- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Weekly Round Up,...
Supreme Court Weekly Round Up, August 2 To August 8, 2021
Nupur Thapliyal
8 Aug 2021 5:30 PM IST
JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Emergency Arbitration Award Enforceable In Indian Law : Supreme Court Rules In Favour Of Amazon In Case Against Future RetailCase: Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC vs. Future Retail Limited ; CA 4492-4493 OF 2021Citation: LL 2021 SC 357The Supreme Court this week ruled in favour of e-commerce giant Amazon in its dispute with Future Retail Limited(FRL) over...
JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK
Case: Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC vs. Future Retail Limited ; CA 4492-4493 OF 2021
Citation: LL 2021 SC 357
The Supreme Court this week ruled in favour of e-commerce giant Amazon in its dispute with Future Retail Limited(FRL) over the latter's merger deal with Reliance group. The top court held that that Emergency Award passed by Singapore arbitrator stalling FRL-Reliance deal is enforceable in Indian law.
The Court held that an award/order by an Emergency Arbitrator would be covered by Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and it can be enforced under the provisions of Section 17(2). It also held that no appeal lies under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act against an order of enforcement of an Emergency Arbitrator's order made under Section 17(2) of the Act.
A bench comprising Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai had reserved judgment on July 29 after extensively hearing the arguments led by Senior Advocates Gopal Subramanium for Amazon and Harish Salve for FRL(Case Title : Amazon.Com NV Investment Holdings vs Future Retail Ltd and others) .
2. Article 136: Pure Question Of Law Can Be Raised For The First Time In SLP: Supreme Court
Case: Saurav Jain Vs. A. B. P. Design ; CA 4448 of 2021
Citation: LL 2021 SC 354
The Supreme Court observed that it can entertain new grounds raised for the first time in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution if it involves a question of law which does not require adducing additional evidence.
The principle in Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure furthers the cause of justice by providing the party other than the 'aggrieved party' to raise any adverse findings against them and this Court can draw colour from it and permit objections to findings, the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed.
Case: Naivedya Associates vs. Kriti Nutrients Ltd. ; Transfer Petition (Civil) 953/2021
Citation: LL 2021 SC 356
The Supreme Court observed that there is not much scope of going into the question of 'territorial jurisdiction' of a court in a Transfer Petition under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
This point is required to be urged before the Court in which the suit is pending, Justice Aniruddha Bose observed while dismissing a transfer petition.
In this case, the petitioner is a defendant in a suit instituted in the Court of District Judge, Shahdara, Karkardooma Court, New Delhi alleging infringement of trade mark and copyright. In the transfer petition filed before the Apex Court, his only contention was that both the parties hail from the State of Madhya Pradesh and no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the District Court of Shahdara.
4. Order XLI Rule 22 CPC- Cross Objection Not Necessary To Challenge Adverse Findings: Supreme Court
Case: Saurav Jain Vs. A. B. P. Design ; CA 4448 of 2021
Citation: LL 2021 SC 354
The Supreme Court observed that a party in whose favour a court has decreed the suit can challenge an adverse finding before the appellate court without a cross objection.
It is not necessary that a challenge to the adverse findings of the lower court needs to be made in the form of a memorandum of cross-objection, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed.
The Court also observed that it can entertain new grounds raised for the first time in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution if it involves a question of law which does not require adducing additional evidence.
Case: Cheminova India Limited vs. State of Punjab ; CrA 750 OF 2021
Citation: LL 2021 SC 355
The Supreme Court observed that a Magistrate is not required to record statement of a public servant who filed the complaint in discharge of his official duty before issuing summons to the accused resides outside the territorial jurisdiction.
In this case, the Inspecting Officer filed complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, against a company, its managing director and others alleging offence of 'misbranding' under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 33, 29 of the Insecticides Act. One of the contentions raised by the appellant-accused was that the the Magistrate has taken cognizance without conducting inquiry and ordering investigation and thus not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Case: Surajdeo Mahto vs. State of Bihar ; CrA 1677 of 2011
Citation: LL 2021 SC 351
Once the fact of last seen is established, an adverse inference can be drawn against the accused if he fails to explain the circumstances in which he departed the company of the deceased, the Supreme Court reiterated in a judgment today.
The bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose was disposing a criminal appeal arising out of a murder case of the year 1987. The Trial Court convicted the accused duo under Section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The Patna High Court later affirmed the conviction in the year 2010.
Case: Dena Bank vs. C. Shivakumar Reddy ; CA 1650 OF 2020
Citation: LL 2021 SC 349
The Supreme Court observed that there is no bar in permitting amendment of pleadings or to the filing of additional document in an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, when there is inordinate delay, the Adjudicating Authority may, at its discretion, decline the request, the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian observed.
Case: NERELLA CHIRANJEEVI ARUN KUMAR vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ; SLP(Crl) 3978/2021
Citation: LL 2021 SC 350
The Supreme Court observed that the trial of the criminal case against an Indian citizen for offences committed outside India cannot commence without sanction of the Central Government under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
But such previous sanction is not required at the stage of cognizance, the bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose said.
In this case, the contention of the accused before the High court in his petition under Section 482 CrPC was that the alleged offences were committed in the USA and in accordance with Section 188 of the Cr.P.C., sanction from the Central Government is required even for initiation of investigation of the crime. The High Court, rejected this contention and dismissed the petition
9. Different Retirement Age For AYUSH & Allopathic Doctors Not Justified : Supreme Court
Case Title : North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma and others
Citation : LL 2021 SC 346
The Supreme Court has observed that there is no rational justification for different age of retirement for doctors practicing AYUSH system of medicines and allopathic doctors. The Court observed that the mode of treatment by itself will not qualify as an "intelligible differentia" between two categories as far as retirement age is concerned.
A division bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and Hrishikesh Roy was deciding an appeal filed by the New Delhi Municipal Corporation against a Delhi High Court judgment which held that AYUSH doctors working under NDMC were entitled to the enhancement of retirement age as 65 years, with retrospective effect from the date on which such enhancement was given to allopathic doctors.
IMPORTANT APEX COURT UPDATES
The Supreme Court this week posted the appeal filed by the Attorney General for India against the controversial judgment passed by the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in a POCSO case for final hearing on August 24.
A bench comprising Justices UU Lalit and Ajay Rastogi also appointed Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave as an amicus curiae in the matter.
As per the impugned judgment, the High Court had acquitted an accused observing that groping of the breasts of a minor girl over her clothes will not amount to the offence of 'sexual assault' under Section 8 of POCSO. Holding that there should be 'skin to skin' contact to attract the offence under Section 8 POCSO, the High Court held that the act in question will only amount to a lesser offence of 'molestation' under Section 354 IPC.
Supreme Court this week observed that the State's negligence in the recent killing of judge Uttam Anand who was posted as Additional District and Sessions Judge at Dhanbad, cannot be ignored.
A Division Bench comprising CJI NV Ramana and Justice Surya Kant opined that, being well aware that Dhanbad is a mafia area where several advocates have been killed and judges have been attacked in the past, the State should have provided some protection to the Judicial officer at least around their colonies.
"Look at the unfortunate case of Judge who lost his life. And you can't ignore the State's negligence. It is State's failure. They know Dhanbad is a mafia area and we have several advocates were killed and judges have been attacked. This is nothing new. Inspite of the, the State Government hasn't done anything. They must provide security at least near by the colonies." the Bench remarked.
Supreme Court this week pulled up the Centre for not constituting an appellate tribunal under the CGST Act even after 4 years of the Act having come into force.
"The CGST act came into force about 4 years back, you have been unable to create any appellate tribunal at all." CJI told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta
A Division Bench of CJI Ramana and Justice Surya Kant observed that there has to an appellate tribunal under the Act for persons aggrieved by orders of appellate or revisional authority. However, the same has not been constituted yet.
