Citation: LL 2021 SC 523]

Disapproving the blanket orders passed by a single judge of the Rajasthan High Court to not list applications for bail and suspension of sentence as urgent matters during the lockdown, the Supreme Court has observed that the right to apply for bail is an individual right implicit in Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. A Bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose observed that such blanket bans would suspend Fundamental Rights of individuals and block access for seekers of liberty to apply for bail.

525. Power Of Attorney Having Authorisation Of Financial Creditor Can File Application U/s 7 IBC

[Case: Rajendra Narottamdas Sheth v. Chandra Prakash Jain; Citation: LL 2021 SC 524]

The bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna observed that the power of attorney holder of a financial creditor who has been given authorisation can file an application under Section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code on behalf of it.

"The NCLAT in Palogix Infrastructure has held that if the officer was authorised to sanction loans and had done so, the application filed under Section 7 of the Code cannot be rejected on the ground that no separate specific authorisation letter has been issued by the financial creditor in favour of such officer. In such cases, the corporate debtor cannot take the plea that while the officer has power to sanction the loan, such officer has no power to recover the loan amount or to initiate corporate insolvency resolution process, in spite of default in repayment," the court said.

526. Forcing Party To Undergo DNA Test Against Will Impinge On Personal Liberty & Right To Privacy

[Case: Ashok Kumar v. Raj Gupta and others; Citation: LL 2021 SC 525]

The Supreme Court observed that forcing an unwilling party to undergo DNA test impinges on personal liberty and right to privacy. A bench comprising Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy. "observed, "In circumstances where other evidence is available to prove or dispute the relationship, the court should ordinarily refrain from ordering blood tests. This is because such tests impinge upon the right of privacy of an individual and could also have major societal repercussions." Holding so, the bench set aside the judgment of the High Court which had directed the plaintiff in a suit to undergo DNA test.

527. Supreme Court Holds 9 Tamil Nadu Govt Officers Guilty Of Contempt Of Court For Not Implementing Orders

[Case: V. Senthur and another v. M. Vijayakumar IAS and others; Citation: LL 2021 SC 526]

The Supreme Court held 9 officers of the Tamil Nadu Government guilty of contempt of court for not implementing a direction to revise the seniority list of officers in the Public Works Department. A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai held that the officers have committed civil contempt of court for not following the order passed by the Supreme Court on January 22, 2016. In the order dated January 16, 2016, the Supreme Court, while dismissing the Government's special leave petition against a judgment of the Madras High Court, held that seniority list should be drawn on the basis of merit list of selection and not on the basis of roster point. The contempt petitions were filed stating that the respondents published a revised seniority list breaching the principle laid down by the Supreme Court. The respondents argued that the judgment of the High Court had no general application and was confined to individual cases. It was also argued that the doctrine of merger is not applicable to an order dismissing Special Leave Petition, and hence contempt, if any, should be agitated before the High Court and not the Supreme Court. The Top Court that a principle of law declared in an order dismissing a special leave petition is binding on the parties, even though the doctrine of merger is not applicable to it.

528. Supreme Court Directs Centre To Issue Instructions To Implement Reservation In Promotions For Persons With Disabilities Within 4 Months

[Case: Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka; Citation: LL 2021 SC 527]

The Supreme Court directed the Union of India to issue instructions "at the earliest and not later than four months", in accordance with the proviso to Section 34 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 for giving reservation in promotions to persons with disabilities. The order was passed by Bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, B.R.Gavai and Sanjiv Khanna in an application filed by the Central Government seeking clarification with respect to its judgment in Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka which declared that persons with disabilities have right to reservation in promotions.

529. Section 92 Evidence Act - Oral Evidence Admissible Only To Show That The Document Is Sham

[Case: Placido Francisco Pinto (D) by LRs & Anr v Jose Francisco Pinto & Anr; Citation: LL 2021 SC 528]

The Supreme Court observed that Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act bars giving of oral evidence on a written document, except to prove that the document reflects a sham transaction. A bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian observed that oral evidence is admissible under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act to show that the document is a sham deed. "...it was open to the plaintiff to assert that the document was never intended to acted upon and the document is a sham. Such question arises when one party asserts that there has been a different transaction altogether than what is recorded in the document. It is for that purpose oral evidence is admissible", the Court further stated.

530. Motor Accident Claim - Evidence Recorded Before Tribunal To Be Given Weightage Over Contents Of FIR In Case Of Contradiction

[Case: National Insurance Company v. Chamundeswari & Ors; Citation: LL 2021 SC 529]

While deciding the issue of negligence in a claim for motor accident, Supreme Court observed that if any evidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the First Information Report, the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of the First Information Report. A Bench comprising Justice Subhash Reddy and Justice Hrishikesh Roy made this observation while delivering its verdict in an appeal filed by National Insurance Company against Madras High Court's order partly allowing plea filed by wife and son of the deceased who lost his life in a motor vehicle accident, and enhancing compensation to Rs.1,85,08,832.

531. Family Settlement Document Which Merely Records Past Transaction Does Not Require Compulsory Registration

[Case: Korukonda Chalapathi Rao & Ors v. Korukonda Annapurna Sampath Kumar; Citation: LL 2021 SC 530]

The Supreme Court held that a family settlement document which merely sets out the existing arrangement and past transaction will not be compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, if it doesn't by itself creates, declares, limits or extinguishes rights in the immovable properties. Therefore, such a document will not be hit by the bar under Section 49 of the Registration Act. "If we apply the test as to whether the Khararunama in this case by itself 'affects', i.e., by itself creates, declares, limits or extinguishes rights in the immovable properties in question or whether it merely refers to what the appellants alleged were past transactions which have been entered into by the parties, then, going by the words used in the document, they indicate that the words are intended to refer to the arrangements allegedly which the parties made in the past. The document does not purport to by itself create, declare, assign, extinguish or limit right in properties. Thus, the Khararunama may not attract Section 49(1)(a) of the Registration Act," a bench of Justices KM Joseph and SR Bhat observed.

532. 'Voluntary Retirement' Can Be Sought Only If Officer Meets Eligibility Criteria; Resignation Can Be Anytime

[Case: Union of India v. Abhiram Verma; Citation: LL 2021 SC 531]

The Supreme Court observed that while a person can resign at any time during his service, he can ask for voluntary retirement only if he meets the eligibility criteria. A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna added, "When the legislature, in its wisdom, brings forth certain beneficial provisions in the form of Pension Regulations from a particular date and on particular terms and conditions, aspects which are excluded cannot be included in it by implication. Therefore, having tendered the "resignation", the respondent has to suffer the consequences and now cannot be permitted to take 'U' turn and say that what the respondent wanted was "premature retirement" and not "resignation", the Court further observed.

533. Motor Accidents Claim - Minimum Wage Notification Not An Absolute Yardstick To Fix Income Of Deceased In Absence Of Salary Certificate

[Case: Chandra @ Chanda v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav and others; Citation: LL 2021 SC 532]

While deciding on compensation to be paid in a case of motor vehicle accident, Supreme Court observed that merely because claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of the deceased, the same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income. "In absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of the deceased should not be totally detached from reality", the Bench comprising Justice Subhash Reddy and Justice Hrishikesh Roy observed.

534. Renewal Of Passport Cannot Be Refused Merely On The Ground Of Pendency Of Criminal Appeal

[Case: Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. CBI; Citation: LL 2021 SC 533]

The Supreme Court observed that renewal of passport cannot be refused merely on the ground of pendency of criminal appeal. The applicant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 120-B,420, 468, 471, 477 A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appeal filed by him was dismissed by the High Court. The bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai observed: "The refusal of a passport can be only in case where an applicant is convicted during the period of 5 years immediately proceeding the date of application for an offence involving moral turpitude and sentence for imprisonment for not less than two years. Section 6.2 (f) relates to a situation where the applicant is facing trial in a criminal court. Admittedly, at present, the conviction of the appellant stands still the disposal of the criminal appeal. The sentence which he has to undergo is for a period of one year. The passport authority cannot refuse the renewal of the passport on the ground of pendency of the criminal appeal." The Court therefore directed the passport authority to renew the passport of the applicant without raising the objection relating to the pendency of the criminal appeal.

535. First Appellate Court Should Deal With All Issues And Evidence And Follow Procedure Under CPC

[Case: K. Karuppuraj v. M. Ganesan; Citation: LL 2021 SC 534]

The Supreme Court observed that it is the duty of the First Appellate Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. First appeals are to be decided after following the procedure to be followed under the Code of Civil Procedure, the bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna observed.

536. Arbitrator Cannot Grant Pendente Lite Interest If Contract Contains A Specific Clause Expressly Barring Payment Of Interest

[Case: Garg Builders v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited; Citation: LL 2021 SC 535]

The Supreme Court observed that an arbitrator cannot grant pendente lite interest if the contract contains a specific clause which expressly bars payment of interest. Such a contractual clause will not be a violation of Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari has observed. The court said that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, categorically restricts the power of an arbitrator to award preference and pendente lite interest when the parties themselves have agreed to the contrary. \

537. States Should Not Deny Ex-Gratia For COVID Deaths On Ground That Death Certificate Does Not Mention COVID As Cause Of Death

[Case: Gaurav Kuma Bansal v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 536]

The Supreme Court ordered that no state should deny the ex-gratia compensation of Rs 50,000 to the kin of persons who died of COVID on the sole ground that the death certificate does not mention COVID as the cause of death. A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna noted that as per the NDMA guidelines, the following cases are treated as COVID deaths : 1. Diagnosed as COVID positive through a positive RT-PCR/ Molecular Tests/ RAT or clinically determined through investigations in a hospital/in-patient facility by a treating physician, while admitted in the hospital/in-patient facility. 2. Deaths occurring within 30 days from the date of testing or from the date of being clinically determined as a Covid-19 case shall be treated as "Deaths due to Covid-19", even if the death takes place outside the hospital/in-patient facility. 3. Covid-19 case while admitted in the hospital/in-patient facility and who continued to be admitted beyond 30 days and died subsequently. 4. Covid-19 cases which are not resolved and have died either in the hospital settings or at home, and where a Medical Certificate of Cause of Death (MCCD) in Form 4 & 4A has been issued to the registering authority, as required under Section 10 of the Registration of Birth & Death (RBD) Act, 1969, shall also be treated as Covid-19 death.

538. Conduct Of Accused, Gravity Of Offence, Societal Impact Etc. Are Grounds To Revoke Bail

[Case: Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab; Citation: LL 2021 SC 537]

The Supreme Court observed that bail granted to an accused can be revoked by a superior court if the court has considered irrelevant factors or has ignored relevant material available on record which renders the order granting bail legally untenable. "The gravity of the offence, conduct of the accused and societal impact of an undue indulgence by Court when the investigation is at the threshold, are also amongst a few situations, where a Superior Court can interfere in an order of bail to prevent the miscarriage of justice and to bolster the administration of criminal justice system", the bench of CJI NV Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli observed. The court observed thus while setting aside an anticipatory bail granted by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana to a 'mother in law' in a dowry death case. The offence alleged in the instant case is heinous and protrudes our medieval social structure which still wails for reforms despite multiple efforts made by Legislation and Judiciary, the court remarked in this case. The court noted that the accused had remained absconding for more than two years after being declared a proclaimed offender.

539. 'Fit Case To Be Included In Law School Syllabus': Supreme Court On 5th Round Of Litigation Stalling Execution In 50 Yr Old Suit

[Case: Dipali Biswas and others v. Nirmalendu Mukherjee and others; Citation: LL 2021 SC 538]

Astonished at the five rounds of litigation initiated by a litigant (and his successors) over five decades to stall the execution of a civil decree, the Supreme Court remarked that it was a fit case to be included in the law school syllabus as a study material for students to get equipped with various provisions of the Civil Procedure Code relating to execution. "...the case on hand is fit to be included in the syllabus of a law school as a study material for students to get equipped with the various provisions of the Code relating to execution", the judgment delivered by a bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian observed. "..this appeal arises out of the fifth round of litigation at the stage of execution of a simple money decree and we wish that it is the knock out round", the Supreme Court judgment stated at the outset.

Also Read: Judgment Debtor Can't Raise Objections In Instalments; Res Judicata Applicable To Execution Proceedings

540. Reprimanding A Student Would Not Tantamount To Provoking Him To Commit Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes FIR U/s 306 IPC Against A Teacher

[Case: Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan; Citation: LL 2021 SC 539]

The Supreme Court observed that reprimanding a student for his indiscipline would not tantamount to provoking a student to commit suicide. "If, a student is simply reprimanded by a teacher for an act of indiscipline and bringing the continued act of indiscipline to the notice of Principal of the institution who conveyed to the parents of the student for the purposes of school discipline and correcting a child, any student who is very emotional or sentimental commits suicide, can the said teacher be held liable for the same and charged and tried for the offence of abetment of suicide under section 306 IPC.. Our answer to the said question is 'No'.", the bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari observed while quashing a criminal case against a teacher.

541. Dependent Cannot Seek Compassionate Appointment On Higher Post Than Held By Deceased Employee

[Case: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Premlatha; Citation: LL 2021 SC 540]

The Supreme Court observed that a dependent/applicant cannot seek compassionate appointment on the higher post than what was held by the deceased employee. The Bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna observed that the appointment on compassionate ground is a concession and not a right. It is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. "As per the law laid down by this court in catena of decisions on the appointment on compassionate ground, for all the government vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as mandated under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said norms. The compassionate ground is a concession and not a right."

542. Electricity Act - Additional Bill Raised By Distributor After Detecting Mistake Not Hit By 2 Years Limitation Under Section 56(2)

[Case: M/S Prem Cottex v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd & Ors; Citation: LL 2021 SC 541]

The Supreme Court held that an additional bill raised by an Electricity Distribution Company as a licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003, after detecting a mistake, will not be hit by the two years limitation under Section 56(2) of the Act. Section 56(2) says that "no sum due from any consumer, under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due". The consumer had earlier approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against the demand. The NCDRC however dismissed the complaint, holding that there was no 'deficiency of service' on the part of the power company and that the bill was for recovery of "escaped assessment". The consumer appealed to the Supreme Court against the NCDRC order. Relying on Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, the appellant argued that no amount due from a customer is recoverable after a period of two years from the date on which it became first due. The appellant also relied on the Supreme Court's verdict in the 2020 case Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited v. Rahamatullah Khan which held that electricity supply cannot be disconnected for additional demand raised after the two year limitation period.

A Bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian observed, "The matter can be examined from another angle as well. Sub­section (1) of Section 56 as discussed above, deals with the disconnection of electric supply if any person "neglects to pay any charge for electricity". The question of neglect to pay would arise only after a demand is raised by the licensee. If the demand is not raised, there is no occasion for a consumer to neglect to pay any charge for electricity. Sub­section (2) of Section 56 has a non­-obstante clause with respect to what is contained in any other law, regarding the right to recover including the right to disconnect. Therefore, if the licensee has not raised any bill, there can be no negligence on the part of the consumer to pay the bill and consequently, the period of limitation prescribed under Sub­section (2) will not start running. So long as limitation has not started running, the bar for recovery and disconnection will not come into effect".

Also Read: Consumer Complaint Not Maintainable Against Power Distributor For Raising Additional Bill Due To Short Assessment

543. Section 69 Kerala Forest Act Does Not Place Reverse Burden Of Proof On Culpability Of Accused

[Case: Bharath Booshan Aggarwal v. State of Kerala; Citation: LL 2021 SC 542]

The Supreme Court observed that Section 69 of the Kerala Forest Act merely directs a presumption that the forest produce belongs to the government and it does not place reverse burden of proof on culpable mental state of the accused. The court said that seizure of the goods ipso facto does not mean that the accused had conscious knowledge about their illicit nature or origin or that they procured the goods illegally. "The presumption under Section 69 is with respect to not a conscious mental state, or a direction by the legislature that a certain state of affairs is deemed to exist, but with respect to ownership of the property", the bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and S. Ravindra Bhat observed.

Also Read: Products Created From 'Forest Produce' By Human Labour Can Also Be 'Forest Produce': Supreme Court Disagrees With Earlier Judgment

544. Schools At Liberty To Take Appropriate Legal Action To Recover Outstanding Fee From Students

[Case: Progressive Schools Association v. State of Rajasthan & Anr; Citation: LL 2021 SC 543]

In a plea seeking clarification of top Court's order directing schools to not debar any student from attending classes on account of non­payment of fees, Supreme Court permitted the School Managements to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law for recovery of the outstanding fees from students who have defaulted. A Bench comprising Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice CT Ravikumar left it open to the School Management to consider the requests, if any, made by parent or ward seeking some indulgence for just reasons, compassionately. The direction has been issued in a miscellaneous application filed seeking clarification that the Supreme Court's directions issued through its order dated 3rd May 2021 did not prohibit the schools from taking coercive action against the students who have failed to pay the instalments as per the arrangement predicated in that judgment.

Also Read: Products Created From 'Forest Produce' By Human Labour Can Also Be 'Forest Produce': Supreme Court Disagrees With Earlier Judgment

545. Consumer Protection Act - Onus To Prove Deficiency In Service Is On The Complainant : Supreme Court

[Case: SGS India v. Dolphin International Ltd; Citation: LL 2021 SC 544]

The Supreme Court observed that in a consumer case, the onus of proof that there was deficiency in service is on the complainant. Without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service, Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed. It further clarified, "If the complainant is able to discharge its initial onus, the burden would then shift to the respondent in the complaint. The rule of evidence before the civil proceedings is that the onus would lie on the person who would fail if no evidence is led by the other side. Therefore, the initial burden of proof of deficiency in service was on the complainant, but having failed to prove that the result of the sample retained by the appellant at the time of consignment was materially different than what was certified by the appellant, the burden of proof would not shift on the appellant. Thus, the Commission has erred in law to draw adverse inference against the appellant."

546. Employer Cannot Be Compelled To Appoint A Candidate Merely Because He Made Truthful Declaration Regarding Criminal Cases

[Case: Union of India v. Mithu Meda; Citation: LL 2021 SC 545]

The Supreme Court observed that an employer cannot be compelled to appoint a candidate merely because truthful declaration regarding criminal cases has been made by the employee. The court said that the employer still has the right to consider criminal antecedents of such a candidates. If a person is acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt, from the charge of an offence involving moral turpitude or because the witnesses turned hostile, it would not automatically entitle him for the employment, that too in disciplined force, the bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari observed while setting aside the High Court judgment which directed appointment of a candidate to the post of Constable in Central Industrial Security Force.

547. Interested Person Not Entitled To File PIL: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Filed By Aspirant To Post Of State Information Commissioner

[Case: Wing Commander GB Athri v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 546]

An interested person is not entitled to file a public interest litigation, the Supreme Court has observed while it dismissed a petition filed by an aspirant to the post of the State Information Commissioner. A bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari observed: "Since the petitioner was also an aspirant to the post of the State Information Commissioner and has made an application seeking such employment as recorded in the judgment and order of the High Court impugned, we are of the view that the High Court has rightly declined to entertain the writ petition filed by him purportedly in public interest. It is well settled that an interested person is not entitled to file a public interest litigation."

548. Services Rendered By Adhoc Employees Prior To Regularization Cannot Be Counted For Purpose Of Seniority

[Case: Malook Singh v. State of Punjab; Citation: LL 2021 SC 547]

The Supreme Court reiterated that the services rendered by ad hoc employees prior to their regularization cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority. A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna noted that the Constitution Bench in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra had held that ad hoc service cannot be counted for determining the seniority if the initial appointment has been made as a stop gap arrangement and not according to rules. "The judgment, therefore, would only bind those who are parties to the proceedings. The judgment would by no means operate to bind others whose interest did not coincide with the private respondents who are impleaded in the proceedings. This is precisely the reason why the Single Judge in the subsequent proceedings held that the seniority list which was prepared pursuant to the earlier judgment would not operate to bind those persons who were not parties to the earlier proceedings and were adversely affected", the Court said.

549. Lok Adalat Has No Jurisdiction To Decide A Matter On Merits

[Case: Estate Officer v. Colonel H.V. Mankotia (Retired); Citation: LL 2021 SC 548]

The Supreme Court observed that Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction at all to decide the matter on merits once it is found that compromise or settlement could not be arrived at between the parties. The jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat would be to determine and to arrive at a compromise or a settlement between the parties to a dispute, the bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna said. The court added that once the settlement / compromise fails, the Lok Adalat has to return the case to the Court from which the reference was received. Taking note of the above and the judgment in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ganpat Raj (2006) 8 SCC 364, the court observed: "Thus, a fair reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 makes it clear that the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat would be to determine and to arrive at a compromise or a settlement between the parties to a dispute and once the aforesaid settlement / compromise fails and no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the Lok Adalat has to return the case to the Court from which the reference has been received for disposal in accordance with law and in any case, the Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction at all to decide the matter on meris once it is found that compromise or settlement could not be arrived at between the parties."

550. National Green Tribunal Is Vested With Suo Motu Jurisdiction, Declares Supreme Court

[Case: Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha and Others; Citation: LL 2021 SC 549]

The Supreme Court declared that the National Green Tribunal is vested with suo motu powers to take cognizance on the basis of letters, representations and media reports. A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar held, "NGT Act, when read as a whole, gives much leeway to the NGT to go beyond a mere adjudicatory role. The Parliament's intention is clearly discernible to create a multifunctional body, with the capacity to provide redressal for environmental exigencies. Accordingly, the principles of environmental justice and environmental equity must be explicitly acknowledged as pivotal threads of the NGT's fabric. The NGT must be seen as a sui generis institution and not unus multorum, and its special and exclusive role to foster public interest in the area of environmental domain delineated in the enactment of 2010 must necessarily receive legal recognition of this Court." The Court however cautioned that the NGT cannot divest from the principles of natural justice and fair play while exercising such a suo moto jurisdiction. It was directed that the party likely to be affected must be afforded with due opportunity to present its side before the issuance of any adverse orders.

551. Supreme Court Issues Guidelines On Grant Of Bail To Accused Not Arrested During Investigation On Filing Of Chargesheet

[Case: Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI; Citation: LL 2021 SC 550]

The Supreme Court issued guidelines on the aspect of grant of bail to accused who are not arrested during investigation on charge sheet being filed. The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh accepted the suggestions made by Additional Solicitor General SV Raja and Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra in this regard. The requisite conditions for this guideline to apply are (1) Not arrested during investigation. (2) Cooperated throughout in the investigation including appearing before Investigating Officer whenever called. The Court laid down guidelines for Category (A) offences, Category (B) and (D) offences and Category (C) offences. The court also agreed with the suggestion that, to consider bail, the trial Court is not precluded from granting interim bail taking into consideration the conduct of the accused during the investigation which has not warranted arrest.

552. Preliminary Enquiry By CBI In Corruption Cases Not Mandatory; Accused Cannot Demand It As Of Right

[Case: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi; Citation: LL 2021 SC 551]

The Supreme Court held that preliminary enquiry by Central Bureau of Investigation in cases of corruption is not mandatory. "In case the information received by the CBI, through a complaint or a "source information" discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, it can directly register a Regular Case instead of conducting a Preliminary Enquiry, where the officer is satisfied that the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence", the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna observed. "An FIR will not stand vitiated because a Preliminary Enquiry has not been conducted", the Court stated in the judgment. The Court clarified that if the CBI chooses not to hold a preliminary enquiry, the accused cannot demand it as a matter of right.

553. Conviction Or Acquittal Cannot Be Set Aside Merely Because There Was A Possibility Of A Joint Or Separate Trial

[Case: Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab; Citation: LL 2021 SC 552]

The Supreme Court observed that a conviction or acquittal of the accused cannot be set aside on the mere ground that there was a possibility of a joint or a separate trial. To set aside the order of conviction or acquittal, it must be proved that the rights of the parties were prejudiced because of the joint or separate trial, the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna observed. The Bench elucidated that while applying the principles enunciated in Sections 218 - 223 on conducting joint and separate trials, the trial court should apply a two-pronged test, namely, (i) whether conducting a joint/separate trial will prejudice the defence of the accused; and/or (ii) whether conducting a joint/separate trial would cause judicial delay.

554. Section 138 NI Act: Complaint Cannot Be Proceeded With Once The Accused And Complainant Enter Into A Settlement Agreement

[Case: Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel; Citation: LL 2021 SC 553]

The Supreme Court observed that a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be proceeded with once the accused and the complainant enter into a settlement agreement. The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna observed that non-compliance of the terms of the settlement agreement or dishonour of cheques issued subsequent to it, would then give rise to a fresh cause of action attracting liability under Section 138 of the NI Act and other remedies under civil law and criminal law.

555. Pre-Deposit Of 75% Of Awarded Amount U/s 19 MSMED Act Mandatory While Preferring Application To Set Aside Arbitration Award

[Case: Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority v. Aska Equipments Limited; Citation: LL 2021 SC 554]

The Supreme Court observed that the requirement under Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act of deposit of 75% of the awarded amount as a pre deposit while preferring the application/appeal for setting aside the award, is mandatory. The bench comprising of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna observed, 'On a plain/fair reading of Section 19 of the MSME Act, 2006, reproduced hereinabove, at the time/before entertaining the application for setting aside the award made under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, the applicant/appellant has to deposit 75% of the amount in terms of the award as a pre-deposit. The requirement of deposit of 75% of the amount in terms of the award as a pre-deposit is mandatory. However, at the same time, considering the hardship which may be projected before the appellate court and if the appellate court is satisfied that there shall be undue hardship caused to the appellant/applicant to deposit 75% of the awarded amount as a predeposit at a time, the court may allow the pre-deposit to be made in installments."

556. Custody Of Child Obtained By Playing Fraud On Court Liable To Be Declared Void Ab Initio

[Case: Smriti Madan Kansangra v. Perry Kansangra; Citation: LL 2021 SC 555]

The Supreme Court recalled an order granting custody of a child to a Kenyan citizen of Indian origin after finding that he had played fraud on the court and had approached it with "unclean hands" by suppressing material facts. A bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, Ajay Rastogi and Hemant Gupta declared its earlier order granting custody to the father who played fraud as "illegal" and "ab initio void". Observing that the party has defied the conditions imposed by the Court for taking the child to Kenya after securing his custody, the Court directed the CBI to initiate proceedings to secure and entrust the custody of the child to his mother. The Court also asked the Centre and the Indian mission in Kenya to help the mother and ordered registration of a suo motu contempt case against Perry Kansagra, the father of the child. The Court has directed Perry Kansagra's physical presence before it on November 16 and asked the registry to pay Rs 25 lakh as litigation cost, from the amount deposited earlier by him with it, to his wife.

557. Mere Exclusion Of Sibling From Will Not A Ground To Suspect Its Genuineness

[Case: V Prabhakara v. Basavaraj K (Dead) by LR and Another; Citation: LL 2021 SC 556]

While dealing with the validity of a Will, the Supreme Court observed that a mere exclusion of a sibling per se from the Will would not create a suspicion against it, unless it is surrounded by other suspicious circumstances. The Court stated that a testamentary court is not a "court of suspicion" but a "court of conscience" that has to consider relevant materials instead of adopting ethical reasoning. In this case, the Will was registered and its execution was admitted. The bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh observed, "A testamentary court is not a court of suspicion but that of conscience. It has to consider the relevant materials instead of adopting ethical reasoning. A mere exclusion of either brother or sister per se would not create a suspicion unless it is surrounded by other circumstances creating an inference. In a case where a testatrix is accompanied by the sister of the beneficiary of the Will and the said document is attested by the brother, there is no room for any suspicion when both of them have not raised any issue."

558. Civil Court Lacks Jurisdiction To Entertain A Suit Structured On Provisions Of Industrial Disputes Act

[Case: Milkhi Ram v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board; Citation: LL 2021 SC 557]

The Supreme Court observed that a civil court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a suit structured on the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. In this case, the plaintiff, who was a daily wage employee under the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, challenged his termination by filing a suit before a civil court. The suit was decreed ordering reinstatement of the plaintiff with back wages. This decree was upheld by the Appellate Courts. At the outset, the bench comprising Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy observed, "The civil courts may have the limited jurisdiction in service matters, but jurisdiction may not be available to Court to adjudicate on orders passed by disciplinary authority. The authorities specified under the ID Act including the appropriate government and the industrial courts perform various functions and the ID Act provides for a wider definition of "termination of service", the condition precedent of termination of service. The consequence of infringing those, are also provided in the ID Act. When a litigant opts for common law remedy, he may choose either the civil court or the industrial forum."

559. Mere Delay In Recording Eye Witnesses' Statement By Itself Not A Ground To Reject Their Testimonies

[Case: Goutam Joardar v. State of West Bengal; Citation: LL 2021 SC 558]

The Supreme Court observed that a delay in recording the statements of eye-witnesses by itself cannot result in rejection of their testimonies. If the witnesses felt terrorised and frightened and did not come forward for some time, the delay in recording their statements stood adequately explained, the bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela M. Trivedi observed. "It is true that there was some delay in recording the statements of the concerned eye-witnesses but mere factum of delay by itself cannot result in rejection of their testimonies. The material on record definitely establishes the fear created by the accused. If the witnesses felt terrorised and frightened and did not come forward for some time, the delay in recording their statements stood adequately explained. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that during the interregnum, the witnesses were carrying on their ordinary pursuits", the court observed after referring to the evidence on record.

560. 'ICAI Should Give Reasons For Its Decisions' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Recommendation To De-Register CA

[Case: DK Agrawal v. Council for Institute of Chartered Accountants of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 559]

Setting aside a recommendation made by the Council for Institute of Chartered Accountants of India to de-register a Chartered Account, the Supreme Court has observed that the powers of the Council are quasi judicial in nature. The court said that every judicial/quasi-­judicial order must be supported by reasons to be recorded in writing. "An unreasoned decision may be just, but it may not appear to be so to the person affected. A reasoned decision, on the other hand, will have the appearance of fairness and justice.", the bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari observed while holding that the Council should have given its own findings in the matter since he observations of the Disciplinary Committee cannot be treated as findings.

561. Section 138 NI Act - Summons To Directors Justified If Complaint Avers That They Were In Charge & Responsible For Conduct Of Business Of Company

[Case: Ashutosh Ashok Parasrampuriya and another v. M/s Gharrkul Industries Pvt Ltd; Citation: LL 2021 SC 560]

The Supreme Court reiterated that the summons issued by a Magistrate on a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to the Directors of a Company is justified if the complaint contains the basic averment that they were in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. A bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka was dealing with an appeal against a High Court judgment which refused to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the summons issued to the Directors of a Company, which was facing a complaint over dishonour of cheque. Approving the same, the Supreme Court noted that it is well settled by precedents that powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to quash the summons against the Directors if the complaint has the basic averments against them. The Court noted that Section 141 of the NI Act imposes vicarious liability on the "every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company".

562. Part-Time Employees Can't Seek Regularization As Matter Of Right Contrary To Govt's Regularization Policy

[Case: Union of India and Ors v. Ilmo Devi and Anr; Citation: LL 2021 SC 561]

The Supreme Court observed that part-time temporary employees in a Government-run institution cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna observed, "part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularization as they are not working against any sanctioned post and there cannot be any permanent continuance of part-time temporary employees as held. The regularization can be only as per the regularization policy declared by the State/Government and nobody can claim the regularization as a matter of right dehors the regularization policy."

563. No Limitation Period In Case Of A Usufructuary Mortgage

[Case: Ram Dattan (Dead) by LRs v. Devi Ram and others; Citation: LL 2021 SC 562]

The Supreme Court observed that there is no limitation period in case of a usufructuary mortgage. A bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian was dealing with an appeal filed by a mortgagee, who claimed ownership of the mortgaged property on the ground that 45 years had elapsed after the mortgage. Relying on few precedents, it held, "special right of usufructuary mortgagor under S.62 of the TP Act to recover possession commences in the manner specified therein, i.e., when mortgage money is paid out of rents and profits or partly out of rents and profits and partly by payment or deposit by mortgagor. Until then, limitation does not start for purposes of Art.61 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. A usufructuary mortgagee is not entitled to file a suit for declaration that he had become an owner merely on the expiry of 30 years from the date of the mortgage."

564. SLP Only Against A Review Order Not Maintainable, Reiterates Supreme Court

[Case: Bechai (Dead) v. Jag Ram; Citation: LL 2021 SC 563]

The Supreme Court reiterated that a special leave petition against only a review order passed by High Court is not maintainable. A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh referred to an earlier judgment in Municipal Corp.Of Delhi v. Yashwant Singh Negi in which it was held thus: "Once the High Court has refused to entertain the review petition and the same was dismissed confirming the main order, there is no question of any merger and the aggrieved person has to challenge the main order and not the order dismissing the review petition because on the dismissal of the review petition the principle of merger does not apply."

565. "Reduces Litigation To Gambit": Supreme Court Deprecates 'Disturbing Trend' Of Filing Miscellaneous Applications Seeking Modification Of Its Judgments

[Case: Supertech Ltd v. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association; Citation: LL 2021 SC 564]

The Supreme Court observed that filing of miscellaneous application seeking modification/clarification of a judgment is not envisaged in law. The Court observed that there is a disturbing trend of filing such repeated applications after the pronouncement of a final judgment. "Such a practice has no legal foundation and must be firmly discouraged. It reduces litigation to a gambit.", the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna observed. The bench also noted that Miscellaneous Applications are becoming a preferred course to those with resources to pursue strategies to avoid compliance with judicial decisions. It observed, "The hallmark of a judicial pronouncement is its stability and finality. Judicial verdicts are not like sand dunes which are subject to the vagaries of wind and weather. A disturbing trend has emerged in this court of repeated applications, styled as Miscellaneous Applications, being filed after a final judgment has been pronounced. Such a practice has no legal foundation and must be firmly discouraged."

566. Convicts Represented By Legal Aid Advocates Shouldn't Suffer Due To Delay : Supreme Court Issues Directions For Early Disposal Of Criminal Appeals In HC's

[Case: Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 565]

The Supreme Court issued directions for timely disposal of appeals filed against conviction pending before the High Courts which are being looked after by the High Court Legal Services Committee. A Bench comprising Justice SK Kaul and Justice MM Sundresh observed that a detailed exercise was undertaken by the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee whereby it prepared a chart with list of all criminal appeals pending in the Delhi High Court and being looked after by the High Court Legal Services Committee and shared with the National Legal Services Authority. The Bench has directed High Court Legal Services Committee of different High Courts to undertake a similar exercise so that convicts represented by legal aid Advocates do not suffer due to delay in hearing of the appeals. The Court has directed the NALSA to monitor the exercise to be carried on. The Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee has also been directed to take up the cases of those convicts who have undergone more than half the sentence in case of fixed-term sentences and examine the feasibility of filing bail applications before the High Court.

567. Anticipatory Bail Granted Ignoring Material Aspects, Nature & Gravity Of Offence Liable To Be Cancelled

[Case: Prashant Singh Rajput v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 566]

The Supreme Court observed that anticipatory bail granted ignoring material aspects including the nature and gravity of the offence is liable to be canceled. The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna in the present matter was hearing a criminal appeal assailing High Court's order granting anticipatory bail to the accused(s) in connection with a crime registered for offences punishable u/s 302 and 323 r/w 34 of IPC, 1860. The Apex Court while setting aside the orders granting anticipatory bail observed, "The Court has to determine whether, on the basis of the material available at this stage, the High Court has applied the correct principles in allowing the applications for anticipatory bail. The offence is of a serious nature in which Vikas Singh was murdered. The FIR and the statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC indicate a specific role to Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh in the crime. The order granting anticipatory bail has ignored material aspects, including the nature and gravity of the offence, and the specific allegations against Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh. Hence, a sufficient case has been made out for cancelling the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court."

568. Allowing 'Kashmiri Migrant' Retired Govt. Employees To Retain Govt. Accommodation For Indefinite Long Period Unconstitutional

[Case: Union of India v. Omkar Nath Dhar; Citation: LL 2021 SC 567]

The Supreme Court held that a government employee who is a Kashmiri Migrant cannot retain Government accommodation for a period exceeding three years. The Court held that the Office Memorandum allowing the retired Government employees who are Kashmiri Migrants to retain Government accommodation for indefinite long period is unconstitutional for being as being totally arbitrary and discriminatory. There cannot be any justification on the basis of social or economic criteria to allow the Kashmiri Migrants to stay in Government accommodation for an indefinite long period, the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna observed.

569. Court Shall Not Help An Absconding Accused Who Is Not Cooperating With Investigation

[Case: Sanatan Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 568]

The Supreme Court observed that a Court shall not come to the rescue or help an absconding accused who is not cooperating with the investigation. The bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna observed thus while upholding an Allahabad High Court order refusing anticipatory bail. The accused, Sanatan Pandey, was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 308, 504 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. "There is a prima facie case found against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences and even the charge-sheet has been filed and the petitioner is found to be absconding. Therefore, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.", the court said taking note of the above facts. "The Court shall not come to the rescue or help the accused who is not cooperating the investigating agency and absconding and against whom not only nonbailable warrant has been issued but also the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued.", the bench said.

570. Refund Of Stamp Duty Cannot Be Denied On Ground Of Delay If Application Got Belated Due To Judicial Proceedings

[Case: Mr.Rajeev Nowhar v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Maharastra Case, Pune; Citation: LL 2021 SC 569]

The Supreme Court exercised powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to order refund of stamp duty to a person, noting that the delay in making the application was due to the delay in deciding his consumer case before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Court decided to exercise the powers under Article 142, after noting that there was no provision in the relevant statute, the Maharashtra Stamp Act, barring refund of stamp duty when the application for the same was belated due to judicial delay. The Court expressed the view that when the application was delayed due to the prolonged judicial proceedings, the refund cannot be denied on the ground of delay.

"We are conscious of the fact that as a general rule of law, the right to refund is a statutory creation. A refund can be sought in terms envisaged by statute. As discussed above, the case of the appellant is not specifically barred by any substantive provision. It is an established principle that this Court while exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution must not ignore and override statutory provisions but must rather take note of the express statutory provisions and exercise its discretion with caution. Therefore, if a statute prescribes a limitation period, this Court must be slow to interfere with the delay under Article 142", a Bench comprising Justices D.Y.Chandrachud and B.V.Nagaratha observed.

571. Relief Against Third-Party Can't Be Claimed In Proceedings Between Husband & Wife Under Hindu Marriage Act

[Case: Nitaben Dinesh Patel v. Dinesh Dahyabhai Patel; Citation: LL 2021 SC 570]

The Supreme Court held that in a proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act between a husband and a wife, a relief against a third party cannot be claimed. The Court held so while rejecting a wife's plea to seek a declaration that the alleged marriage between her husband and another woman was void. "Under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, the relief of divorce, judicial separation etc. can be between the husband and the wife only and cannot extend to the third party. Therefore, by virtue of Section 23A of the Hindu Marriage Act, it is not open for the appellant herein – original defendant to seek declaration to the effect that the marriage between the respondent – original plaintiff and the third party is void. No relief can be prayed by way of counter claim even against the son born out of the alleged wedlock between the respondent – original plaintiff and the third party", a Bench comprising Justices M.R.Shah and A.S.Bopanna stated.

572. Mere Failure To Avoid Collision By Taking Some Extraordinary Precaution Does Not In Itself Constitute Contributory Negligence

[Case: K. Anusha v. Regional Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd; Citation: LL 2021 SC 571]

The Supreme Court observed that mere failure to avoid the collision by taking some extraordinary precaution, does not in itself constitute negligence. To establish contributory negligence, some act or omission, which materially contributed to the accident or the damage, should be attributed to the person against whom it is alleged, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed.

573. Income Tax Act - Date Of Receipt Of Order Irrelevant For Computing Limitation Under Section 263(2)

[Case: Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed; Citation: LL 2021 SC 572]

The Supreme Court held that the date of the receipt of the assessment order has no relevance in computing the limitation period for the Revision by the Principal Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. A Bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna observed, "the word used is "made" and not the order "received" by the assessee. Even the word "dispatch" is not mentioned in Section 263 (2). Therefore, once it is established that the order under Section 263 was made/passed within the period of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed, such an order cannot be said to be beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 263 (2) of the Act. Receipt of the order passed under Section 263 by the assessee has no relevance for the purpose of counting the period of limitation provided under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act".

574. Order VIII Rule 1 CPC - Period For Filing Of Written Statement Is Directory In Civil Suits; But Mandatory In Commercial Suits

[Case: Shoraj Singh v. Charan Singh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 573]

The Supreme Court observed that the period of 90 days for filing of written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure in civil suits is directory. The bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian held the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC are mandatory in the Commercial Courts under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. "It may be stated herein that the provisions of Order 8 Rule of CPC are mandatory in the Commercial Courts under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015", the Supreme Court observed.

575. Civil Dispute Given Colour Of Criminal Offence: Supreme Court Says Criminal Proceedings Should Not Become Weapons Of Harassment

[Case: Randheer Singh v. State of UP; Citation: LL 2021 SC 574]

Dispute of a civil nature has been given colour of criminal offence, the Supreme Court has observed in a judgment delivered last month while it quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a property purchaser. The bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari observed that while considering a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings, the High Court should examine whether a complaint discloses criminal offence or not depends on the nature of the allegation and whether the essential ingredients of a criminal offence are present or not. Section 482 is designed to achieve the purpose of ensuring that criminal proceedings are not permitted to generate into weapons of harassment, the court reiterated. In this case, an FIR was lodged against the power of attorney of the complainant and the purchaser of the property. Examining the FIR, the court observed that the criminal proceedings are being taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment against the purchaser.

576. Supreme Court Again Deprecates Practice Of Summoning Public Officers Unnecessarily To Court

[Case: Prathama U.P Gramin Bank v. Suneel Kumar; Citation: LL 2021 SC 575]

The Supreme Court deprecated the practice of summoning public officers unnecessarily to the court. In this case, the Allahabad High Court had summoned the Chairman of the Gramin Bank while considering a writ petition filed by a workman challenging his termination. The Court also directed the Regional Manager of the Bank to appear in person and to file an affidavit stating the number of staff working in the Bank as Daily Wager. The Bank challenged these orders before the Apex Court. "We find that there is no reason for the High Court to summon the Chairman and Regional Manager of the Bank. If the High Court was so sure of the order of termination is contrary to law, the High Court would be well within its jurisdiction to pass such an order but summoning of the officers, discharging public duties, is clearly unwarranted", the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian said.

577. UAPA- State Police Has Duty To Continue Investigation Of Schedule Offence Till NIA Actually Takes It Over

[Case: Naser Bin Abu Bakr Yafai v. State of Maharashtra; Citation: LL 2021 SC 576]

The Supreme Court observed that the State police has a duty to continue with the investigation of a schedule offence till the National Investigating Agency actually takes it over. Between the issuance of a direction and the actual taking up of the investigation by the NIA, there should be no hiatus in the investigation to the detriment of the interests of national security involved in the enactment of the legislation, the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna observed. The court added that mere renumbering of the case filed by the NIA did not take away the power of the State police (ATS) to continue the investigation.

578. Difference Between 'Parole' and 'Furlough' : Supreme Court Explains

[Case: State of Gujarat v. Narayan Sai; Citation: LL 2021 SC 577]

The Supreme Court discussed the differences between 'furlough' and 'parole' and the principles relating to grant of them. A bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice BV Nagarathna stated the broad principles as : (i) Furlough and parole envisage a short-term temporary release from custody; (ii) While parole is granted for the prisoner to meet a specific exigency, furlough may be granted after a stipulated number of years have been served without any reason; (iii) The grant of furlough is to break the monotony of imprisonment and to enable the convict to maintain continuity with family life and integration with society; (iv) Although furlough can be claimed without a reason, the prisoner does not have an absolute legal right to claim furlough; (v) The grant of furlough must be balanced against the public interest and can be refused to certain categories of prisoners. Referring to various precedents, the bench also observed that balance needs to be maintained between two competing interests while granting parole or furlough- that of reforming the convict on one hand and the public purpose and interests of society on the other:

579. Specific Role Of Accused Not Required To Be Stated In Order Granting Prior Approval U/s 24(1)(a) KCOCA

[Case: Kavitha Lankesh v. State of Karnataka; Citation: LL 2021 SC 578]

The Supreme Court observed that the specific role of the accused is not required to be stated in the order granting prior approval under Section 24(1)(a of the Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act, 2000. The prior approval is qua offence and not the offender as such, the bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar said while setting aside the Karnataka High Court judgment that had quashed charges under Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act (KCOCA) against accused Mohan Nayak in the Gauri Lankesh murder case. The court said that, at this stage, the competent authority has to focus essentially on the factum whether the information/material reveals the commission of a crime which is an organized crime committed by the organized crime syndicate.