4. CPIL Moves Supreme Court Challenging Rakesh Asthana's Appointment As Delhi Police Commissioner
The Centre for Public Interest Litigation has moved the Supreme Court challenging the appointment of Rakesh Asthana, IPS as the Commissioner of Police, Delhi.
The Plea has been moved through Advocate Prashant Bhushan and it goes on to pray that the order of appointment of Asthana as Delhi Police Commissioner by the Union of India be quashed.
The plea avers that just four days before this retirement, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued the order of his appointment as Delhi Police Commissioner thereby extending his service initially for a period of one year beyond the date of his superannuation on 31.07.2021.
5. Pegasus -Serious Allegations If Reports Are True; Truth Has To Come Out : Supreme Court
Observing that the allegations are serious if the reports of Pegasus surveillance are true, the Supreme Court this week asked the lawyers appearing in nine petitions seeking probe into the Pegasus snooping controversy to serve copies of their petitions on the Government of India.
The matter has been listed for further hearing next Tuesday.
"No doubt, the allegations are serious, if the reports are true", the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana remarked during the hearing.
"Truth has to come out, that's a different story. We don't know whose names are there", he added.
The petitions were filed by Advocate ML Sharma, journalists N Ram and Sashi Kumar, CPI(M) Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas, five pegasus targets( Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, SNM Abdi, Prem Shankar Jha, Rupesh Kumar Singh and Ipsa Shataksi), social activist Jagdeep Chhokkar, Narendra Kumar Mishra and the Editors Guild of India.
The petitioners highlighted that the Government of India is yet to make a categorical denial of using the Pegasus spyware. The five petitioners who are reported to be in the target list state that they have strong reasons to believe that they have been subjected to a "deeply intrusive surveillance and hacking by the Government of India or some other third parties.
Also Read: 'This Is Not The Way Of Filing A PIL' : Supreme Court Pulls Up ML Sharma In Pegasus Case
The Supreme Court this week granted an extension of 6 months for the Inquiry Commission to finish its probe into the murders of four men, accused of gang-rape and murder of a veterinarian in an alleged encounter with Hyderabad police on December 6, 2019.
This has come after two previous extensions of 6 months each in July 2020 and January 2021 granted to the Inquiry Commission for the submission of its final report. The panel was initially directed in December 2019 to conclude its investigation within 6 months and submit the report.
In a dramatic twist in the case of 5-time Paralympian shooter and Arjuna Award winner Naresh Kumar Sharma, the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) has said that it is not possible to include an additional participant from India in the Tokyo Paralympic games starting from August 24.
The Supreme Court had directed the Paralympic Committee of India (PCI) to recommend his name as an additional participant in the 50 meter parashooter event in the Tokyo Paralympics, after prima facie observing that his exclusion was arbitrary. The Court had also directed the PCI to report compliance today.
The Bench of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud and Shah expressed displeasure while hearing its suo moto case regarding the incident in Rajkot, Gujarat on 26.11.2020, resulting in the death of Covid patients in the Covid Hospital.
It may be noted that on July 8, the Gujarat government had issued a notification that directed that no coercive action should be taken against the buildings having no BU permission till three months from December 31, 2021, which is the last date of applicability of the Gujarat Epidemic Diseases COVID-19 Regulation, 2020. While confronting the State of Gujarat on its decision to issue notification extending the timeline for hospitals to rectify compliances, the Supreme Court had on July 19 decided to consider if the notification was in breach of its order dated December 18, 2020 regarding maintenance and audit of fire safety measures in hospitals.
9. Supreme Court Dismisses Pleas By Rape Survivor & Convicted Ex-Catholic Priest To Marry Each Other
The Supreme Court this week refused to entertain an application moved by survivor of Kottiyoor rape case from Kerala, expressing willingness to marry former Catholic priest Robin Vadakkumchery, who was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment under POCSO for raping and impregnating her while she was a minor.
The Court also rejected a petition filed by Robin Vadakkumcherry seeking suspension of his sentence to marry the survivor. The survivor had supported his plea saying that she wanted marriage to escape the social stigma and to give legitimacy to the child who was born out of the sexual crime.