580. Absconder/Proclaimed Offender Not Entitled To Anticipatory Bail

[Case: Prem Shankar Prasad v. State Of Bihar; Citation: LL 2021 SC 579]

The Supreme Court observed that an absconder/proclaimed offender is not entitled to relief of anticipatory bail. In this case, the Trial Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that as the accused is absconding and even the proceedings under section 82/83 Cr.PC has been issued, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail. Thereafter, the accused approached the High Court which granted the anticipatory bail. In appeal, the Top court noted that the High Court ignored the factum of initiation of proceedings under sections 82-­83 of Cr.PC by simply observing that "be that as it may". "In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma (Supra), it is observed and held by this court that if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of section 82 of Cr.PC, he is not entitled to relief of anticipatory bail", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna observed.

581. Order XXI Rule 16 CPC - Transferee Of Rights In Subject Matter Of Suit Can Apply For Execution Without Separate Assignment Of Decree

[Case: Vaishno Devi Construction v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 580]

The Supreme Court observed that the Explanation to Order XXI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, removed the distinction between an assignment pre-the decree and an assignment post the decree. Thus, the court observed that there is no bar under Order XXI Rule 16 against assignee who acquired rights prior to decree from making an application to execute the decree. The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and BR Gavai observed that the objective of the said amendment is to avoid multifarious proceedings to determine the issue of assignment and to determine the issue of assignment in the execution proceedings itself. The bench was hearing an appeal arising out of a claim based of an assignee of the decree holder in terms of Order XXI Rule 16 CPC ( application for execution by transferee of decree). During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the decree holder died. The appellants (now before SC) filed application before the executing court under Section 47 read with Order 22 Rules 1&2 of the CPC. This claim was based on the basis of an assignment made by the deceased decree holder (prior to decree). This application was dismissed by the Trial Court, and later by the High Court.

582. Limitation Period For Appeal Under Section 61 IBC Starts Running From Date Of Pronouncement; Delay In Uploading Won't Exclude Limitation

[Case: V Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd; Citation: LL 2021 SC 581]

The Supreme Court held that the period of limitation for filing of appeal against an order as per Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code will start running as soon as the same is pronounced and that it is not dependent on the date when the order is uploaded. So, a party who failed to file an application for the certified copy of the order immediately cannot raise a plea to extend the period of limitation on the ground of delay in uploading the order. The Court held that period awaiting the receipt of a free certified copy does not extend the limitation period under Section 61(2) of the IBC for a party who has not applied for the same.

The Court observed that a diligent litigant is expected to apply for the certified copy immediately. The act of filing an application for a certified copy is not just a technical requirement for computation of limitation but also an indication of the diligence of the aggrieved party in pursuing the litigation in a timely fashion, the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna observed. The Supreme Court also held that the annexation of a certified copy for an appeal to the NCLAT against an order passed in proceedings the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, cannot be automatically dispensed with. If an application has been filed, the period between the date of application and the date of receipt of order can be excluded from limitation as per Section 12 of the Limitation Act. The litigant has to file the appeal within thirty days, which can be extended up to a period of fifteen days, upon showing sufficient cause and no more, the court added.

583. Testimony Of Witness Who Identified Accused In Court Cannot Be Discarded Merely Because TIP Was Not Conducted

[Case: Jayan v. State of Kerala; Citation: LL 2021 SC 582]

The Supreme Court observed that the testimony of a witness who has identified the accused in the Court cannot be discarded merely because Test Identification Parade was not conducted. In a given case, there may be otherwise sufficient corroboration to the testimony of the witness, the bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka said. The court observed thus in a judgment allowing the appeal filed by the accused who were convicted under Section 55(a) of Kerala Abkari Act. However, in this case, the court disbelieved a witness who identified the accused in court where he saw him for the first time after 11 years. In this context, the court observed that T.I Parade is a part of the investigation and it is not substantive evidence.

584. Nomenclature Of Tax Does Not Determine Its Nature Of Levy Or True Character

[Case: Jalkal Vibhag Nagar Nigam and Ors v. Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation & Anr; Citation: LL 2021 SC 583]

The Supreme Court held that the nomenclature ascribed to a tax does not determine the nature of the levy or its true and essential character. Holding so, the Court observed that the tax labelled as "water tax" or "sewerage tax" under the UP Water Supply and Sewerage Act is in substance a tax on land and buildings situated with the area of the Jal Sansthan authority. The Court also noted that as per the statutory provisions, the tax labelled as "water tax" was not dependent on the actual consumption of water and was based on the provision for water supply given by the authority. A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna observed: "the legislature may choose a label having a relationship with the function of the authority which imposes the tax as in the present case. The tax has been labelled as the water tax or a sewerage tax simply because it is imposed by the Jal Sansthan constituted under the UP Water Supply and Sewerage Act. That does not alter the nature of the levy which in substance is a tax on lands and buildings within the meaning of Entry 49 of List II of the Seventh Schedule."

585. Selected IAS Candidates Have No Right To Be Allocated To Cadre Of Their Choice Or To Home State

[Case: Union of India v. A. Shainamol; Citation: LL 2021 SC 584]

The Supreme Court observed that selected IAS candidates have no right to be allocated to a cadre of their choice or to home state. The allocation of cadre is not a matter of right and the State has no discretion of allocation of a cadre at its whims and fancies, the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed. The court also observed that consultation under Rule 5(1) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 in respect of allocation of cadre is not required to be done with the State from which the candidate belongs. The mandate of Rule 5(1) of the Cadre Rules is satisfied when consultation is made with the State to which allocation is made. The court allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India against a direction issued by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam on 28.02.2017 whereby a successful IAS Candidate was directed to allocate a selected candidate to the Kerala cadre of the All-India Service.

586. High Court Under Article 226 Cannot Permit Party To Modify Its Offer Without Hearing Other Parties

[Case: Vaibhavi Enterprise v. Nobel Cera Coat Limited; Citation: LL 2021 SC 585]

The Supreme Court observed that High Court under Article 226 could not permit a party to modify its offer without hearing other parties. The bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna in the present matter was considering a special leave petition assailing Gujarat High Court's judgement in which the High Court had directed ONGC to finalize the contract with an applicant on the condition that it would lift the gas within 65 days from the date of allotment instead of 75 days as offered by it earlier.

Allowing the SLP, the Court observed, "So the procedure adopted by the High Court while disposing of the writ petition by permitting / allowing the original writ applicant to modify its offer and that too in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as observed herein above, is unsustainable and unknown to law. We have our own doubt whether in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court could have permitted one of the bidders to revise / modify its offer. Even in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court felt that instead of inviting fresh bids, the same could be allowed, in that case also, similar opportunities ought to have been given to the other applicants also."

587. NDPS Charges Based On Section 67 Statements Of Accused Unsustainable : Supreme Court Applies 'Tofan Singh' Judgment

[Case: Sanjeev Chandra Agarwal & Anr. v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 586]

In a case under the NDPS Act, the Supreme Court set aside the charges framed against the accused after noting that the case was based on statements by other accused given to officers under Section 67, which are inadmissible in evidence. A bench comprising Justices Sanjeev Khanna and Bela Trivedi noted that the Supreme Court's verdict in last year's case Tofan Singh v State of Tamil Nadu had declared that confessions made to NDPS officers are inadmissible in evidence. In this case, it observed that the factual position was that no narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances were recovered from the premises of the two appellants.

Also Read: NDPS Act : Are 'Confessional' Statements Given Under Section 67 Admissible In Evidence?

588. Requirement To File Certificate Of A Senior Advocate Along With Curative Petition Mandatory

[Case: Rajesh Jha v. State of Uttar Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 587]

The Supreme Court observed that filing of certificate of a Senior Advocate along with curative petition is a mandatory requirement. In this case, instead of filing the requisite certificate from a Senior Advocate, the petitioner, a convict, filed an application for exemption from filing the said certificate. Taking note of the fact that it is a jail petition, the court referred the matter to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC). The Committee forwarded a Senior Advocate letter stating inter alia that there is no ground available for filing a curative petition. "Order XLVIII Rule 2(2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 makes it mandatory to file a certificate from a Senior Advocate, certifying inter alia that the case is covered in terms of the guidelines laid down in the case of "Rupa Ashok Hurra" (supra). Since the information received from the Senior Advocate states that no ground is available for entertaining a curative petition, the unregistered Curative Petition is dismissed along with all the pending applications.", Justice Hima Kohli observed while dismissing the petition.

589. 'Dependent' Mother In Law Of A Deceased Can Maintain Motor Accident Claim Petition

[Case: N. Jayasree v. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd; Citation: LL 2021 SC 588]

The Supreme Court observed that a motor accident claim petition filed by mother in law who was dependent on her deceased son-in-law is maintainable. "It is not uncommon in Indian Society for the mother­-in­-law to live with her daughter and son-­in­-law during her old age and be dependent upon her son-­in-­law for her maintenance", the bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari observed while holding that she is a "legal representative" under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. "In our view, the term 'legal representative' should be given a wider interpretation for the purpose of Chapter XII of MV Act and it should not be confined only to mean the spouse, parents and children of the deceased. As noticed above, MV Act is a benevolent legislation enacted for the object of providing monetary relief to the victims or their families. Therefore, the MV Act calls for a liberal and wider interpretation to serve the real purpose underlying the enactment and fulfil its legislative intent."

590. Offences Under Special Statutes Including SC/ST Act Can Also Be Quashed By Exercising Powers U/S 482CrPC/ Article 142

[Case: Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 589]

The Supreme Court observed that criminal proceedings arising out of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 can be quashed invoking powers under Article 142 of Constitution or Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. "The mere fact that the offence is covered under a 'special statute' would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 CrPC", a three judges bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli observed. The Bench opined, "where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings."

591. Distinction Between "Preparation" & "Attempt To Rape": Supreme Court Explains

[Case: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mahendra Alias Golu; Citation: LL 2021 SC 590]

While upholding conviction of a man accused of attempt to rape, the Supreme Court explained the distinction between 'Preparation' and 'Attempt' to commit rape. The issue before the Court was whether the offence proved to have been committed by the accused amounts to 'attempt' to commit rape within the meaning of Section 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 IPC or was it a mere 'preparation' which led to outraging the modesty of the victims? The court noticed that, it has come in evidence that the accused had taken the minor girls were taken inside the room, closing the doors and taking the victims to a room. That then he stripped the girls and himself, and rubbed his genitals against those of the victims. It also found that the statements of both the victim children inspire full confidence, establish their innocence and evince a natural version without any remote possibility of tutoring.

The court observed that these acts were committed with endeavour to commit sexual intercourse. "These acts were deliberately done with manifest intention to commit the offence aimed and were reasonably proximate to the consummation of the offence. The acts of the accused exceeded the stage beyond preparation and preceded the actual penetration". the bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli observed holding that the Trial Court rightly convicted him for attempting to commit rape as punishable within the ambit and scope of Section 511 read with Section 375 IPC as it stood in force at the time of occurrence.

592. Arbitrator Has Substantial Discretion In Awarding Interest U/Sec 31 (7) (a) Arbitration Act

[Case: Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (Punsup) v. Ganpati Rice Mills; Citation: LL 2021 SC 591]

The Supreme Court observed that an Arbitrator has substantial discretion in awarding interest under Section 31(7)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In this case, the Arbitrator had granted interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 01.01.2003 till the date of realization. Disposing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), the rate of interest was reduced by the District Court to 12% per annum. In Arbitration appeal, the High Court further reduced the rate of interest to 9% per annum. In appeal, the the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi noted "Per contra, Section 31 (7) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 grants substantial discretion to the arbitrator in awarding interest. No reason and grounds have been given to reduce the rate of interest."

593. Mere Breach Of Contract Not Cheating; Giving Criminal Colour To Civil Disputes Must Be Discouraged

[Case: Mitesh Kumar J. Shah v. State of Karnataka; Citation: LL 2021 SC 592]

The Supreme Court observed that mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating. For criminal prosecution, the key ingredient of having a dishonest or fraudulent intent under sections 405, 419 and 420 has to be made out, the bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari observed. The bench said that a criminal color cannot be given to a civil dispute merely to take advantage of a relatively quick relief granted in a criminal case in contrast to a civil dispute. Such an exercise is nothing but an abuse of the process of law which must be discouraged in its entirety, the court added.

594. Vicarious Liability As A Principle Cannot Be Applied To A Contempt Case

[Case: Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex. Chief Executive Officer v. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association; Citation: LL 2021 SC 593]

The Supreme Court observed that vicarious liability as a principle cannot be applied to a case of contempt. Merely because a subordinate official acted in disregard of an order passed by the Court, a liability cannot be fastened on a higher official in the absence of knowledge, the bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice MM Sundresh observed. "Knowledge acquires substantial importance qua a contempt order. Merely because a subordinate official acted in disregard of an order passed by the Court, a liability cannot be fastened on a higher official in the absence of knowledge. When two views are possible, the element of willfulness vanishes as it involves a mental element. It is a deliberate, conscious and intentional act. What is required is a proof beyond reasonable doubt since the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature," it added.

595. Proceedings Under SC-ST Act Not Vitiated Merely Because Cognizance Was Taken By Magistrate

[Case: Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya v. Anand Athabhai Chaudhari; Citation: LL 2021 SC 594]

The Supreme Court observed that criminal proceedings under SC-ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is not vitiated merely because the magistrate had taken cognizance and committed the case to Special Court. The bench of Justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose observed that the insertion of second proviso to Section 14 of the Act only gives additional powers to the Special Court to take cognizance of the offences under the Act. It cannot be said that it takes away jurisdiction of the Magistrate to take cognizance and thereafter to commit the case to the Special Court for trial, the court said. The court further noted that under Section 460 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if any Magistrate not empowered by the law to take cognizance of an offence under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 190, takes cognizance, such irregularities do not vitiate proceedings. At the most, it can be said to be irregular proceedings for which, it does not vitiate the proceedings, the bench said.

596. 'Specific Performance No Longer A Discretionary Relief': Supreme Court Says 2018 Amendment May Not Have Retrospective Application But Can Be A 'Guide'

[Case: Sughar Singh v. Hari Singh (Dead); Citation: LL 2021 SC 595]

The specific performance is no longer a discretionary relief, the Supreme Court observed. The bench of Justice MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose observed that the 2018 amendment to the Specific Relief Act, 1963 by which section 10(a) has been inserted, though may not be applicable retrospectively but can be a guide on the discretionary relief. The court, however, did not decide the question whether the said provision would be applicable retrospectively or not and/or should be made applicable to all pending proceedings. "Not to grant the decree of specific performance despite the execution of the agreement to sell is proved; part sale consideration is proved and the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract would encourage the dishonesty," the court added.

597. 'Equality' A Definite Concept And A Vested Right; Article 14 Is Violated When 'Equals Are Treated Unequally'

[Case: Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2002 of Azam Jahi Mill Workers Association v. National Textile Corporation Limited; Citation: LL 2021 SC 596]

The Supreme Court observed that the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution is a vested right and the same is violated when the equals are treated unequally. The bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna said that for a classification to be valid, it must necessarily satisfy two tests: Firstly, the distinguishing rationale has to be based on a just objective and secondly, the choice of differentiating one set of persons from another must have a reasonable nexus to the objects sought to be achieved.

598. Motor Accident Claims - Loss Of Earning Capacity To Be Fixed As 100% When Claimant Is Incapacitated For Life

[Case: Jithendran v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd; Citation: LL 2021 SC 597]

The Supreme Court held that the loss of earning capacity must be fixed as 100% when a claimant-motor accident victim is incapacitated for life and is confined to home. A person therefore is not only to be compensated for the injury suffered due to the accident but also for the loss suffered on account of the injury and his inability to lead the life he led, prior to the life-altering event the bench of Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy observed. The court added that the extent of economic loss arising from a disability may not be measured in proportions to the extent of permanent disability. "While the money awarded by Courts can hardly redress the actual sufferings of the injured victim (who is deprived of the normal amenities of life and suffers the unease of being a burden on others), the courts can make a genuine attempt to help restore the self-dignity of such claimant, by awarding 'just compensation", the bench remarked. In the case, the Court noted that even though the physical disability is assessed at 69%, the functional disability is 100% in so far as claimant's loss of earning capacity is concerned.

599. Sections 91/92 Evidence Act: When Parties Put Their Agreement Into Writing, It is Conclusively Presumed To Be Full & Final Statement Of Intentions

[Case: V Anantha Raju & Anr v. T.M.Narasimhan & Or; Citation: LL 2021 SC 598]

"It has been held that when parties deliberately put their agreement into writing, it is conclusively presumed, between themselves and their privies, that they intended the writing to form a full and final statement of their intentions, and one which should be placed beyond the reach of future controversy, bad faith and treacherous memory", a Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna and B.R.Gavai observed while dealing with a case involving the validity of the term of a Partnership Deed.

"When persons express their agreements in writing, it is for the express purpose of getting rid of any indefinite-ness and to put their ideas in such shape that there can be no misunderstanding, which so often occurs when reliance is placed upon oral statements", the Bench observed further. The court held that if a document has been produced to prove its terms under Section 91, the provisions of Section 92 come into operation for the purpose of excluding evidence of any oral agreement or statement for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding or subtracting from its terms. "It has been held that when parties deliberately put their agreement into writing, it is conclusively presumed, between themselves and their privies, that they intended the writing to form a full and final statement of their intentions, and one which should be placed beyond the reach of future controversy, bad faith and treacherous memory", it was opined further. The Court thus held that in view of S.91 of the Evidence Act, the evidentiary value of the 1995 Deed would stand on a much higher pedestal, as against the oral testimony of the parties.

600. 'First Come First Serve' Policy Of Granting Licence Is Fundamentally Flawed'

[Case: Anant Raj Ltd. v. State of Haryana; Citation: LL 2021 SC 599]

The Supreme Court observed that there is a fundamental flaw in the policy of granting licence on the First Come First Serve basis. It is the solemn duty of the State to ensure that a non-­discriminatory method is adopted, whether it is for distribution or allotment of licence on his own land, or alienation of property, the bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka observed. "Any person who has an access to the power corridors will be made available with an information from the Government records and before there could be a public notice accessible to the people at large, the interested person may submit his application, as happened in the instant case, and become entitled to stand first included in queue to have a better claim, at the same time it is the solemn duty of the State to ensure that a non-­discriminatory method is adopted, whether it is for distribution or allotment of licence on his own land, or alienation of property and it is imperative and of paramount consideration that every action of the State should always be in public interest", the Court observed.

601. Supreme Court Constitutes Independent Expert Committee To Probe Pegasus Snooping Allegations

[Case: Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India and connected cases; Citation: LL 2021 SC 600]

The Supreme Court ordered the constitution of an independent expert committee to look into the allegations of widespread and targeted surveillance of politicians, journalists, activist etc using the Pegasus spyware. The functioning of the committee will be overseen by retired Supreme Court judge Justice RV Raveendran. The overseeing Judge will be assisted in this task by: i. Mr. Alok Joshi, former IPS officer (1976 batch) ii. Dr. Sundeep Oberoi, Chairman, Sub Committee in (International Organisation of Standardisation/ International Electro-Technical Commission/Joint Technical Committee). The three members Technical Committee shall comprise- i. Dr. Naveen Kumar Chaudhary, Professor (Cyber Security and Digital Forensics) and Dean, National Forensic Sciences University, Gandhinagar, Gujarat. ii. Dr. Prabaharan P., Professor (School of Engineering), Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amritapuri, Kerala. iii. Dr. Ashwin Anil Gumaste, Institute Chair Associate Professor (Computer Science and Engineering), Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, Maharashtra. The judgment pronounced by the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana said that the Court was constituted to pass this order due to the following "compelling circumstances".

Also Read: State Won't Get A Free Pass By Mere Mention Of "National Security" : Supreme Court In Pegasus Case

Also Read: Protection Of Journalistic Sources A Basic Condition For Freedom Of Press : Supreme Court In Pegasus Case

Also Read: Pegasus- All You Want To Know About Supreme Court Appointed Committee-Members, Terms Of Reference, Procedure

602. GST - 'Rectification Of Errors Permissible Only At Initial Stages': Supreme Court Dismisses Bharti Airtel's Plea For Refund Of Rs.923 Crore

[Case: Union of India v. Bharti Airtel; Citation: LL 2021 SC 601]

The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court judgment that had allowed Bharti Airtel's plea for rectification and refund of excess GST worth Rupees 923 Crores paid by it during the period between July-September 2017. "The law permits rectification of errors and omissions only at the initial stages of Forms GSTR­1 and GSTR­3, but in the specified manner. It is a different dispensation provided than the one in pre­-GST period, which did not have the provision of auto­populated records and entries.", the bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari observed. The court said that assessee cannot be permitted to unilaterally carry out rectification of his returns submitted electronically in Form GSTR­3B, as this would affect the obligations and liabilities of other stakeholders, because of the cascading effect in their electronic records. The court also upheld the circular issued by the Commissioner (GST) which had restricted the rectification of Form GSTR­3B in respect of the period in which the error had occurred.

603. Appointment Of Special Teachers For Divyang Children: Supreme Court Issues Directives To Centre, States

[Case: Rajneesh Kumar Pandey v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 602]

The Supreme Court issued directives in the matter of appointing special teachers to teach Children/Child with Special Needs. The bench was considering a writ petition alleging illegality being committed by authorities in employing such teachers in recognised schools on contract basis without any certainty of tenure. A Bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar said that its directives will operate across the country (all States and Union Territories). The State Commissioners appointed under Section 79 of the 2016 Act in the concerned States/Union Territories have been directed to forthwith initiate suo motu enquiries regarding compliance and then make recommendation to the appropriate authority (of the concerned State/Union Territory), as may be necessary, so that the authority will be obliged to submit compliance report to the State Commissioner within three months from the date of receipt of recommendation, as mandated under Section 81 of the 2016 Act.

Access full report to read directives

604. Supreme Court Temporarily Restores Senior Designation Of Yatin Oza For 2 Years

[Case: Yatin Narendra Oza v. High Court of Gujarat; Citation: LL 2021 SC 603]

With the caveat that it is the High Court which will watch and can best decide how he behaves and conducts himself as a senior counsel "without any further opportunity", the Supreme Court opined that the ends of justice would be served by temporarily restoring the designation of advocate Yatin Oza for a period of two years from January 1, 2022. "It will be for the High Court to take a final call whether his behaviour is acceptable in which case the High Court can decide to continue with his designation temporarily or restore it permanently. Needless to say that if there is any infraction in the conduct of the petitioner within this period of two years, the High Court would be well within its rights to withdraw the indulgence which we have given for two years which in turn is predicated on the assurances given by the petitioner and his counsel for the immaculate behaviour without giving any cause to the High Court to find fault with his conduct. In effect, the fate of the petitioner is dependent on his appropriate conduct as a senior counsel before his own High Court, which will have the final say", the bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R. Subhash Reddy clarified.

605. Suit For Permanent Injunction In Respect Of Waqf Property Maintainable Before Wakf Tribunal And Not Civil Court

[Case: Rashid Wali Beg v. Farid Pindari; Citation: LL 2021 SC 604]

The Supreme Court held that a suit for permanent injunction in respect of a waqf property has to be filed before the Wakf Tribunal and not the Civil Court. "To say that the Tribunal will have jurisdiction only if the subject property is disputed to be a waqf property and not if it is admitted to be a waqf property, is indigestible in the teeth of Section 83(1)", the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed. The court also added that the Waqf Tribunal will have power to issue temporary injunctions under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The judgment refers to historical background of the Wakf Act and also the conflicting judgments of various benches on this issue. The bench noted that many courts were misled by the reference to two specific questions in Sections 6(1) and 7(1), to come to the conclusion that the bar of jurisdiction was confined only to disputes revolving around those two questions. The court observed that the Section 83(1) even as it stood before the amendment, provided for the determination by the Tribunal, of any dispute, question or other matter (i) relating to a waqf; and (ii) relating to a waqf property. "Therefore, to allow the plaintiff to ignore the Waqf Tribunal and to seek a decree of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction from a civil court, would be ignore the mandate of section 83 and 85 which speak of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a waqf or a waqf property.", the Court observed.

606. Mere Support To Terrorist Organization Without Intention To Further Its Activities Does Not Attract Section 38/39 UAPA

[Case: Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 605]

In its judgment restoring the bail granted to Thwaha Fasal and Allan Shuhaib, the Supreme Court observed that mere support given to a terrorist organization or mere association with it, is not sufficient to attract offences under Sections 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The association and the support have to be with intention of furthering the activities of a terrorist organisation, the bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka observed. Such intention, according to the court, can be inferred from the overt acts or acts of active participation of the accused in the activities of a terrorist organization which are borne out from the materials forming a part of charge sheet. Further, the court reiterated that the restrictions imposed by sub-section (5) of Section 43D per se do not prevent a Constitutional Court from granting bail on the ground of violation of Part III of the Constitution.

607. Dishonour Of Cheque Issued As A Security Can Also Attract Offences U/Sec 138 NI Act

[Case: Sripati Singh (D) v. State of Jharkhand; Citation: LL 2021 SC 606]

The Supreme Court observed that the dishonour of cheque issued as a security can also attract offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. There cannot be a hard and fast rule that a cheque which is issued as security can never be presented by the drawee of the cheque, the bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna observed. The court added that such contention would arise only in a circumstance where the debt has not become recoverable and the cheque issued as security has not matured to be presented for recovery of the amount, if the due date agreed for payment of debt has not arrived.

608. SC/ST Act - Notice To Victim Under Section 15A In Court Proceedings Against Accused Is Mandatory

[Case: Hariram Bhambhi v. Satyanarayan; Citation: LL 2021 SC 607]

The Supreme Court observed that the requirement under Section 15A of SC-ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of issuing notice of a court proceeding to a victim or a dependent is mandatory. The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna observed that, as per this requirement, a reasonable and timely notice must be issued to the victim or their dependent. Under Section 15A(3), a victim or his dependent shall have the right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any Court proceeding including any bail proceeding and the Special Public Prosecutor or the State Government shall inform the victim about any proceedings under this Act. As per Section 15A(5), a victim or his dependent shall be entitled to be heard at any proceeding under this Act in respect of bail, discharge, release, parole, conviction or sentence of an accused or any connected proceedings or arguments and file written submission on conviction, acquittal or sentencing.

609. National Security Act: Failure To Communicate Rejection Of Detenu's Representation In Time Bound Manner Will Vitiate Detention Order

[Case: Sarabjeet Singh Mokha v. District Magistrate, Jabalpur; Citation: LL 2021 SC 608]

The Supreme Court observed that failure of Government to communicate rejection of a detenu's representation in a time-bound manner is sufficient to vitiate the order of detention passed under National Security Act. The Bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna said that the detenu has right to have his representation considered expeditiously- failing which the detention order would be invalidated. This right would ring hollow without a corollary right of the detenu to receive a timely communication from the appropriate government on the status of its representation- be it an acceptance or a rejection, the Bench opined. It noted that Article 22(5) of the Constitution mandates that (i) the authority making the order shall "as soon as may be" communicate the grounds on which the order has been made to the person detained; and (ii) the detaining authority shall afford to the person detained "the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order".

610. If Banned Firecrackers Found To Be Made Or Used, Authorities Will Be Held Personally Liable

[Case: Arjun Gopal v Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 609]

The Supreme Court issued a series of directions to ensure the strict implementation of its earlier orders banning the use of barium-based chemicals in fire crackers and allowing only the use of "green crackers". A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna held that that if it was found that any banned firecrackers are manufactured, sold and used in any particular area, the Chief Secretary of the concerned State(s), the Secretary (Homes) of the concerned State(s) and the Commissioner of Police of the concerned area, District Superintendent of Police of the concerned area and the SHO/Police Officer in-charge of the concerned police station shall be held personally liable. The Court also made clear that there was no total ban on use of firecrackers and said that only those firecrackers were banned that contained barium salts.

611. Evidence In A Trial Against An Accused Does Not Have Any Bearing Upon A Co-Accused In A Separate Trial For The Commission Of Same Offence

[Case: AT Mydeen v. Assistant Commissioner, Customs Department; Citation: LL 2021 SC 610]

The evidence recorded in a criminal trial against any accused is confined to the culpability of that accused only and it does not have any bearing upon a co-accused, who has been tried on the basis of evidence recorded in a separate trial, though for the commission of the same offence, the Supreme Court observed. In other words, the culpability of any accused cannot be decided on the basis of any evidence, which was not recorded in his presence or his pleader's presence and for which he did not get an opportunity of cross-examination, unless the case falls under exceptions of law. The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna observed that the scope of the appellate court's power does not go beyond the evidence available before it in the form of a trial court record of a particular case, unless section 367 or section 391 of Cr.P.C. comes into play in a given case, which are meant for further inquiry or additional evidence while dealing with any criminal appeal.

612. 'Mental Health Of A Person Can't Be Compressed Into A One Size Fits All Approach': Supreme Court In Abetment To Suicide Case

[Case: Mahendra KC v. State of Karnataka and Others; Citation: LL 2021 SC 611]

Stressing that the "mental health of a person cannot be compressed into a one-size fits all approach", the Supreme Court has criticized a High Court judgment for terming a person who died by suicide a "weakling". The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna in the present matter was considering an appeal against the order passed by the High Court of Karnataka in which the Court had quashed an FIR registered against Special Land Acquisition Officer u/s 306 r/w 34 of IPC, 1860 on the ground that continuation of the prosecution "would [be] a travesty of justice and be a sheer waste of time", besides requiring the accused-respondent "to undergo the rigors of a lengthy trial".

613. Employee Can't Claim Change Of Date Of Birth As A Matter Of Right

[Case: Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited v. T.P. Nataraja & Ors; Citation: LL 2021 SC 612]

The Supreme Court observed that application for change of date of birth by an employee can only be as per the relevant provisions/regulations applicable. The Court reiterated change of date of birth cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna summarised the law on the change of date of birth as under: (i) application for change of date of birth can only be as per the relevant provisions/regulations applicable; (ii) even if there is cogent evidence, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right; (iii) application can be rejected on the ground of delay and latches also more particularly when it is made at the fag end of service and/or when the employee is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation.

614. NIA Act- Division Bench Of High Court Should Hear Revision Petition Against Special Court Order

[Case: State of Kerala v. Roopesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 613]

Holding that a revision petition against an order passed by a Special Court under the National Investigation Agency can lie only before a division bench of a High Court, the Supreme Court set aside an order passed by the Kerala High Court in the case relating to alleged Maoist leader Roopesh. A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna set aside the order passed by the single bench and remanded the matter back to the High Court for being heard by a division bench. The matter should be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of 6 months, the Supreme Court added. "It goes without saying that all the contentions/defences, which may be available to the respective parties are kept open to be considered by the Division Bench of the High Court in accordance with law and on its own merits", the bench noted in the order.

615. Offender Who Had Not Used Deadly Weapon During Robbery Cannot Be Convicted Under Section 397 IPC

[Case: Ganesan v. State; Citation: LL 2021 SC 614]

The Supreme Court observed that an offender who had not used any deadly weapon at the time of committing robbery/dacoity cannot be convicted under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. The use of deadly weapon by one offender at the time of committing robbery/dacoity cannot attract Section 397 IPC for the imposition of minimum punishment on another offender who has not used any deadly weapon. A Bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed, "The term 'offender' under Section 397 IPC is confined to the 'offender' who uses any deadly weapon and use of deadly weapon by one offender at the time of committing robbery cannot attract Section 397 IPC for the imposition of minimum punishment on another offender who has not used any deadly weapon. Even there is distinction and difference between Section 397 and Section 398 IPC. The word used in Section 397 IPC is 'uses' any deadly weapon and the word used in Section 398 IPC is 'offender is armed with any deadly weapon'. Therefore, for the purpose of attracting Section 397 IPC the 'offender' who 'uses' any deadly weapon Section 397 IPC shall be attracted"

616. Seriousness & Gravity Of Crime Relevant Considerations For Grant Of Bail

[Case: Bhoopendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr; Citation: LL 2021 SC 615]

The Supreme Court set aside an order of the Rajasthan High Court by which it granted bail to an accused for murder of the village sarpanch, after noting that the High Court did not consider the relevant considerations of seriousness and gravity of the crime and the specific role attributed to the accused. While directing the accused to surrender, a Bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice BV Nagarathna opined that the High Court failed to notice relevant circumstances bearing on the seriousness and gravity of the crime and the role attributed to the accused.

617. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act- Mere Dispatch Of Public Analyst's Report To Accused Not A Sufficient Compliance Of Mandatory Requirement To Serve It On Him

[Case: Narayana Prasad Sahu v. State of MP; Citation: LL 2021 SC 616]

The Supreme Court observed that mere dispatch of the report of public analyst to the accused is not a sufficient compliance with the requirement of subsection (2) of Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, to serve the report on him/her. Apart from the right of the accused to contend that the report is not correct, he has the right to exercise an option of sending the sample to Central Food Laboratory for analysis by making an application to the Court within ten days from the date of receipt of the report, the bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka observed. The court observed thus while allowing the appeal filed by a person convicted for the offence punishable under Section (16)(1)(a)(i)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

618. Insurance Claim Liable To Be Rejected If Premium Was Not Paid On Due Date

[Case: Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sunita; Citation: LL 2021 SC 617]

The Supreme Court observed that it is not permissible to rewrite the contract while interpreting the terms of the Insurance Policy. The bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi said that the terms of the insurance policy have to be strictly construed. In a contract of insurance there is a requirement of Uberrima fides i.e. good faith on the part of the assured, the court said. The accident claim of complainant's husband was refused by LIC stating that his said policy had already lapsed on account of non-payment of the due premium. The court observed that the Accident benefit could have been claimed and availed of only if the accident had taken place subsequent to the renewal of the policy.

619. PC Act - More Time Taken For Preliminary Enquiry Not A Ground To Quash Criminal Proceedings

[Case: The State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Dr Saleem ur Rehman; Citation: LL 2021 SC 618]

The Supreme Court observed that whatever enquiry is conducted at the stage of Preliminary Enquiry, by no stretch of imagination, can be considered as investigation under the code of criminal procedure which can only be after registration of the FIR. The Court also observed that merely because some time is taken for conducting preliminary enquiry, that cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna was considering an appeal against the High Court's judgement in which the Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction quashed the criminal proceedings and declared Rule 3.16 of the Vigilance Manual, 2008 dealing with the Preliminary Enquiry (PE) as ultra vires, being in direct conflict with the Top Court's judgement in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh.

Also Read: Prior Sanction Of Magistrate Not Mandatory For Investigating Non-Cognizable Offence Along With Cognizable Offence

620. Taluk Land Board's Determination Has Evidentiary Value In Proceedings Under Kerala Private Forest Vesting Act

[Case: State Of Kerala & Anr. v. M/S Popular Estates; Citation: LL 2021 SC 619]

The Supreme Court observed that determination arrived by the Land Board about the character of lands, under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 becomes a piece of evidence for the purposes of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. The bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and S Ravindra Bhat in the present matter was dealing with a special leave petition assailing Kerala High Court's order by which the Court held that an area of slightly over 402 acres vested in the State of Kerala and the rest of the land of a total of 1534.40 acres had to be treated as plantation and thus belonged to Popular Estates. It thus opined that "the enunciation of the principle that "unless a contrary state of affairs" were shown to exist, the Board's order "would have to be given due weight" had to apply, and was correctly invoked by the High Court."

Also Read: Article 136 Interference Not Called For Merely Because A Different View About High Court's Judgment Is Possible

621. Mere Apprehension Of Threat Of life Without Substantiating It Not Sufficient Ground To Transfer A Criminal Case U/Sec 406 CrPC

[Case: Dinesh Mahajan v. Vishal Mahajan; Citation: LL 2021 SC 620]

The Supreme Court observed that mere apprehension of threat of life is not a sufficient ground to transfer a case, without lodging a complaint or substantiating the said ground. In this case, the petition sought transfer of Complaint filed under Sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu to Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. "No complaint has been lodged by the petitioner to the authorities concerned or before any Court. Mere apprehension of threat of life is not a sufficient ground to transfer a case, without lodging a complaint or substantiating the said ground.", the court noted.

622. Principle Of Preferential Candidates Applies When There Is A Tie With A General Candidate

[Case: Chairman, TANGEDCO v. Priyadaarshini; Citation: LL 2021 SC 621]

The Supreme Court observed that the principle of preferential candidates would apply when there is a tie between the preferential candidate and a general candidate and the person who is to be treated as a preferential can be given a mark over a general candidate. Rule 55 of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules read thus: Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in the Special Rules for the various State and Subordinate Service, other things being equal, preference shall be given to the Outstanding scouts for appointment to any post by direct recruitment.

"The principle of preferential candidates would apply when there is a tie between the preferential candidate and a general candidate and the person who is to be treated as a preferential can be given a mark over a general candidate. This is the most material distinction. In view thereof, the respondent could not have been treated as a "preferential candidate" much less a "priority candidate", the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh said.

623. [Minimum Wages Act] Burden Of Person In Charge Of Company - Proviso To Section 22(c) Does Not Reverse Onus Of Proof

[Case: Dayle De'Souza v. Government of India Through Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C) And Another; Citation: LL 2021 SC 622]

The Supreme Court held that the burden on the accused to prove innocence under proviso to Section 22C(1) of the Minimum Wages Act,1948 shifts only when the ingredients of Section 22C(1) have been satisfactorily established by the prosecution. A bench comprising Justices R Subhash Reddy and Sanjiv Khanna quashed a summoning order and proceedings issued by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh taking cognisance of the offence under Section 22A of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules,1950 as per the complaint filed by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) against the appellant, Dalye De'Souza, a director of M/s. Writer Safeguards Pvt. Ltd. and one Mr. Vinod Singh, Madhya Pradesh head of M/s. Writer Safeguards Pvt. Ltd.

624. Criminal Cases Having Overwhelmingly & Predominatingly A Civil Flavour Stands On Different Footing For Purpose Of Quashing

[Case: Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab; Citation: LL 2021 SC 623]

The allegations made in the FIR had an overwhelmingly and predominatingly a civil flavour, the Supreme Court remarked while quashing a criminal proceeding. The bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath observed that inherent powers should be exercised in a given and deserving case where the Court is satisfied that exercise of such power would either prevent abuse of such power or such exercise would result in securing the ends of justice. In this case, the complainant alleged that he had paid money to the accused to get employment for his son abroad. That they did not honour their promise and harassed his son and did not arrange for a job as per their promise. The High Court dismissed the petition filed by the accused and declined to quash the proceedings on the ground that a perusal of the FIR goes to show that the name of the accused is specifically mentioned in the FIR and criminal acts have been attributed to him. "In our view, the present one is amongst those fittest cases where the High Court ought to have exercised its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and ought to have secured the ends of justice by closing the proceedings against the appellants", the Apex Court noted.

625. Will Can't Be Revoked By Subsequent Agreement; Revocation Only By Modes Under Section 70 Succession Act

[Case: Badrilal v. Suresh & Ors; Citation: LL 2021 SC 624]

The Supreme Court held that a Will cannot be revoked by an agreement and can be revoked only as per the modes specified under Section 70 of the Indian Succession Act. A Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka clarified the essential ingredients of S.70 of the Indian Succession Act required to be fulfilled in a case involving a question of revocation of a will by a subsequent agreement.

626. If Transfer Of Employee Results In Changing Conditions Of Service, Section 9A Of ID Act Will Be Applicable

[Case: Caparo Engineering India Ltd. v. Ummed Singh Lodhi And Anr; Citation: LL 2021 SC 625]

The Supreme Court observed that Fourth Schedule and Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would be attracted if transfer of workmen results in change of service conditions and nature of work. Section 9A of the ID Act says that employer should give a notice to employee regarding any change in the conditions of service applicable to any workman in respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule. The bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna in the present matter noted, "the question is not about the transfer only, the question is about the consequences of transfer. In the present case, the nature of work/service conditions would be changed and the consequences of transfer would result in the change of service conditions and the reduction of employees at Dewas factory, for which the Fourth Schedule and Section 9A shall be attracted."

627. Non-Residential Club Won't Come Under MP Shops & Establishments Act Merely Because Food Supply Is There

[Case: P.B. Nayak And Ors. v. Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant And Ors; Citation: LL 2021 SC 626]

The Supreme Court held that merely because a non-residential club is supplying meals and refreshments, the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1958, will not become applicable to it. A bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and PS Narasimha noted that the members did not assemble at the club premises for the purpose of 'wholly or principally' having their meals or refreshment, but in connection with other activities, and serving meal, refreshment and drink are only incidental to such other activities. Relying on the definition of 'club' and examining the facts of the case, the Supreme Court concluded that Respondent No. 2 was indeed a non-residential club and therefore, entitled to exemption.

628. Principle Of Initial Date Of Appointment Valid Principle To Determine Inter-Se Seniority In Absence Of Rules To Contrary

[Case: Sudhir Kumar Atrey v. Union of India & Ors; Citation: LL 2021 SC 627]

The Supreme Court held that the principle of initial date of appointment or continuous officiation will be the valid principle to be considered for determination of inter se seniority in the absence of any rule or guidelines to the contrary. A Bench compromising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay Oka has made the observations while delivering its judgment in appeals challenging judgments of both the Delhi and Punjab & Haryana High Court raising the same question of determination of seniority inter se of the candidates selected in their respective Command at the stage when a combined All India seniority list is to be prepared.

"We are also of the view that in the matter of adjudging seniority of the candidates selected in one and the same selection, placement in the order of merit can be adopted as a principle for determination of seniority but where the selections are held separately by different recruiting authorities, the principle of initial date of appointment/continuous officiation may be the valid principle to be considered for adjudging inter se seniority of the officers in the absence of any rule or guidelines in determining seniority to the contrary", the Bench observed.

629. No Statutory Power To Waive Interest Under Employees' State Insurance Act

[Case: The Transport Corporation of India Ltd v. Employees State Insurance Corporation; Citation: LL 2021 SC 628]

The Supreme Court held that there is no statutory power to waive the interest payable by an employer under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. It also refused to exercise powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do the same. This is not a fit case to exercise the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Court said. A Division Bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka made the observation while deciding an appeal challenging the judgment of Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal directing the appellant employer to pay interest on the delayed payment of contribution for the period from 30th March 1975 to 31st March 1988.

630. Supreme Court Sets Aside Calcutta HC's Total Ban Of Firecrackers In West Bengal; State To Ensure No Import Of Banned Firecrackers

[Case: Goutom Roy and Anr v. State of West Bengal; Citation: LL 2021 SC 629]

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Calcutta High Court which imposed a complete ban on the use of firecrackers in the State of West Bengal. "...we are convinced that Calcutta High Court should have called upon parties to give explanation before passing such an extreme order", the Court observed in the order. The Court observed that the High Court ought to have given opportunities to the authorities to place on record if any mechanism was in place to ensure that only "green crackers", as permitted by the Supreme Court, are being used. While setting aside the High Court's order, the Supreme Court also gave liberty to any party to approach the High Court with adequate materials. "There cannot be a complete ban of firecrackers. Strengthen the mechanism to stop misuse", orally observed the bench during the course of the hearing.

631. Conviction Based On Disclosure Statement Can Be Sustained Only When Resultant Recovery Is Unimpeachable

[Case: Bijender @ Mandar v. State of Haryana; Citation: LL 2021 SC 630]

The Supreme Court observed that to convict an accused exclusively on the basis of his disclosure statement and the resultant recovery of inculpatory material, the recovery should be unimpeachable and not be shrouded with elements of doubt. The issue before it was whether the conviction on the strength of the purported disclosure statement and the recovery memo in the absence of any corroborative evidence, can sustain? The bench of CJI NV Ramana, Justices Surya Kant, and Hima Kohli noted that the Trial Court and the High Court have shifted the burden on the accused to elucidate how he bechanced to be in possession of the incriminating articles, without primarily scrutinizing the credibility and admissibility of the recovery as well as its linkage to the misconduct.

632. Arbitration - Party Not Barred From Raising New Grounds To Set Aside Award In An Sec 37 Appeal

[Case: State of Chhattisgarh v. Sal Udyog Private Limited; Citation: LL 2021 SC 631]

The Supreme Court has observed that a party is not barred from raising an additional ground for setting aside an arbitration award in arbitration appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act,1996, merely because the said ground was not raised in the petition under Section 34 to set aside the Arbitration award. A Bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli observed, "We are afraid, the plea of waiver taken against the appellant-State on the ground that it did not raise such an objection in the grounds spelt out in the Section 34 petition and is, therefore, estopped from taking the same in the appeal preferred under Section 37 or before this Court, would also not be available to the respondent-Company having regard to the language used in Section 34(2A) of the 1996 Act that empowers the Court to set aside an award if it finds that the same is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the same."

633. Low Age Of Rape Victim Is Not Considered As The Only Or Sufficient Factor To Impose Death Sentence

[Case: Irappa Siddappa Murgannavar v. State of Karnataka; Citation: LL 2021 SC 632]

The Supreme Court observed that the low age of the rape victim is not considered as the only or sufficient factor for imposing a death sentence. The bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna, and BR Gavai referred to a recent judgment in Shatrughna Baban Meshram v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 1 SCC 596. In the said judgment, 67 judgments of the Supreme Court in the previous 40 years were surveyed wherein death sentence had been imposed by the trial court or the High Court for the alleged offences under Sections 376 and 302 of the Code, and where the age of victims was below 16 years. "It appears from the above data that low age of the victim has not been considered as the only or sufficient factor by this Court for imposing a death sentence. If it were the case, then all, or almost all, 67 cases would have culminated in imposition of sentence of death on the accused.", the Bench observed.

Also Read: "Hope For Reformation & Rehabilitation": Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence Awarded To Man Accused Of Rape & Murder Of 5 Year Old Girl

634. Sec 138 NI Act - Merely Because Complaint Mentions Managing Director's Name First, It Can't Be Held That Complaint Is Not On Behalf Of Company

[Case: Bhupesh Rathod v. Dayashankar Prasad Chaurasia and Anr; Citation: LL 2021 SC 633]

The Supreme Court held that a complaint filed on behalf of a company under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not liable to be dismissed for the sole reason that it stated the name of the Managing Director first followed by the company's name. A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundersh held that though this format may not be perfect it cannot be termed defective. "There could be a format where the Company's name is described first, suing through the Managing Director but there cannot be a fundamental defect merely because the name of the Managing Director is stated first followed by the post held in the Company", the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundersh observed in the order.

635. Land Acquisition | 2 Year Period For Lapse Of Proceedings Under 1894 Act Won't Apply After Notification Of 2013 Act

[Case: Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation v. Mahesh A; Citation: LL 2021 SC 634]

The Supreme Court held that the 2 year period prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 for the lapse of land acquisition proceedings for not delivering the award will not apply to an award passed after the notification of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The limitation period for passing/making of an award under Section 24(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition Act 2013 would commence from 1st January 2014, that is, the date when the 2013 Act came into force, the court observed. Under the new Act, the limitation period for lapse of the proceedings as per Section 25 is 12 months. The bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna observed that practical absurdities and anomalies may arise if the two-year period for making of an award in terms of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 commencing from the date of issue of the declaration is applied to the awards to be made under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act.

636. Total Ban On Legal Mining Will Give Rise To Illegal Mining & Cause Huge Loss To Public Exchequer: Supreme Court Modifies NGT Directives On Sand Mining

[Case: State of Bihar v. Pawan Kumar; Citation: LL 2021 SC 635]

Modifying some directions issued by the National Green Tribunal, the Supreme Court observed that the total ban on legal mining, apart from giving rise to illegal mining, also causes huge loss to the public exchequer. When legal mining is banned, it gives rise to the mushroom growth of illegal mining, resulting into clashes between sand mafias, criminalization and at times, loss of human lives, the Court said. The State of Bihar had approached the Supreme Court challenging an NGT order holding that unless the State Expert Appraisal Committee ("SEAC") and the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority ("SEIAA") grants approval to the District Survey Report for the purpose of mining of sand, the same cannot be carried out. The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna and BR Gavai observed that the directions require modification and that until the DSRs are finalized and granted approval by SEAC and SEIAA, it is appropriate that certain necessary arrangements are permitted so that the State can continue with legal mining activities.

637. Advocate Losing A Case After Arguing Is Not 'Deficiency Of Service' For Filing Consumer Complaint

[Case: Nandlal Lohariya v. Jagdish Chand Purohit; Citation: LL 2021 SC 636]

The Supreme Court observed that an advocate losing a case cannot be said to be deficiency in service on his/her part. "In every litigation, either of the party is bound to lose and in such a situation either of the party who will lose in the litigation may approach the consumer fora for compensation alleging deficiency in service, which is not permissible at all", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed while dismissing a Special Leave Petition filed against the order passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The court observed that such complaints may lie only in a case where it is found that there was any deficiency in service by the advocate.

638. Arbitration - 2015 Amendment Won't Apply To Section 34 Applications Filed Prior To It

[Case: Ratnam Sudesh Iyer v. Jackie Kakubhai Shroff; Citation: LL 2021 SC 637]

The Supreme Court held that the 2015 amendment to Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 will apply only to Section 34 applications that have been made after the date of the amendment. "Section 34 as amended will apply only to Section 34 applications that have been made to the Court on or after 23.10.2015, irrespective of the fact that the arbitration proceedings may have commenced prior to that", the Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M.Sundaresh observed. The judgment examined the question whether an arbitration award can be challenged on the grounds of 'patent illegality if the arbitration proceedings had commenced before the 2015 Amendment Award coming into force.

639. Compensation / Penalty Cannot Be Restricted To Value Of Illegally-Mined Mineral; Cost Of Restoration Of Environment Also To Be Considered

[Case: Bajri Lease LoI Holders Welfare Society v. State of Rajasthan; Citation: LL 2021 SC 638]

The Supreme Court observed that the compensation/penalty to be paid by those indulging in illegal sand mining cannot be restricted to the value of illegally-mined mineral. The cost of restoration of the environment, as well as the cost of ecological services, should be part of the compensation, the bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna, and BR Gavai observed. The polluter, according to the court, is liable to pay the cost to the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology.

640. High Court In An Appeal U/Sec 374(2) CrPC Has To Independently Evaluate Entirety Of Evidence

[Case: Jogi v. State of Madhya Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 639]

The Supreme Court reiterated that a High Court in a criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure is duty-bound to consider the entirety of the evidence. In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the High Court was required to evaluate the evidence on the record independently and to arrive at its own findings as regards the culpability or otherwise of the accused on the basis of the evidentiary material, the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna observed.

641. Even If Punishment Imposed By Disciplinary Authority Is Disproportionate, Court Should Not Normally Decide Quantum; Matter Should Be Sent Back

[Case: Union of India v. Ex Constable Ram Karan; Citation: LL 2021 SC 640]

The Supreme Court reiterated that the scope of judicial review on the quantum of punishment imposed in disciplinary proceedings is limited. "Even in cases where the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is found to be shocking to the conscience of the Court, normally the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority should be directed to reconsider the question of imposition of penalty", the bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka observed. The court added that it is only in rare and exceptional cases where the court might to shorten the litigation may think of substituting its own view as to the quantum of punishment in place of punishment awarded by the competent authority that too after assigning cogent reasons.

642. Supreme Court Upholds Application Of RERA To Real Estate Projects Ongoing At Act's Commencement

[Case: Newtech Promoters And Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP; Citation: LL 2021 SC 641]

The Supreme Court upheld the retroactive application of the Real Estate(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 to the real estate projects which were ongoing at the commencement of the Act. The bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, Ajay Rastogi, and Aniruddha Bose observed that the RERA Act does not apply to the projects already completed or to which the completion certificate has been granted at the commencement of the Act. The Court rejected the contentions raised by Promoters/Developers that the first proviso to Section 3(1) of the Act is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Taking note of the statutory provisions especially Section 3 of the RERA, the court observed that all "ongoing projects" that commence prior to the Act and in respect to which completion certificate has not been issued are covered under the Act.

Also Read: Condition Of Pre-Deposit For Filing Appeal U/Sec 43(5) RERA Not Discriminatory Against Promoters

Also Read: RERA - Regulatory Authority Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Direct Refund To Allottee; Adjudicating Officer Has Power To Determine Compensation

Also Read: RERA Authority Can Delegate Single Member To Decide Homebuyers' Complaint Under Section 31

Also Read: Sec 40 RERA - Homebuyers Entitled To Recover Amount Invested Along With Interest As Land Revenue Arrears From Builder

643. High Court Cannot Quash Criminal Proceedings U/Sec 482 CrPC Relying On 'Draft Charge Sheet' Which Is Yet To Be Filed Before Magistrate

[Case: Jitul Jentilal Kotecha v. State of Gujarat; Citation: LL 2021 SC 642]

A High Court cannot place reliance on a "draft charge-sheet" which is yet to be placed before the Magistrate to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure, the Supreme Court has observed. The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna observed that a High Court can neither direct an investigating agency to submit the investigation report before it nor can it quash a criminal proceeding under Section 482 relying on such a report when the report has not been submitted to the Magistrate.

Also Read: Section 482 CrPC - High Court Must Furnish Reasons For Issuing Interlocutory Direction At Interim Stage

644. Section 307 IPC - Intention To Be Ascertained From Weapon Used, Body Part Chosen For Assault & Nature Of Injury

[Case: Sadakat Kotwar v. State of Jharkhand; Citation: LL 2021 SC 643]

The Supreme Court observed that, in an attempt to murder cases (Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code), the intention has to be ascertained from the weapon used, part of the body chosen for assault, and the nature of the injury caused. The Court observed thus while dismissing the appeal filed by the accused whose conviction under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC was upheld by the High Court of Jharkhand. Taking note of the evidence on record, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna observed that the injury of a single blow was on the vital part of the body i.e. stomach and near chest and that the nature of the injury is a grievous injury caused by a sharp cutting weapon.

645. Employer Can Terminate Service In The Event Of Suppressing Or On Submitting False Information By The Employee

[Case: Rajesh Kumar v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 644]

The Supreme Court reiterated that in the event of any suppression or submitting false information, it is always open for the employer to cancel the candidature or terminate service of the employee/ candidate. The Bench comprising Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy placed reliance on the judgment in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and observed, "No doubt about it that once verification form requires certain information to be furnished, declarant is duty-bound to furnish it correctly and any suppression of material facts or submitting false information, may by itself lead to termination of his services or cancellation of candidature in an appropriate case. However, in a criminal case incumbent has not been acquitted and case is pending trial, employer may well be justified in not appointing such an incumbent or in terminating the services as conviction ultimately may render him unsuitable for job and employer is not supposed to wait till outcome of criminal case. In such a case non-disclosure or submitting false information would assume significance and that by itself may be ground for employer to cancel candidature or to terminate services."

646. Supreme Court Raps Manipur Govt For Not Inviting Fresh Tenders To Transport Grains From FCI Depot To Child Development Project Officers

[Case: BK Enterprise v. State of Manipur and Another; Citation: LL 2021 SC 645]

The Supreme Court deprecated the State of Manipur for lethargy and negligence on the State and Social Welfare Department part for not issuing the fresh tender process and Notice Inviting Tenders after 2018 for transporting rice and other micronutrients from Food Corporation of India's depots in the State to offices of Child Development Project Officers. Considering that since 2017-18 the contract for transportation of rice and other micronutrients under Wheat Based Nutrition Programme was continuing solely on the basis of interim arrangement without inviting fresh tenders and without entering into permanent contracts, the bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna observed that, "At the outset, it is required to be noted that this is a glaring example of lethargy on the part of the State Government in not inviting the fresh tenders for transporting Rice & other micronutrients under the Wheat Based Nutrition Programme (WBNP), from Food Corporation of India's depots in the State of Manipur, to the offices of Child Development Project Officers and to continue the contract without inviting fresh tenders on the basis of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) issued on 22.06.2017 causing huge loss to the State and the Public Exchequer."

647. Merely Having An Explicit Clause Not Sufficient To Make Time The Essence Of The Contract

[Case: Welspun Specialty Solutions Limited v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd; Citation: LL 2021 SC 646]

The Supreme Court observed that merely having an explicit clause may not be sufficient to make time the essence of the contract. 'The contractual clauses having extension procedure and imposition of liquidated damages, are good indicators that 'time was not the essence of the contract', the bench comprising CJI NV Ramana and Justice Surya Kant observed. It added whether the time is of the essence in a contract, has to be culled out from the reading of the entire contract as well as the surrounding circumstances.

648. Tenants Ought To Be In Actual Possession Of Premises To Avail Benefit Of Section 9 Of TN City Tenants Protection Act

[Case: National Company, Represented by its Managing Partner v. The Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And Ors; Citation: LL 2021 SC 647]

The Supreme Court reiterated that the tenants ought to be in actual possession of the premises to avail the benefit of Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1972, which deals with the application filed by the tenant before the Court to direct the landlord to sell the land. A bench comprising Justices L. Nageshwara Rao and B.R. Gavai said, "While interpreting sub­clause (b) to Section 2(4)(ii), this Court has held that the expression "actual physi­cal possession of land and building" would mean and require the tenant to be in actual possession and sub­clause (b) would not apply if the tenant has sub­let the building or has given the premises on leave and license basis. The aforesaid decision would operate as res judicata in the case of the appel­lant and the landlords who were par­ties to the decision. In other cases, it would operate as a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution."

649. Jurisdiction Of High Court Hearing An Arbitration Appeal Is Distinct From That Of First Appellate Court In A Civil Suit

[Case: Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd v. Ramesh Kumar and Company; Citation: LL 2021 SC 648]

The Supreme Court observed that the jurisdiction in a first appeal arising out of a decree in a civil suit is distinct from the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act arising from the disposal of a petition challenging an arbitral award. While considering a petition under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, it is well-settled that the court does not act as an appellate forum. The grounds on which interference with an arbitral award is contemplated are structured by the provisions of Section 34. The District Judge had correctly come to the conclusion that there was no warrant for interference with the arbitral award under Section 34. The High Court seems to have proceeded as if it was exercising jurisdiction in a regular first appeal from a decree in a civil suit. The jurisdiction in a first appeal arising out of a decree in a civil suit is distinct from the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 37 of the 1996 Act arising from the disposal of a petition challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the 1996 Act", the Bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna observed.

650. Vehicle Manufacturer Cannot Be Held Liable For Deficiency In Service By Dealer/Authorized Service Centre In Repair

[Case: Honda Cars India Limited v. Sudesh Berry; Citation: LL 2021 SC 649]

The Supreme Court observed that a vehicle manufacturer cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service by the dealer or the authorized centre in rendering assistance for repairs of the vehicle. In this case, the bench of Justices UU Lalit and S. Ravindra Bhat agreed with the submission made by the manufacturer that there is not an iota of material that the accident occurred as a result of any manufacturing defect. If there be any deficiency in service by the dealer or the authorized centre in rendering assistance for repairs of the vehicle, the manufacturer of the vehicle cannot be held liable, the court said while referring to a recent judgment in TATA Motors Ltd. v. Antonio Paulo Vaz.

651. Criminal Appeal Cannot Be Dismissed As Infructuous Merely Because Appellant Served Out Sentence

[Case: Gurjant Singh v. State of Punjab; Citation: LL 2021 SC 650]

The Supreme Court observed that an appeal against conviction cannot be treated as infructuous merely for the reason that the convicted appellant had served out the sentence awarded by the Trial Court. Merely for the execution of the sentence, an appeal against conviction cannot be treated as infructuous, the bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath said. "Though learned counsel for the respondent has attempted to support the conviction and sentence of the appellant but could not dispute the position that merely for the execution of the sentence, an appeal against conviction cannot be treated as infructuous", the Bench opined in the facts of the case.

652. There Can't Be Two Appointments To One Sanctioned Post; Otherwise Financial Burden On State

[Case: Wahab Uddin And Ors. v. Km. Meenakshi Gahlot And Ors; Citation: LL 2021 SC 651]

The Supreme Court held that two persons cannot be appointed on one sanctioned post as the same would impose a serious financial burden on the State. A bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna dismissed a petition filed by the appellants, three Stenographers in the judgeship of Moradabad, whose appointments had been initially quashed by the Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court and later affirmed by the Division Bench.

653. Imposition Of Onerous Conditions For Grant Of Bail Tantamount To Denial Of Bail

[Case: Mithun Chatterjee v. State of Odisha; Citation: LL 2021 SC 652]

The Supreme Court observed that imposition of onerous conditions for grant of bail is tantamount to a denial of bail. "We are of the considered view that imposition of onerous conditions for grant of bail tantamount to denial of bail", the Court said. A Bench comprising Justice Nageswara Rao and Justice BR Gavai made the observation while setting aside Orissa High Court's order directing petitioner to deposit cash of Rs.20 lakhs and providing security of immovable property to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs for grant of bail. The present petitioner is an accused in a criminal case for committing offence under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act. He was granted bail by the Orissa High Court on 25th March 2021, subject to him depositing cash of Rs.20 lakhs and providing security of immovable property to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs.

654. Admission Supervisory Committee Can Take Suo Motu Action Over Self Financing Colleges Admissions: Supreme Court Upholds Kerala HC Judgment

[Case: Principal Karuna Medical College v. Admission Supervisory Committee And Fee Regulatory Committee For Professional Colleges Of Kerala; Citation: LL 2021 SC 653]

The Supreme Court held that Admission Supervisory Committee in Kerala has jurisdiction to initiate proceedings suo motu in respect of admissions made by the self-financing colleges. "We are in agreement with the findings recorded by the High Court on the powers conferred on the Committee including the power of suo motu action that can be taken by the Committee in respect of admissions made by the self-financing colleges", the bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Abhay S. Oka said while upholding a judgment of the Kerala High Court.

655. Right To Be Represented By Counsel Or Agent Of Choice In Disciplinary Proceedings Is Not Absolute

[Case: The Chairman, State Bank of India and another v. MJ James; Citation: LL 2021 SC 654]

The right to be represented by a counsel or agent of one's choice in a disciplinary proceeding is not an absolute right, the Supreme Court observed. The court said that such right to be legally represented depends on how the rules govern such representation. However, if the charge is of severe and complex nature, then the request to be represented through a counsel or agent should be considered, the bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna observed.

Also Read: Distinction Between 'Acquiescence' And 'Delay and Laches': Supreme Court Explains

656. Sec 163A MV Act -Fixing Rs 15,000 Per Annum As Notional Income For Non-Earning Members Not Reasonable As Schedule II Not Yet Amended

[Case: Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali & Anr. v. Shyam Kishore Murmu & Anr; Citation: LL 2021 SC 655]

While dealing with a civil appeal preferred by appellant claimants aggrieved by the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi's judgment the Supreme Court observed that despite repeated directions, Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has not been amended yet. The bench of Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy observed, "In this case, it is to be noted that the accident was on 06.09.2004. In spite of repeated directions, Schedule-II is not yet amended. Therefore, fixing notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum for non- earning members is not just and reasonable."

657. Restricting 'Touch' Or 'Physical Contact' Only To 'Skin To Skin' Contact Absurd: Supreme Court Reverses Bombay HC's POCSO Judgment

[Case: Attorney General for India v. Satish and Anr; Citation: LL 2021 SC 656]

The Supreme Court set aside the controversial judgment of the Bombay High Court which held that 'skin-to-skin' contact is necessary for the offence of sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences(POCSO) Act. A bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice S Ravindra Bhat, and Justice Bela M Trivedi pronounced the judgment in the appeals filed by the Attorney General of India, National Commission for Women and the State of Maharashtra against the judgment of the High Court. "Restricting the interpretation of the words "touch" or "physical contact" to "skin to skin contact" would not only be a narrow and pedantic interpretation of the provision contained in Section 7 of the POCSO Act, but it would lead to an absurd interpretation of the said provision. "skin to skin contact" for constituting an offence of "sexual assault" could not have been intended or contemplated by the Legislature. The very object of enacting the POCSO Act is to protect the children from sexual abuse, and if such a narrow interpretation is accepted, it would lead to a very detrimental situation, frustrating the very object of the Act, inasmuch as in that case touching the sexual or non sexual parts of the body of a child with gloves, condoms, sheets or with cloth, though done with sexual intent would not amount to an offence of sexual assault under Section 7 of the POCSO Act. The most important ingredient for constituting the offence of sexual assault under Section 7 of the Act is the "sexual intent" and not the "skin to skin" contact with the child", the Bench observed.

Also Read: Ensure Certified Copies Of Judgements Are Issued As Per Section 76 Evidence Act : Supreme Court To HC

658. Temple Rituals Can't Be A Matter Of Court Adjudication Unless Secular Or Civil Rights Of Others Are Affected

[Case: Srivari Daadaa v. Tirupathi Tirumala Devasthanam; Citation: LL 2021 SC 657]

In a petition filed by a devotee alleging irregularities in the rituals at the iconic Tirupati Tirumala temple, the Supreme Court observed that a constitutional court cannot interfere in the daily rituals of a temple. It added that it can only look into issues relating to temple administration not following the prescribed rules and regulations. But it is not feasible for the Court to interfere into issues related to rituals and sevas. Observing that a constitutional court cannot interfere in the day to day affairs of a temple, the bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli disposed of the devotee's special leave petition, which was filed challenging the order of Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing his PIL which sought directions to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam to rectify the method of performing rituals and seva to Lord Sri Venkateshwara Swamy at the Temple.

659. 'Ambush PILs' Filed To Preclude Genuine Litigants; Summary Dismissal Of Earlier Article 32 Petition Won't Operate As Res Judicata

[Case: National Confederation of Officers Association of Central Public Sector Enterprises v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 658]

The Supreme Court observed that the summary dismissal of an earlier writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution does not operate as res judicata. "There is a trend of poorly pleaded public interest litigations being filed instantly following a disclosure in the media, with a conscious intention to obtain a dismissal from the Court and preclude genuine litigants from approaching the Court in public interest", the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna observed. The court said that it must be alive to the contemporary reality of "ambush Public Interest Litigations".

Also Read: Constitutional Court Can Direct CBI To Register Case Despite Its Decision To Close Preliminary Enquiry

660. Compassionate Appointment Policy Prevalent At The Time Of Employee's Death Applies, Not Subsequent One

[Case: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ashish Awasthi; Citation: LL 2021 SC 659]

The Supreme Court reiterated that the policy prevalent at the time of death of the deceased employee is required to be considered for the appointment on compassionate ground. "The claim for compassionate appointment must be decided only on the basis of relevant scheme prevalent on date of demise of the employee and subsequent scheme cannot be looked into", the bench of Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna observed.

661. Motor Accident Compensation: Claimants Entitled To 'Future Prospects' Even If Deceased Was Not Earning

[Case: Meena Pawaia v. Ashraf Ali; Citation: LL 2021 SC 660]

The Supreme Court observed that even in case of a deceased who had no income at the time of death, their legal heirs shall also be entitled to future prospects by adding future rise in income. It is not expected that the deceased who was not serving at all, his income is likely to remain static and his income would remain stagnant, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna said.

662. 'Pension A Deferred Compensation, Hard Earned Benefit For Employee': Supreme Court Grants Relief To Widow

[Case: Veena Pandey v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 661]

The Supreme Court directed to disburse pension to a deceased employee's widow who has been litigating for over a decade. "Pension as is well known, is the deferred portion of the compensation for rendering long years of service. It is a hard-earned benefit accruing to an employee, in the nature of property,", the bench comprising Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy observed.

663. Supreme Court Issues Additional Directions For Disbursement Of Compensation And Expeditious Adjudication Of MACT Claims

[Case: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Private Ltd. v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 662]

The Supreme Court issued a slew of directions regarding disbursement of compensation and expeditious adjudication of motor accident claims by online mechanism. The bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh directed as follows- A. Format For Payment Advised For Remittance Of Compensation To Be Followed Across Country B. Interest On Disbursement Of Compensation To Beneficiaries To Be Enured To Their Benefit C. Insurance Company/Depositor To Communicate Factum Of Deposit Expeditiously To MACT With Copy To Beneficiary D. District Medical Board To Follow Guidelines Issued By Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment E. Aspect Of Disparity In TDS Certificate Can Be Redressed By Directions To Legal Services Authority Or Any Agency/Mediation Group To Assist The Claimant In Obtaining A Pan Card And Amending The Formats Across The Country F. Registrar General Of High Courts To Show Compliance Of Directions Passed On March 16, 2021 G. Insurance Companies To Develop Common Mobile App Within 2 Months From Date Of Order H. Alternative Mechanism To Ensure Availability Of Sufficient Pool With The State Corporations

664. Having An Option To Surrender & Apply For Regular Bail After Filing Charge Sheet Does Not Preclude Parties From Seeking Anticipatory Bail

[Case: Vinod Kumar Sharma and Anr v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr; Citation: LL 2021 SC 663]

The Supreme Court observed that merely because it was kept open for the parties to surrender and apply for Regular Bail after filing of the charge sheet, the same did preclude them to apply for anticipatory bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C. after filing the charge sheet. "Merely because it was kept open for the petitioners to surrender and apply for Regular Bail after filing of the charge sheet, the same does not preclude the petitioners to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. after filing of the charge sheet. It also cannot be said, that same is a second application for grant of anticipatory bail as pleaded by learned counsel appearing for respondents, on the same cause of action", the bench of Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy observed.

665. Plea Of Bias Can't Be Taken After Participating In Selection Process With Knowledge About Composition Of Panel

[Case: Mohd. Mustafa v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 664]

While rejecting the challenge against the appointment of Dinkar Gupta IPS as the Punjab Director General of Police in 2019, the Supreme Court observed that a person can't take the plea of bias after having participated in the selection process with full knowledge about the composition of the selection panel. "When a person takes a chance and participates, thereafter he cannot, because the result is unpalatable, turn around to contend that the process was unfair or the selection committee was not properly constituted", the bench comprising Justices L.Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna, and B.R.Gavai remarked.

666. Injunction Orders Cannot Be Passed Against Third Parties Without Hearing Them

[Case: Acqua Borewell Pvt. Ltd. v. Swayam Prabha & Ors; Citation: LL 2021 SC 665]

The Supreme Court held that injunction orders with respect to a suit property cannot be passed in detriment to the interest of third parties who are directly affected by it, without impleading them or giving them an opportunity of being heard. A bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna set aside the common judgment and order passed by the Karnataka High Court, which had granted injunction against alienation to the extent of 1/7th share in the suit property, without giving the third parties (appellants), who have right, title or interest in the property by way of development agreements and/or otherwise, an opportunity of being heard.

667. SMS Intimation To Candidate's Mobile Number Sufficient Communication For Selection Process

[Case: State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors v. Pankaj Kumar; Citation: LL 2021 SC 666]

The Supreme Court rejected the argument of a candidate that the intimation given through SMS about physical fitness test and document verification is not sufficient. The Court noted that the SMS intimation was given in the mobile number furnished by the candidate. "When a requirement is stated in the application to provide the mobile number, it is with a purpose to communicate and in the instant case, the appellants have sent the SMS to the very number which had been furnished by the appellant", the Bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna said.

668. Juvenile Justice Act: Age Recorded By JJ Board Or CWC Deemed To Be True Age Of Accused

[Case: Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of UP& Ors; Citation: LL 2021 SC 667]

The Supreme Court held that for the purpose of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015, the age recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board or the Child Welfare Committee of the person so brought before it will be deemed to be the true age of the person. A Bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice BV Nagarathna has made the observation while delivering its judgment in a plea challenging Allahabad High Court's order sustaining the judgment of the District & Sessions Court as well as of the Juvenile Justice Board declaring the accused a juvenile delinquent.

669. [Punjab Security Of Land Tenures Act] Civil Court Would Retain Jurisdiction In Cases Where the Landlord-Tenant Relationship Itself Is Disputed

[Case: Assa Singh (D) By LRs v. Shanti Parshad (D) By LRs. & Others; Citation: LL 2021 SC 668]

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices K.M. Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat held that if the landlord-tenant relationship itself is disputed, the Civil Court would continue to have jurisdiction to look into the illegality of the eviction orders passed by the Revenue Court, despite the bar of Section 25 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, whereby exclusive jurisdiction is conferred on the Revenue Court to, inter alia, order eviction of tenants.

670. Arbitrator Cannot Modify Award On An Application Under Section 33 Arbitration Act

[Case: Gyan Prakash Arya v. Titan Industries Limited; Citation: LL 2021 SC 669]

The Supreme Court observed that an Arbitrator cannot modify an Arbitration award on an application filed under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Only in a case of arithmetical and/or clerical error, the award can be modified and such errors only can be corrected, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna said. In this case, the Court noted "What was claimed by the original claimant in the statement of claim was awarded. Therefore, the order passed by the learned arbitrator on an application filed under Section 33 8 of the 1996 Act and thereafter modifying the original award cannot be sustained. The order passed by the learned arbitrator in the application under Section 33 of the 1996 Act is beyond the scope and ambit of Section 33 of the 1996 Act."

671. Sale Deed Executed Without Payment Of Price Is Void; Has No Legal Effect: Supreme Court

[Case: Kewal Krishan v. Rajesh Kumar; Citation: LL 2021 SC 670]

The Supreme Court observed that the payment of price is an essential part of a sale. If a sale deed in respect of an immovable property is executed without payment of price and if it does not provide for the payment of price at a future date, it is not a sale at all in the eyes of law, the bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka said. The court also observed that a document which is void need not be challenged by claiming a declaration as the said plea can be set up and proved even in collateral proceedings.

672. Civil Court Cannot Declare Orders Passed Under Urban Land Ceiling Act As Illegal Or Non Est

[Case: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ghisilal; Citation: LL 2021 SC 671]

The Supreme Court held that the civil courts have no jurisdiction to try suit relating to land which is the subject-matter of ceiling proceedings, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Civil court cannot declare, orders passed by the authorities under the ULC Act, as illegal or non-est, the court said. "The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is a self-contained Code. Various provisions of the Act make it clear that if any orders are passed by the competent authority, there is provision for appeal, revision before the designated appellate, and revisional authorities. In view of such remedies available for aggrieved parties, the jurisdiction of the civil courts to try suit relating to land which is subject-matter of ceiling proceedings, stands excluded by implication. Civil court cannot declare, orders passed by the authorities under the ULC Act, as illegal or non est. More so, when such orders have become final, no declaration could have been granted by the civil court", the Bench comprising Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy observed.

673. Writ Of Mandamus Cannot Be Issued Directing Competent Authority To Grant Relaxation In Qualifying Service For Promotion

[Case: State of U.P. v. Vikash Kumar Singh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 672]

No writ of mandamus can be issued directing the competent authority to grant relaxation in qualifying service for promotion, the Supreme Court observed. A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed: "The word used in the Rule 8 of Relaxation Rules, 2006 is "MAY". Therefore, the relaxation may be at the discretion of the competent authority. The relaxation cannot be prayed as a matter of right. If a conscious decision is taken not to grant the relaxation, merely because Rule permits relaxation, no writ of mandamus can be issued directing the competent authority to grant relaxation in qualifying service."

674. Scheme Not Constitutionally Suspect Merely Because It Was Based On Electoral Promise: Supreme Court Upholds TN Loan Waiver Scheme To Small/Marginal Farmers

[Case: State of Tamil Nadu v. National South Indian River Interlinking Agriculturist Association; Citation: LL 2021 SC 673]

The Supreme Court upheld a Tamil Nadu Government scheme that granted loan waivers to small and marginal farmers. A scheme cannot be held to be constitutionally suspect merely because it was based on an electoral promise, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Justices AS Bopanna said. The court observed that it is justifiable that the benefit of the scheme is only provided to a specified class as small and marginal farmers constitute a class in themselves. The Court also observed that since the classification in the impugned scheme is based neither on the grounds in Article 15 nor on the 'innate and core trait' of an individual, it cannot be struck down on the alleged grounds of under-inclusiveness and over-inclusiveness.

675. NEET- National Testing Agency Bound To Scrupulously Enforce Specific Relaxations For Persons With Disability

[Case: Avni Prakash v. National Testing Agency and others; Citation: LL 2021 SC 674]

"The NTA must remember that all authority under the law is subject to the responsibility and above all to a sense of accountability. It is governed by the rule of law and the necessity of observing fairness. As an examining body, the NTA was bound to scrupulously enforce the guidelines for the examination which provide for specific relaxations for persons with disability", ruled the Supreme Court. The bench comprising Justice D. Y. Chandrachud and Justice A S Bopanna was pronouncing its decision on the plea by a female NEET-2021 candidate suffering from dysgraphia whose grievance was that she was refused an additional one hour's time for attempting the paper by the examination centre.

676. IBC: NCLT Cannot Adjudicate Contractual Dispute If Termination Of Contract Is Based On Grounds Unrelated To Corporate Debtor's Insolvency

[Case: TATA Consultancy Services Limited v. Vishal Ghisulal Jain, Resolution Professional, SK Wheels Private Limited; Citation: LL 2021 SC 675]

The Supreme Court observed that the residuary jurisdiction of the NCLT cannot be invoked to adjudicate contractual dispute if the termination of a contract is based on grounds unrelated to the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor. Even if the contractual dispute arises in relation to the insolvency, a party can be restrained from terminating the contract only if it is central to the success of the CIRP, the Court added. The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna noted that Section 60(5)(c) grants residuary jurisdiction to the NCLT to adjudicate any question of law or fact, arising out of or in relation to the insolvency resolution of the Corporate Debt.

677. Land Acquisition Act 1894 -Section 17(4) Notification Liable To Be Quashed If State Fails To Show Exceptional Circumstances Justifying Urgency

[Case: Hamid Ali Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 676]

The Supreme Court held that the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 can be invoked only in exceptional circumstances. Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 gives power to the land acquisition authorities to take immediate possession of the land before the proceedings related to award of compensation are over. As per Section 17(4), the authority can dispense with the requirement under Section 5A of hearing the objections of the land owners to the acquisition notification in case of urgent acquisition.

A bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and S Ravindra Bhat observed, "The power under Section 17 (4) is discretionary. Being a discretion it must be exercised with due care. It is true that if there is relevant material however meagre it may be and the authority has without being guided by extraneous considerations applied his mind and taken a decision, then the court would adopt a hands-off approach. In the ultimate analysis as with any other decision a balancing of conflicting interests is inevitable. The authorities must remain alive and alert to the precious right created in favour of the citizens which is not meant to be a mere empty ritual".

678. Witness Testimony Inconsistent With Medical Evidence: Supreme Court Alters Conviction For Murder

[Case: Viram @ Virma v The State of Madhya Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 677]

The Supreme Court converted the conviction of appellants from Murder (S.302/149) to Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons (326/149) under the Indian Penal Code on the basis of inconsistencies between oral testimony of witnesses and medical evidence on record. A Bench of Justices L.Nageswara Rao and B.V.Nagarathna relied on Amar Singh v State of Punjab, wherein the Supreme Court had examined the point relating to inconsistencies between oral evidence and medical opinion. In that case, it was held that the inconsistency between the medical evidence on record and the oral evidence of the witnesses was found to be sufficient to discredit the entire prosecution case.

679. Employee Won't Lose Entitlement To Gratuity By Merely Opting To Extend Retirement Age To 60 Years

[Case: G.B. Pant University Of Agriculture And Technology v. Sri Damodar Mathpal; Citation: LL 2021 SC 678]

The Supreme Court held that mere exercise of option by an employee, to avail the benefit of extension of age of retirement to 60 years, could not operate against his entitlement to gratuity. The bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath observed, "...we are at one with the view taken by the High Court that mere exercise of option by an employee, to avail the benefit of extension of age of retirement to 60 years, could not have operated against his entitlement to gratuity; and exercising of such an option will not deprive the private respondents to gratuity unless and until the establishment i.e., the petitioner-University, was exempted in strict compliance of Section 5 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, after prior approval of the State Government".

680. Delay In Filing Appeal Before DRT Against Recovery Officer Order Cannot Be Condoned U/Sec 5 Limitation Act

[Case: Avneesh Chandan Gadgil v. Oriental Bank of Commerce; Citation: LL 2021 SC 679]

The Supreme Court observed that the delay in filing appeal before Debt Recovery Tribunal against the order passed by the Recovery Officer cannot be condoned by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall not be applicable to the appeal against the order of Recovery Officer as provided under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna observed.

681. Power Of Judicial Review Cannot Be Invoked To Decide Equivalence Of Prescribed Qualifications With Any Other Qualification

[Case: Devender Bhaskar v. State of Haryana; Citation: LL 2021 SC 680]

The Supreme Court observed that equivalence of prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification cannot be decided by the courts invoking its power of judicial review. Equivalence of qualification is a matter for the State, as recruiting authority, to determine, the court said. The bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari set aside a High Court judgment which held that the diploma/degree in Art and Craft given by the Kurukshetra University is equivalent to two-year Diploma in Art and Craft examination conducted by the Haryana Industrial Training Department or diploma in Art and Craft conducted by Director, Industrial Training and Vocational Education, Haryana.

682. Death Penalty - Court Duty Bound To Consider Possibility Of Reformation Even If Accused Remains Silent

[Case: Mofil Khan and another v. The State of Jharkhand; Citation: LL 2021 SC 681]

The Supreme Court allowed the review petitions filed by two death-row convicts to convert the death sentence imposed on them to life imprisonment for a term of 30 years. A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna noted in the order that the Court is duty bound to elicit all relevant information regarding the possibility of the reformation of the convicts before imposing the harshest punishment of death sentence, even if the accused is remaining silent.

683. Mere Allegation Of Fraud Without Particulars Not Sufficient To Get Over Bar On Civil Suit Under Section 34 SARFAESI

[Case: Electrosteel Castings Limited v. UV Asset Reconstruction Company Limited; Citation: LL 2021 SC 682]

The Supreme Court observed that bar under Section 34 SARFAESI Act on filing civil suit is attracted if allegations of 'fraud' are made without any particulars. A Bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna said that as per Order VI Rule 4 in all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default, or undue influence, particulars shall be stated in the pleading.

684. Mechanical Compliance Of Stipulations U/Sec 63 Indian Succession Act Does Not Prove Execution Of Will

[Case: State of Haryana v. Harnam Singh (D); Citation: LL 2021 SC 683]

The Supreme Court observed that mechanical compliance of stipulations under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, does not prove the execution of a Will. Evidence of meeting the requirement of the said provision must be reliable, the bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose said.

685. Section 362 CrPC Does Not Empower Court To Suo Motu Recall Orders Passed By It

[Case: XXX v. State of Kerala; Citation: LL 2021 SC 684]

The Supreme Court observed that Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not empower a court to suo moto recall the earlier order passed by it. The court said that Section 362 CrPC only provides for correction of any clerical or arithmetical error. The bench comprising Justices Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose set aside a Kerala High court order recalling its earlier judgment quashing rape and child sexual assault charges against various accused.

686. Hostile Witness's Credible Evidence Can Form Basis For Conviction In Criminal Trial

[Case: Hari v. State of Uttar Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 685]

The Supreme Court observed that credible evidence even of a hostile witnesses can form the basis for conviction in a criminal trial. Even if the witnesses have turned hostile, their evidence can be accepted, if they are natural and independent witnesses and have no reason to falsely implicate the accused, the bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna and BR Gavai observed. The court added that the evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether. The bench was considering a case of honour killing. The Trial Court had sentenced some of the accused to death.

Also Read: Fundamental Right Of Witnesses To Testify In Courts Without Pressure & Threat Under Serious Attack Today: Supreme Court Highlights Importance Of Witness Protection Scheme

Also Read: High Time That Civil Society Reacts Against Ghastly Crimes Committed In The Name Of Caste: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Of Accused In Honour Killing Case

687. Murder Trial - Injured Witness's Evidence Not At A Higher Pedestal In A Case Of Private Defence Where The Accused Also Injured

[Case: Arvind Kumar @ Nemichand and Ors v. State of Rajasthan; Citation: LL 2021 SC 686]

The Supreme Court held that the principle that the evidence of an injured witness has to be placed at a higher pedestal may not apply to a case of private defence when the accused is also injured. A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh allowed a batch of appeals filed by the accused assailing the charges framed in the first chargesheet, while it dismissed the set of appeals filed by the de facto complainant over a trial started pursuant to the second chargesheet filed after further investigation. On the issue of evidence of eye-witnesses, the Court felt that it did not hold ground.

688. Arms Act - Illegal Use Of Licensed Weapon Per Se Not Offence Under Section 27 Unless Misdemeanour Under Sections 5/7 Proved

[Case: Surinder Singh v. State; Citation: LL 2021 SC 687]

The Supreme Court bench of CJI NV NV Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and AS Bopanna observed that illegal use of a licensed or sanctioned weapon per se does not constitute an offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, without proving the misdemeanor u/s 5 or 7 of the Act. The Court also observed that at best, it could be a 'misconduct' under the service rules.

689. Disciplinary Proceedings - Reasons Should Be Recorded To Adopt Special Procedure Of Dispensing With Inquiry

[Case: Union of India and Ors v. Ram Bahadur Yadav; Citation: LL 2021 SC 688]

The Supreme Court observed that when Rules contemplate method and manner to adopt special procedure, it is mandatory on the part of the authorities to exercise such power by adhering to the Rule strictly. The bench of Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy observed, "Dismissal of a regular member of Force, is a drastic measure. Rule 161, which prescribes dispensing with an inquiry and to pass order against a member of Force, cannot be invoked in a routine and mechanical manner, unless there are compelling and valid reasons."

690. High Court Cannot Dismiss Second Appeal In Limine Without Assigning Reasons

[Case: Hasmat Ali v. Amina Bibi and others; Citation: LL 2021 SC 689]

Holding that a High Court cannot dismiss a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure in limine without assigning reasons, the Supreme Court remitted a matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration. A Bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari observed that if the case does not involve any substantial question of law, the High Court has no option but to dismiss the appeal. However, in order to come to a conclusion that the appeal does not involve any substantial of law, the High Court has to record the reasons.

691. Consumer Commission Should Issue Bailable Warrant Only If Party Is Not Represented At All Through Counsel Or Representative

[Case: L&T Finance Ltd v. Pramod Kumar Rana and Anr; Citation: LL 2021 SC 690]

The Supreme Court observed that the Consumer Commission should issue a bailable warrant for the appearance of a party only as a last resort. The issuance of bailable warrant is not justified if the party is represented through counsel or authorized representative. "Bailable warrants are to be issued as a last resort and only in a case where it is found that the opponent parties are not cooperating at all and that they are avoiding appearance before the National Commission deliberately and/or they are not represented at all either through their authorised representative or through their counsel", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.

692. Irregularity In Order Taking Cognizance Will Not Vitiate Criminal Proceedings

[Case: Pradeep S Wodeyar v. State of Karnataka; Citation: LL 2021 SC 691]

The Supreme Court held that an irregularity in the order taking cognizance will not vitiate the proceedings in a criminal trial. Referring to Section 465 (finding or sentence when reversible by reason of error, omission irregularity) CrPC, a bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Vikram Nath, and Justice BV Nagarathna said, "The objective of Section 465 is to prevent the delay in the commencement and completion of trial. Section 465 CrPC is applicable to interlocutory orders such as an order taking cognizance and summons order as well. Therefore, even if the order taking cognizance is irregular, it would not vitiate the proceedings in view of Section 465 CrPC."

Also Read: Special Court Can Conduct Joint Trial Of MMDR Offences With IPC Offences

Also Read: Fully Reasoned Order Not Necessary For Taking Cognizance On The Basis Of Police Report

693. Businessmen Will Be Hesitant To Enter Govt Contracts If Undertakings Are Altered On Mere Change Of Person In Power

[Case: The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, City and Industrial Development Corporation Maharashtra v. Shishir Realty Private Ltd and others; Citation: LL 2021 SC 692]

The Supreme Court cautioned against the public authorities changing the undertakings in government contracts merely due to the change of person in power. The Court said that if previous undertakings are violated by the successor authority without any proper grounds of public interests, businessmen will be hesitant to enter into government contracts. Such a situation will be counter-productive to the economy and the business environment, the Court warned. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Vineet Saran and Justice Surya Kant disapproved the actions of City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra, a Maharashtra government instrumentality, in altering the conditions in a lease deed with a private entity.

694. Civil Society Must Also Be Placed With Collective Responsibility To Carry Out Reafforestation Activities

[Case: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 693]

While emphasising on the idea of collective responsibility to carry out reafforestation and ensure a sustainable future, the Supreme Court directed the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation and the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi to evolve a plan of action to plant tree saplings in the city y involving school and college students, educational institutions, NGOs , etc. A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna asked GNCTD to involve school and college students, educational institutions, Non- Governmental Organizations, Citizen Welfare Associations, public servants and every citizen or person who is interested in the ecology of NCT of Delhi to plant trees or saplings and ensure that they are nurtured and protected so that the NCT of Delhi would in passage of time have more greenery leading to afforestation.

695. Mere Non-Availability Of Operation Theatres When Patient Was Taken For Surgery Not Medical Negligence On Part Of Hospital

[Case: Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre v. Asha Jaiswal and others; Citation: LL 2021 SC 694]

The Supreme Court held that non-availability of an emergency operation theatre during the period when surgeries were being performed on other patients is not a valid ground to hold the hospital negligent in any manner. A bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed that if a patient who was admitted in a critical condition does not survive even after surgery, the blame cannot be passed on to the Hospital or the Doctor who provided all possible treatment within their means and capacity.

696. Intention To Cause Death Immaterial If Prosecution Proves Ingredients Of "Thirdly" Of Section 300 IPC

[Case: Vinod Kumar v. Amritpal @ Chhotu & Ors; Citation: LL 2021 SC 695]

The Supreme Court observed that once the prosecution establishes the existence of three ingredients forming part of "thirdly" in Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, it is irrelevant whether there was an intention on the accused part to cause death. The bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and AS Oka was considering a criminal appeal against an order dated July 18, 2016 passed by the Rajasthan High Court. By the impugned order, the High Court while maintaining the conviction u/s 147, 364, 201 and 329/149 of IPC, had brought down the conviction u/s 302, IPC to Part II of Section 304 and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years. The fine amount was not disturbed. The 5 respondents were the accused(s) who were prosecuted u/s 147, 364, 302/149, 201 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code.

697. Rape Conviction Can Be Based On Sole Testimony Of Victim If Credible & Trustworthy, Reiterates Supreme Court

[Case: Phool Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 696]

The Supreme Court reiterated that a rape accused can be convicted on sole testimony of prosecuterix if she is found to be credible and trustworthy. A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna noted:

There can be a conviction on the sole testimony of the victim/prosecutrix when the deposition of the prosecutrix is found to be trustworthy; If credible, conviction of accused can be based on sole testimony, without corroboration; Testimony of the victim is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement.

698. UAPA- Period Of Deprivation Of Personal Liberty Pending Trial Cannot Be Unduly Long: Supreme Court Grants Bail To Accused

[Case: Ashim v. National Investigation Agency; Citation: LL 2021 SC 697]

The Supreme Court observed that period of deprivation of personal liberty pending trial/appeal cannot be unduly long. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge him on bail, the bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka observed.

The court was considering a case of an under trial accused under Sections 120B, 121, 121A, 122 IPC, Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act 1959, Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 18,20,40(1)(b)(c) of the Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act, 1967. It noted that the accused, who is presently 74 year old is in custody since 6th July, 2012 and has completed nine and half years of incarceration as an undertrial prisoner.

699. Resolution Process Has To Be Completed Within The Period Stipulated U/Sec 12 IBC: Supreme Court

[Case: Committee of Creditors of Amtek Auto Ltd v. Dinkar T. Venkatsubramanian; Citation: LL 2021 SC 698]

The Supreme Court observed that the entire resolution process has to be completed within the period stipulated under Section 12 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Any deviation would defeat the object and purpose of providing such time limit, the bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna observed. It was considering an appeal filed by the Committee of Creditors in the matter of corporate insolvency resolution process initiated against Amtek Auto Limited.

700. Supreme Court Allows Registration Of BS-IV Vehicles' Sale Uploaded On E-Vahan Portal Before March 31, 2020

[Case: MC Mehta v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 699]

The Supreme Court permitted registration of those BS-IV vehicles whose sales were uploaded on e-Vahan portal before 31.03.2020 provided that the temporary/permanent registration was granted before the cut off date, i.e. 31.03.2020.

The concerned transport authorities have however been directed by a bench comprising Justice L Nageswara Rao, Justice BR Gavai and Justice BV Nagarathna to carefully scrutinize the records to ensure that the sales are genuine and have taken place prior to 31.03.2020.

Also Read: Registration Of CNG Vehicles Can't Be Rejected As Emission Is Within Limits: Supreme Court

701. Father Responsible To Maintain Child Till Adulthood: Supreme Court

[Case: Neha Tyagi v. Lt. Col Deepak Tyagi; Citation: LL 2021 SC 700]

The liability and responsibility of the father to maintain the child continues till the child/son attains the age of majority, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment dissolving marriage of a couple. "It also cannot be disputed that the son has a right to be maintained as per the status of his father", the Court added. Further, the court said that a child should not be made to suffer due to disputes between his parents.

702. Pension Shall Be Determined On Rules Existing At The Time Of Retirement: Supreme Court

[Case: Dr. G. Sadasivan Nair v. Cochin University Of Science & Technology; Citation: LL 2021 SC 701]

The Supreme Court observed that the pension payable to an employee on retirement shall be determined on the rules existing at the time of retirement. The bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna also observed that the law did not allow the employer to apply the rules differently in relation to persons who are similarly situated.

703. Section 149 IPC -Merely Because A Person Disclosed Victim's Hideout, He Can't Be Held To Part Of Unlawful Assembly : Supreme Court

[Case: Taijuddin v. State of Assam; Citation: LL 2021 SC 702]

Setting aside the conviction of a person in a murder case, the Supreme Court recently held that merely because a person revealed the hideout of the victim to the murderous mob, he cannot be presumed to share the common object of the unlawful assembly.

A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh struck a word of caution by observing that the Courts must guard against the tendency of convicting mere passive onlookers of the crime using the medium of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code for sharing the common object of the unlawful assembly.

704. Claim Of Juvenility Can Be Raised Before Any Court, At Any Stage, Even After Final Disposal Of The Case: Supreme Court Reiterates

[Case: Ashok v. State of Madhya Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 703]

The Supreme Court observed that the claim of juvenility can be raised before any Court, at any stage, even after final disposal of the case. The bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Mahseshwari observed that if the Court finds a person to be a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, it is to forward the juvenile to the Board for passing appropriate orders, and the sentence, if any, passed by a Court, shall be deemed to have no effect.

705. Persons With Disabilities Should Not Be Asked to Remove Prosthetic Limbs At Airport Security Checks: Supreme Court

[Case: Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 704]

In a petition filed to ensure convenient air travel for persons with disabilities, the Supreme Court observed that differently abled persons with prosthetic limbs/calipers should not be asked to remove the prosthetics at airport security checks so as to maintain human dignity. A Bench comprising Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V Ramasubramanian also observed that lifting a person with disability during air travel or security checkup is inhumane, and held that the same should not be done without the person's consent.

706. Right Against Sexual Harassment Part Of Right To Life & Dignity Under Article 21: Supreme Court

[Case: Union of India & Ors v. Mudrika Singh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 705]

The Supreme Court observed that the right against sexual harassment is vested in all persons as a part of their right to life and right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court stressed that it is important that that the spirit of this right is upheld instead of rejecting sexual harassment complaints on "hyper-technical" grounds.

A Bench comprising Justices D.Y Chandrachud and A.S Bopanna highlighted that the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 which is a transformative legislation will fail to come to the aid of aggrieved persons if proceedings inquiring into sexual misconduct are invalidated on 'hyper-technical' interpretations of the applicable service rules.

707. Section 138 NI Act Attracted Even In Cases Where Debt Is Incurred After Cheque Is Drawn But Before Presentation: Supreme Court

[Case: Sunil Todi v. State of Gujarat; Citation: LL 2021 SC 706]

The Supreme Court observed that Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is attracted in cases where debt is incurred after the drawing of the cheque but before its encashment. The true purpose of Section 138 would not be fulfilled, if 'debt or other liability' is interpreted to include only a debt that exists as on the date of drawing of the cheque, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna observed. The court added that merely labelling the cheque as a security would not obviate its character as an instrument designed to meet a legally enforceable debt or liability.

708. Ex-Parte Enhancement Of Sentence Illegal; HC Must Appoint Amicus Curiae If Accused Is Not Represented : Supreme Court

[Case: Krishnan & Anr v. State By Deputy Superintendent Of Police & Anr; Citation: LL 2021 SC 707]

The Supreme Court held that ex parte enhancement of sentence by the High Court is against the statutory mandate of the law under CrPC that provides for an opportunity to show case before enhancement of sentence in criminal revision. A Bench compromising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Bela Trivedi set aside Madras High Court's order that enhanced the sentences imposed on the appellants without any legal representation on his behalf and without appointing an Amicus Curiae in the case

709. ITAT Cannot Recall Its Order By Invoking Power U/Sec 254(2) Income Tax Act : Supreme Court

[Case: Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4), Mumbai v. Reliance Telecom Limited; Citation: LL 2021 SC 708]

The Supreme Court observed that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal cannot recall orders passed by it invoking power under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. Section 254(2) power is only to correct and/or rectify the mistake apparent from the record and not beyond that, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna said.

710. Builder Can't Be Asked To Raze Down Validly Constructed Structures Due To Later Changes In Environmental Clearance Law : Supreme Court

[Case: M/s. Sai Baba Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India And Ors.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 709]

The Supreme Court validated the pre-existing construction made by a Project Proponent, based on the Environmental Clearance (EC) obtained as per the legal framework that existed at the relevant time, invoking the principle of legitimate expectation. However, the Apex court directed further construction to be carried out only after obtaining fresh EC under the existing environmental regime. A Bench comprising Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy endorsed the order of the National Green Tribunal to the extent that the Appellant's EC though invalidated beyond a certain period, its pre-existing constructions made on the said EC were protected.

711. SARFAESI Proceedings Not Invalidated On Mere Failure Of Bank In Giving Reply To Objections If Borrower's Proposals Were Otherwise Considered: Supreme Court

[Case: Arce Polymers Private Limited v. M/s. Alpine Pharmaceuticals Private Limited & Ors.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 710]

The Supreme Court held that failure to furnish reply by the creditor as per the mandate of Section 13(3A) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) would not entitle the debtor of discretionary relief, if the Court is satisfied that the creditor has considered the debtor's representation and granted it sufficient opportunity to repay the debt. A Bench comprising Justices L. Nageshwara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna and B.R. Gavai added that a borrower not questioning and objecting to the action of the creditor and accepting the favourable decisions from the creditor, would be later estopped from take inconsistent positions to gain advantage through the aid of judicial proceedings.

712. Supreme Court Upholds RBI Regulations For Export Ban On PPE Kits; Says 'Well Being Of Masses Over Right To Business Of Few'

[Case: Akshay N Patel v. Reserve Bank of India and others; Citation: LL 2021 SC 711]

The Supreme Court upheld the measures adopted by the Reserve Bank of India to implement the ban imposed by the Union Government on the export of PPE Kits in view of the COVID-19 pandemic. A bench comprising Justices Dr DY Chandrachud, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice BV Nagarathna rejected the argument of a business person that the restrictions amounted to violation of his fundamental right to freedom to trade and business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

713. CPC - Obstructor's Claims Over Decree Property Must Be Determined In Execution Proceedings And Not In Separate Suit: Supreme Court

[Case: Bangalore Development Authority v. N. Nanjappa and another; Citation: LL 2021 SC 712]

The Supreme Court held that claims raised by an obstructor including questions relating to right, title or interest in the property in execution proceedings filed by the decree holder against the judgment debtor, has to be adjudicated upon by the Executing Court in the execution proceedings itself.

A Bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna held that in accordance with Order XXI Rule 101 CPC, an application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 with respect to resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property have to be determined by the Court dealing with the application and for that a separate suit is not required to be filed.

714. Registration Of Document Subject To Adjudication Of Parties' Rights By Civil Court: Supreme Court

[Case: Amudhavali & Ors. v. P. Rukmani and others.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 713]

The Supreme Court reiterated that the registration of a document is always subject to the adjudication of the rights of the parties by the competent civil court. "It is settled legal position that registration of document is always subject to adjudication of rights of the parties by the competent civil court", observed a bench comprising Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy in the case Amudhavali & Ors. v. P. Rukmani and others.

715. NCDRC Can Direct Deposit Of Entire Or More Than 50% Of Amount Determined By SCDRC For Stay : Supreme Court

[Case: Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Private Ltd v. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma & Ors.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 714]

In a significant judgment on the Consumer Protection Act 2019, the Supreme Court held that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission can direct the deposit of the entire amount or more than 50% of the amount determined by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for conditional stay. A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna added that however to pass such an order, the NCDRC has to pass a speaking order assigning cogent reasons.

716. Sec 120B IPC - Not Safe To Convict A Person For Criminal Conspiracy In Absence Of Evidence Showing Meeting Of Minds : Supreme Court

[Case: Parveen @Sonu v. State of Haryana; Citation: LL 2021 SC 715]

The Supreme Court bench of Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy observed that in absence of any evidence to show meeting of minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act, it is not safe to hold a person guilty for offences under Section 120-B of IPC.

717. 'Forum Shopping Cannot Be Approved; A Ground To Refuse Relief' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Interim Bail

[Case: State of Maharashtra v. Pankaj Jagshi Gangar; Citation: LL 2021 SC 716]

While setting aside an interim bail granted by the High Court in a MCOCA case, the Supreme Court observed that "forum shopping" can also be a ground to refuse relief. A Bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice Sanjiv Khanna said, "The aforesaid can be said to be forum shopping by the accused which is highly deprecated and which cannot be approved. On this ground also, the accused is not entitled to be released on bail and the impugned order passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail deserves to be quashed and set aside."

718. Supreme Court Recommends Constitution Of Motor Vehicle Appellate Tribunals In View Of Large Pendency In High Courts

[Case: Rasmita Biswal & Ors v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd & Anr; Citation: LL 2021 SC 717]

In view of large pendency of motor accident claims appeals before High Courts, the Supreme Court recommended the constitution of Motor Vehicle Appellate Tribunals in the country by amending Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for hearing the appeals challenging the award of a Tribunal. A Division Bench comprising Justice Abdul Nazeer and Justice Krishna Murari requested the Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice to examine the matter. It recommended speedy disposal of the appeals concerning payment of compensation to the victims of road accident, and to curtail the pendency before the High Courts.

719. Impleadment Of Few Affected Employees Sufficient In Service Matters; Non-Joining Of All Parties Not Fatal: Supreme Court

[Case: Ajay Kumar Shukla & Ors. v. Arvind Rai And Others; Citation: LL 2021 SC 718]

The Supreme Court bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna observed that in matters relating to service jurisprudence it is not essential to implead each and everyone who could be affected but if a section of such affected employees is impleaded then the interest of all is represented and protected.

720. Non-Disclosure Of Past & Present Litigations Concerning Dispute Amounts To Suppression Of Material Facts : Supreme Court

[Case: Shri K Jayaram & Ors v. Bangalore Development Authority; Citation: LL 2021 719]

The Supreme Court held that non-disclosure of details of past and pending litigation concerning the subject-matter of the dispute would amount to material suppression of facts, which would disentitle a litigant from discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution.

A Bench comprising Justice Abdul Nazeer and Justice Krishna Murari also reiterated that while approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it is imperative that the petitioner must come with clean hands and put forward all facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything.

721. Candidates In Rank List Have No Right To Demand That State Should Report All Vacancies: Supreme Court

[Case: The Director of Indian System of Medicine & Anr. v. Dr.Susmi CT & Anr.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 720]

The Supreme Court held that candidates included in a ranked list do not have a right to claim that all vacancies must be reported by a government agency. While saying that the agency cannot be arbitrary when choosing to not report vacancies to the Public Service Commission, the bench comprising Justice UU Lalit, Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Bela M Trivedi added that if the State offers proper explanations for not reporting the vacancies, judicial interference must be uploaded.

722. Consumer Case Not Maintainable Over Medical Services Given Free Of Charge Just Because Doctor Draws Salary From Hospital : Supreme Court

[Case: Nivedita Singh v. Dr. Asha Bharti And Ors.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 721]

The Supreme Court reiterated that service rendered by medical officers on behalf of a Hospital, free of cost, would not fall within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 only because the medical officers are salaried employees of the Hospital.

A bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian rejected an appeal assailing the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which dismissed the Appellant's complaint on the ground that she was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act.

723. Section 427 CrPC - Concurrent Running Of Sentences Shall Not Be Allowed In Drug Trafficking Cases : Supreme Court

[Case: Mohd Zahid v. State through NCB; Citation: LL 2021 SC 722]

The Supreme Court reiterated that discretion to direct subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence has to be exercised judiciously depending upon the nature of offences committed. A Bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna observed that in NDPS cases, even while applying discretion under Section 427 of Cr.PC, the discretion shall not be in favour of the accused who is found to be indulging in illegal trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

724. Insurer Has Duty To Disclose Changed Policy Conditions During Renewal : Supreme Court Grants Mediclaim Relief To Senior Citizens

[Case: Jacob Punnen & Anr. v. United India Insurance Co Ltd; Citation: LL 2021 SC 723]

The failure of an insurance agent to disclose to the policy-holder the changes in the policy conditions at the time of renewal of the policy will amount to 'deficiency in service' within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, held the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and KM Joseph while allowing mediclaim relief to two senior citizens.

725. Non-Recovery Of Weapon Of Offence Would Not Impeach Prosecution Case Which Relies On Credible Direct Evidence: Supreme Court

[Case: Gulab v. State of Uttar Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 724]

The Supreme Court held that non-recovery of the weapon of offence would not discredit the case of the prosecution which relies on cogent direct evidence. A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, AS. Bopanna and Vikram Nath added that the failure to produce a report by a ballistic expert, who can testify to the nature and cause of injury, is not sufficient to impeach the credible direct evidence.

726. Insurer Should Indemnify If Insured Suffers Sudden Sickness Or Ailment Which Is Not Expressly Excluded Under The Policy: Supreme Court

[Case: Manmohan Nanda v. United India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.; Citation: LL 2021 725]

The Supreme Court observed that if the insured suffers a sudden sickness or ailment which is not expressly excluded under the policy, a duty is cast on the insurer to indemnify the insured for the expenses incurred thereunder. A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna remarked that any fact which has a bearing on the very foundation of the contract of insurance and the risk to be covered under the policy would be a "material fact".

727. Onus Is On Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances About Execution Of Will: Supreme Court

[Case: Murthy v. C. Saradambal; Citation: LL 2021 SC 726]

The Supreme Court observed that onus is placed on the propounder to remove all suspicious circumstances with regard to the execution of the will. Merely because Will was a registered one, that by itself would not mean that the statutory requirements of proving the Will need not be complied with, the bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and BV Nagarathna observed

728. Whether Service Tax To Be Levied On Card-Issuing Bank For Interchange Fees : Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict

[Case: Commissioner of GST and Central Excise v. M/s. Citi Bank N.A.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 727]

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court took a divergent view on the issue, whether the card-issuing bank charging an interchange fee for credit card transaction is to be subjected to service tax for the same. Justice K.M. Joseph was of the opinion that the interchange fee is received for the service rendered by the card-issuing banks, hence liable to be subjected to service tax.

Justice S. Ravindra Bhat agreed that the issuing bank was providing service, but unlike J. Joseph felt that the services rendered by the issuing bank and the acquiring bank cannot be segregated and has to be seen as a single unified service. In other words, he opined that not the interchange fee, but the gross consideration [interchange fee of issuing bank + the amount of the acquiring bank] is to be taxed.

Justice KM Joseph allowed the appeals filed by the Revenue Department and remanded the matter back to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai for consideration of certain issues, whereas Justice S. Ravindra Bhat rejected the appeals and found no reason to remand the matter back.

729. Motor Accident Claims - Potential To Earn Can Be Considered To Determine Compensation If There Is No Evidence For Actual Income : Supreme Court

[Case: Basant Devi v. Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd; Citation: LL 2021 SC 728]

The Supreme Court held that even if there is no evidence on record of actual income, deceased person's potential to earn can be considered while considering insurance claims in motor accidents matter.

The deceased was a computer engineer with a B.Tech degree. While there was evidence on record to show that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/ month, there was no documentary evidence to show an additional 10,000/month which Appellants claimed. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in its judgement assessed the "future loss of income" of the deceased at Rs.20,000/month and on that basis arrived at a compensation figure of Rs. 30 Lakhs.

730. [Electricity Act, 2003] Captive Consumers/Captive Users Are Not Liable To Pay Additional Surcharge Under Section 42(4): Supreme Court

[Case: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited v. M/s. JSW Steel Limited & Ors.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 729]

The Supreme Court observed that captive consumers/captive users are not liable to pay the additional surcharge leviable under Section 42(4) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The bench of Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna also observed that consumers defined u/s 2(15) of the Act, 2003 and the captive consumers are different and distinct and they form a separate class by themselves.

731. Reliability Or Genuineness Of Allegations Made In FIR/Complaint Cannot Be Gone Into While Exercising Jurisdiction U/Sec 482 CrPC: Supreme Court

[Case: State of Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty; Citation: LL 2021 SC 730]

The Supreme Court observed that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, a High court cannot embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of allegations made in the FIR/complaint. The powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna said.

732. Section 50 NDPS Act Conditions Not Required To Be Complied In Case Of Vehicle Search: Supreme Court

[Case: Kallu Khan v. State of Rajasthan; Citation: LL 2021 SC 731]

The Supreme Court observed that the provisions of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act is required to be complied in the case of personal search only with but not in the case of search of vehicle. The court also observed that merely because independent witnesses were not examined, the conclusion could not be drawn that accused was falsely implicated. Non­-production of contraband in the Court by itself is not fatal, the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari observed while confirming the conviction of an accused in an NDPS case.

733. Alienation Of Joint Hindu Family Property By 'Karta' For Legal Necessity Or Benefit Of Estate Binding On Other Members: Supreme Court

[Case: Beereddy Dasaratharmi Reddy v. V. Manjunath; Citation: LL 2021 SC 732]

Where a Karta has alienated a joint Hindu family property for value either for legal necessity or benefit of the estate it would bind the interest of all undivided members of the family even when they are minors or widows, the Supreme Court observed. The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna noted that a joint Hindu family is capable of acting through its Karta or adult member of the family in management of the joint Hindu family property.

734. Sexual Enhancement Drugs Do Not Attract NDPS Act: Supreme Court Grants Bail To Accused

[Case: Bharat Chaudhary v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 733]

Sexual enhancement tablets meant to enhance male potency do not attract the provisions of the NDPS Act, the Supreme Court observed while granting bail to NDPS Accused. A bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli observed that the test report stated that the "quantitative analysis of the samples could not be carried out for want of facilities"

"In the absence of any clarity so far on the quantitative analysis of the samples, the prosecution cannot be heard to state at this preliminary stage that the petitioners have been found to be in possession of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances as contemplated under the NDPS Act. Further, a large number of the tablets that have been seized by the DRI admittedly contain herbs/medicines meant to enhance male potency and they do not attract the provisions of the NDPS Act.", the court said.

735. Ingredients Necessary To Prove Charges Under Section 409, 420 & 477A IPC: Supreme Court Explains

[Case: N. Raghavender v. State of Andhra Pradesh, CBI; Citation: LL 2021 SC 734]

The Supreme Court explained the ingredients necessary to prove a charge under Section 409, 420 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. Referring to the evidence on record, the bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Hima Kohli noted the following: First, no financial loss was caused to the Bank. Second, the record does not indicate that any pecuniary loss was caused to B. Satyajit Reddy or to any other customer of the Bank. Third, the material before us does not disclose any conspiracy between the accused persons. Therefore, it held that none of the acts proved against the accused constitute 'criminal misconduct' or fall under the ambit of Sections 409, 420 and 477-A IPC.

736. Trial Court Not Expected To Act In A Particular Way Depending On 'Sensitivity' Of A Case: Supreme Court

[Case: Mohan @Tailor Seena v. State of Karnataka; Citation: LL 2021 SC 735]

The Supreme Court observed that a Trial Court cannot be expected to act in a particular way depending upon the sensitivity of the case. Rather it should be appreciated if a trial court decides a case on its own merit despite its sensitivity, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh said while upholding a Trial Court judgment acquitting two young men accused of murdering a police officer.

737. Applications To Condone Delay In Filing Version In Consumer Cases Pending On 04.03.2020 Not Impacted By CB Judgment : SC Clarifies

[Case: Diamond Exports & Anr. v. United India Insurance Co Ltd & Ors.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 736]

Settling a conflict between two division bench judgments, a 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court clarified that the applications to condone the delay of more than 45 days in filing the version of the opposite party in consumer cases, which were pending as of March 4, 2020, will not be impacted by the ruling of the Constitution Bench judgment in the case New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, which had held that Consumer Forum cannot condone the delay of more than 45 days in filing the version of the opposite party.

In the instant case Diamond Exports & Anr. v. United India Insurance Co Ltd and others, a three judge bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath settled the divergent views expressed in the judgments in Daddy Builders Private Ltd v. Manisha Bhargava LL 2021 SC 78 and Dr. A Suresh Kumar v. Amit Agarwal LL 2021 SC 290.

The Constitution Bench judgment had declared that it will operate prospectively. The prospective impact of this judgment was understood differently in Daddy Builders and Dr.A Suresh Kumar cases. In Daddy Builders, a two-judge bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and MR Shah held that the delay condonation applications which were pending as on March 4, 2020, will be impacted by the Constitution Bench judgment.

738. Supreme Court Allows Defence Ministry's Plea To Allow Double Lane Widening Of Char Dham Highway Project

[Case: Citizens for Green Doon & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 737]

The Supreme Court allowed an application filed by the Ministry of Defence for the double-lane widening of roads that are part of the 899-km Char Dham project in Uttarakhand. A bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Vikram Nath pronounced orders in the application filed by the Ministry of Defence seeking modification of the order dated September 8, 2020, which was passed by a three-Judge Bench headed by Justice Rohinton Nariman, in order to permit the Union of India to make roads with 10 Meters tarred surface as opposed to the 5.5 meters as ordered by the Court.

739. NCLT Cannot Direct Parties To Settle A Dispute While Considering A Petition U/Sec 7 IBC: Supreme Court

[Case: E S Krishnamurthy v. Bharath Hi Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd; Citation: LL 2021 SC 738]

The Supreme Court observed that Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Authority under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot compel a party to the proceedings before it to settle a dispute. While they Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Authority can encourage settlements, they cannot direct them by acting as courts of equity, the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna observed.

"The Adjudicating Authority must either admit the application under Clause (a) of sub-Section (5) or it must reject the application under Clause (b) of sub-Section (5). The statute does not provide for the Adjudicating Authority to undertake any other action, but for the two choices available", the bench noted.

740. Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence Awarded To A Man Accused Of Rape And Murder Of A Three Year Old Girl Child

[Case: Lochan Shrivas v. State of Chhattisgarh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 739]

The Supreme Court commuted the death sentence of a man accused of rape and murder of a three years old girl child, considering his socio-economic background and the possibility of reform and rehabilitated. "It therefore cannot be said that there is no possibility of the appellant being reformed and rehabilitated foreclosing the alternative option of a lesser sentence and making imposition of death sentence imperative," a bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna said.

741. Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence in a Triple Murder Case

[Case: Bhagchandra v. State Of MP; Citation: LL 2021 SC 740]

Supreme Court commuted the death penalty awarded to a man convicted for triple murder. A bench comprising of Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice L. Nageshwar Rao, Justice B.R. Gavai while commuting the sentence of death penalty and converting it to rigorous imprisonment for 30 years, observed that: "Since the appellant comes from a rural and economic background and has no criminal antecedents, he cannot be called a hardened criminal and this was his first offence. In addition to this, the certificate issued by Jail superintendent shows that the conduct of the appellant during incarceration has been satisfactory so there is a possibility of appellant being reformed and rehabilitated and thus, we are inclined to convert the sentence imposed from death to life."

742. Supreme Court Acquits Three Death Row Convicts, Holds Prosecution Utterly Failed To Prove Case Beyond Reasonable Doubt

[Case: Jaikam Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 741]

The Supreme Court acquitted three murder accused who were sentenced to death by the Trial Court and the Allahabad High Court. A bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna observed that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

743. Bank Can't Be Directed By Writ Of Mandamus To Grant 'One-Time Settlement' Benefit To Borrower : Supreme Court

[Case: Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Bijnor v. Meenal Agarwal; Citation: LL 2021 SC 742]

No writ of mandamus can be issued by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing a financial institution/bank to positively grant the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme to a borrower, the Supreme Court has held in a judgment. The court observed that merely because the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act have remained pending for seven years, the Bank cannot be held responsible for the same.

744. Election Petition Can't Be Rejected Summarily For Curable Defects: Supreme Court

[Case: A Manju v. Prajwal Revanna; Citation: LL 2021 SC 743]

The Supreme Court held that the verifying affidavit in support of election petition need not be thrown out merely because it is not in Form 25 as prescribed under Rule 94A of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. A bench of Justice Sanjay Kaul and Justice M.M.Sundresh was presiding on a matter regarding lack of attachment of affidavit in support of claims made in an election petition, where the appellant had later attached the affidavit, and observed, "Once there is an affidavit, albeit not in Form 25, the appropriate course would be to permit an affidavit to be filed in Form 25."

745. Recovery Based On Disclosure Statement Made In Another Crime: Supreme Court Acquits Accused In Murder Case

[Case: Rakesh Rai @ Vishal Rai @ Purna Rai & Anr. v. State of Sikkim; Citation: LL 2021 SC 744]

The Supreme Court opined that recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act would not be admissible if the disclosure statement was made in connection to a crime undergoing separate trial, especially when such statement was not made to the jurisdictional police officer. A bench comprising Justices U.U. Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela M. Trivedi upheld the order of the Trial Court acquitting the appellants who were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the High Court, for committing murder.

746. Right To Dignity A Fundamental Right': Supreme Court Directs Issuance Of Ration Cards, Voter IDs To Sex Workers

[Case: Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal; Citation: LL 2021 SC 745]

The Supreme Court directed the State Governments and Union Territories to commence the process of issuance of ration cards/ Voters Identity cards immediately to sex workers from the list that is maintained by NACO. A bench of Justices LN Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna found that its directions to provide sex workers almost a decade back were not complied with. Accordingly in its order the bench noted,

747. Burden To Prove Full Repayment Of Borrowed Amount Is On The Party Claiming It: Supreme Court

[Case: Anita Rani v. Ashok Kumar & Ors.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 746]

The Supreme Court held that when payment of money and repayment of a portion of it is admitted by a party, then the onus to establish that there was full and final settlement of the dues is also on that party. "A party who admits receipt of certain amount of money on a particular date and pleads discharge by way of a full and final settlement at a latter date, is the one on whom the onus lies", a Bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed.

748. Contempt Jurisdiction Is Always Discretionary, Should Be Exercised Sparingly: Supreme Court

[Case: The Bordeuri Samaj Of Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya v. Riju Prasad Sarma & Ors.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 747]

Noting that the contempt jurisdiction is always discretionary which should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, the Supreme Court has held that the Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya Temple Management case is not a fit case to exercise the said jurisdiction by punishing the members of the Kamakhya Debutter Board or directing the refund of the Temple money allegedly misappropriated by the Board.

The Supreme Court had on July 7, 2015 upheld the 2011 Gauhati High Court decision to restore the administration of the temple to the Bordeuri Samaj, comprising five main families of priests who had run the temple since time immemorial until 1998- when the Kamakhya Debutter Board was formed and taken over control of the shrine. The contempt case, at the instance of the Bordeuri Samaj, arises out of the non-compliance with the Court's July 7, 2015 judgment.

749. Plaintiff Is 'Dominus Litis'; High Court Cannot Direct Impleadment Of Additional Defendant In Suit : Supreme Court

[Case: IL & FS Engineering & Constructions Company v. M/s Bhargavarma Constructions & Ors.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 748]

The Supreme Court disapproved the approach taken by a High Court in setting aside a decree in a suit and remanding the same for fresh trial after directing the plaintiff to implead a party as an additional defendant in the suit. The Top Court reminded that the plaintiff is the "dominis litis"(master of the suit), who is entitled to decide who all should be added as parties in the case.

750. Power To Issue Notification Under S. 48(1) Of Land Acquisition Act Includes Power To Rescind: Supreme Court

[Case: U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Through Housing Commissioner & Anr. v. Noor Mohammad & Ors.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 749]

The Supreme Court reversed a High Court judgment which had set aside a notification cancelling a previous notification issued under S.48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the release of land of respondents from acquisition, and stated that, "A notification under S.48(1) confers benefit upon an individual and hence it is not supposed to be preceded by any enquiry. An order given under S.48(1) is an administrative Act and the power to issue a notification includes the power to rescind one."

A bench of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V. Ramasubramanian looked into the question as to whether a notification under S. 48(1) of Land Acquisition Act is a quasi-judicial order and thus, does not give government the power to recall an order previously made, or is it an administrative order. And the bench noted that "a proceeding under S. 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is administrative in nature and what is provided in S.48(1) is the power/liberty to withdraw from acquisition."

751. Supreme Court Directs Bar Councils To Decide Complaints Against Advocates Within One Year Of Their Receipt; Suggests Empaneling Retired Judicial Officers As Inquiry Officers

[Case: K. Anjinappa v. K.C. Krishna Reddy; Citation: LL 2021 SC 750]

The Supreme Court had issued directions to the State Bar Councils to dispose of complaints under Section 35 expeditiously and conclude the same within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the complaint as mandated under Section 36 B of the Advocates Act. The Apex Court also passed directions to expedite the disposal of the transferred proceedings before the Bar Council of India.

A bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna held that only in exceptional cases and on providing cogent and valid reasons for non-disposal within one year, the proceedings would be transferred to the Bar Council of India. It further observed that BCI ought to dispose of the transferred proceedings/complaints within a period of one year from the receipt of transfer.

752. Initiation Of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Persons With Mental Disabilities Is A Facet Of Indirect Discrimination : Supreme Court

[Case: Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal & Anr v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 751]

The Supreme Court observed that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against persons with mental disabilities is a facet of indirect discrimination. The Apex Court was adjudicating upon a case wherein disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against an officer of the Central Reserve Police Force who had been diagnosed with 40 to 70 percent mental disability.A Bench comprising Justices D.Y Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath observed while setting aside the disciplinary proceedings: "A person with a disability is entitled to protection under the RPwD Act as long as the disability was one of the factors for the discriminatory act."

753. Candidate Has To Comply With Eligibility Criteria As Per Advertisement Before Cut-Off Date Unless Extended By Authority : Supreme Court

[Case: State of Bihar & Ors v. Madhu Kant Ranjan; Citation: LL 2021 SC 752]

In a matter relating to the appointment of a candidate to the post of Constable in Bihar Police Force, the Supreme Court of India has observed that a candidate or applicant has to comply with all the conditions and eligibility criteria as per the advertisement before the cut-off date unless extended by the recruiting authority.

A Bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna has made the observations in a civil appeal filed by State of Bihar challenging Patna High Court's order whereby it directed DIG Munger to appoint the respondent as Constable.

754. MSMED Act: If Conciliation Not Successful, Arbitration Proceedings Must Be Resorted To: Supreme Court

[Case: Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 753]

The Supreme Court bench of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Subhash Reddy, while dealing with a matter pertaining to delayed payment of dues by Jharkhand electricity board to a Conductors supplier held that Section18 of The Micro Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act 2006 [MSMED Act] and noted that "Under S. 18(3), when conciliation fails and stands terminated, the dispute between the parties can be resolved by arbitration. The council is empowered either to take up arbitration on its own or to refer the arbitration proceedings to any institution as specified in the said section."

755. Right To Equality Would Apply To A Man Who Has No Choice But To Accept A Standard Form Contract However Unfair It May Be: Supreme Court

[Case: Pani Ram v. Union of India & Ors.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 754]

The Supreme Court directed the grant of disability pension to a member of the Territorial Army by rejecting the reliance placed by the Union of India on a document signed by the appellant at the time of enrollment in the Territorial Army, whereby he had apparently waived his right to get enhanced pension. A bench of Justices LN Rao and BR Gavai said that the Army cannot rely on the said document in view of the unequal bargaining power between the parties.

756. Applicability Of An Amended Rule For Compassionate Appointment Shall Be Based On Date Of Death Rather Than Date Of Consideration Of Claim: Supreme Court

[Case: The Secretary of Govt. Department of Education (Primary) And Ors. v. Bheemesh Alias Bheemappa; Citation: LL 2021 SC 755]

The Supreme Court held that the applicability of a modified scheme with respect to an appointment on compassionate grounds would be based on a fixed criteria, like the date of death, rather than an indeterminate factor, like the date of consideration of the claim.

A bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian refused to hold that Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (7th amendment) Rules, 2012 can be applied retrospectively so as to provide, a person seeking compassionate appointment, the enhanced benefits of a new amendment. It further reiterated that compassionate appointments cannot be treated as a vested right in law.

757. Consumers With Same Interest Can File Joint Complaint; Not Necessary To File Complaint In Representative Capacity : Supreme Court

[Case: Brigade Enterprises Limited v. Anil Kumar Virmani & Ors.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 756]

The Supreme Court has held that where there are more consumers than one having similar grievance, it is not necessary that they must file consumer complaint in representative capacity under Section 35(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. Instead, these few consumers can join together and file a joint complaint. "There is nothing in the Consumer Protection Act 2019 to prohibit these few consumers from joining together and filing a joint complaint", a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian observed. It contrasted a "joint complaint" from a complaint filed under "representative capacity".

758. Section 482 CrPC - High Court Can't Pass Adverse Orders Or Observations Against Third Party Who Is Not Before It: Supreme Court

[Case: Anu Kumar v. State (UT Administration) & Anr; Citation: LL 2021 SC 757]

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court in a petition for quashing filed by the accused u/s 482 CrPC cannot issue directions for proceeding against a third party who was neither before the Court and nor was given any opportunity before passing the order. A bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar examine whether the High Court in a petition for quashing filed by the accused u/s 482 CrPC could issue directions to proceed against a third party who was neither before the Court and nor was given any opportunity before passing the order and also make observations.

759. "Reversal Of Acquittal Is Permissible Only If Trial Court's View Is Not Only Erroneous But Also Unreliable & Perverse"

[Case: Suman Chandra v. CBI; Citation: LL 2021 SC 758]

In a matter of reversal of Trial Court's acquittal order by the High Court, the Supreme Court of India has reiterated that the reversal of acquittal is permissible only if the view of the Trial Court is not only erroneous but also unreasonable and perverse. A Bench comprising Justice Vineet Saran and Justice Aniruddha Bose opined that the view taken by the Trial Court was a possible view, which was neither perverse nor unreasonable, and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, ought not to have been reversed or interfered with by the High Court.

760. Article 14 Does Not Envisage Negative Equality; State Can't Be Forced To Perpetuate Same Mistake Committed With Respect To Others

[Case: Rajesh Pravinchandra Rajyaguru v. Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board and Ors.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 759]

The Supreme Court observed that daily rated employees cannot as a matter of right claim the parity of pay scales with the Government employees. The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah further added that the petitioners could not invoke Article 14 of the Constitution to claim benefit on the ground of parity if they otherwise were not entitled to such benefit.

761. Negative Discrimination Can't Be Claimed Under Articles 14 & 16 Referring To Persons Erroneously Regularized

[Case: Rajendra Badaik v. State of Jharkhand and Ors; Citation: LL 2021 SC 760]

While considering a special leave petition assailing Jharkhand High Court's order with regards to claim for regularisation, the Supreme Court has observed that one cannot claim negative discrimination qua the persons who have been erroneously granted the benefit of regularisation under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and AS Oka remarked that, "We do find that there are few employees in reference to which a complaint has been made, but one cannot claim negative discrimination qua the persons who have been erroneously granted the benefit of regularization under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution."

Also Read: Article 14 Does Not Envisage Negative Equality; State Can't Be Forced To Perpetuate Same Mistake Committed With Respect To Others : Supreme Court

762. Candidate Cannot Alter Declaration Given About Correctness Of Details During Selection Process: Supreme Court

[Case: Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Manish Bakawale & Ors; Citation: LL 2021 SC 761]

During a selection process, a candidate cannot attempt to deviate from a declaration made regarding the correctness of the detail furnished by him, so as to affect the position of others, held the Supreme Court in a recent decision. A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna observed so while allowing an appeal filed by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission. The MP High Court had allowed a candidate to opt for his next preferred post, accepting his claim that he had given wrong particulars about his height.

763. Document's Author Need Not Be Examined If Signature Is Not Denied : Supreme Court

[Case: M/s. Star Paper Mills Limited v. M/s. Beharilal Madanlal Jaipuria Ltd. And Ors.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 762]

The Supreme Court has observed in its judgment delivered on December 16 that the examination of the author of a document is not required, if they had not denied their signature on the document, but only pleaded duress in execution of the same.

"The High Court,in the impugned judgment, erred in holding that the appellant had not examined the author of the documents. Such reasoning is absolutely erroneous as in the written statement, the respondents had not denied their signatures on the documents referred to by the appellant but pleaded duress in executing of these large number of documents", a bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian stated. It also reiterated that the onus to prove that a transaction is sham, bogus and fictitious is on the person who makes such a claim.

764. NCDRC Can't Direct To Amend Pleadings As Complainant Is The 'Dominus Litis': Supreme Court

[Case: M/s Acme Cleantech Solutions Private Limited v. M/s United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr; Citation: LL 2021 SC 763]

Setting aside the NCDRC order for amendment of a complaint (seeking a direction to the insurer to settle the claim and make payment) to challenge the subsequent repudiation of the claim, the Supreme Court has affirmed that "the party which moves the forum is dominus litis and is entitled to decide whether or not to amend the pleading or to pursue the complaint, as it stands."

The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna clarified that the appellant could be at liberty to follow either of the three courses of action, namely:- (i) to pursue the complaint as it stands without any amendment; or (ii) to seek an amendment to the complaint; or (iii) to withdraw the complaint with liberty to file a fresh complaint to challenge the alleged act of repudiation.

765. Dowry Death Shall Be Presumed If It Is Shown That Wife Was Harassed For Dowry Soon Before Death: Supreme Court

[Case: Parvati Devi v. State Of Bihar Now State Of Jharkhand & Ors.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 764]

The Supreme Court has observed that once the prosecution is able to establish that a woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry soon before her death, the Court shall proceed on a presumption that the persons who have subjected her to cruelty with demand for dowry have caused dowry death u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code.

The bench of Chief Justice NV Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli laid down the following prerequisites to be followed for convicting the accused for offence punishable u/s 304B IPC: (i) that the death of a woman must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or occurred otherwise than under normal circumstance; (ii) that such a death must have occurred within a period of seven years of her marriage; (iii) that the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment at the hands of her husband, soon before her death; and (iv) that such cruelty or harassment must have been for or related to any demand for dowry.

766. Bank Doesn't Hold Customer's Deposit In Trust; Banker-Depositor Relationship That Of Creditor-Debtor

[Case : N. Raghavender v. State of Andhra Pradesh, CBI; Citation : LL 2021 SC 765]