Supreme Court Weekly Round Up: Nov 1 To Nov 7, 2021

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS

1. Insurance Claim Liable To Be Rejected If Premium Was Not Paid On Due Date : Supreme Court

Case name: Life Insurance Corporation of India vs 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 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 court further observed thus, by referring to Vikram Greentech (I) Ltd. V/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 5 SCC 599:

From the afore-stated legal position, it is clear that the terms of insurance policy have to be strictly construed, and it is not permissible to rewrite the contract while interpreting the terms of the Policy. In the instant case, condition no. 11 of the Policy clearly stipulated that the policy has to be in force when the accident takes place

2. Offender Who Had Not Used Deadly Weapon During Robbery Cannot Be Convicted Under Section 397 IPC: Supreme Court

Case name : Ganesan vs State

Citation: LL 2021 SC 614

The Supreme Court has 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.

In this case, the appellants -accused were convicted under Section 397 IPC which reads thus: If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years. Before the Apex Court, it was contended that the allegation of use of any weapon was against the other accused only and thus in absence of any allegations of use of any deadly weapon by the appellants, Section 397 IPC is not attracted.

3. Waqf Tribunal Has Jurisdiction Even If Subject Property Is Admitted To Be A Waqf Property: Supreme Court

Case name: Rashid Wali Beg vs. Farid Pindari

Citation: LL 2021 SC 604

The Supreme Court has held that a Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute even if a property is admitted to be a waqf property.

"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 comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed.

This judgment, to an extent, settles the conundrum that followed a 2010 judgment of the Supreme Court and the amendment of the Waqf Act in 2013.

4. PC Act - More Time Taken For Preliminary Enquiry Not A Ground To Quash Criminal Proceedings : Supreme Court

Case Title: The State of Jammu and Kashmir vs Dr Saleem ur Rehman| Criminal Appeal No. 1170 of 2021

Citation: LL 2021 SC 618

The Supreme Court has 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.

5. Taluk Land Board's Determination Has Evidentiary Value In Proceedings Under Kerala Private Forest Vesting Act : Supreme Court

Case Title: State Of Kerala & Anr. V. M/S Popular Estates (Now Dissolved) & Anr.| Civil Appeal No. 903 Of 2011

Citation: LL 2021 SC 619

The Supreme Court has observed that determination arrived by the Land Board about the character of lands, under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 ("KLR Act") becomes a piece of evidence for the purposes of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 ("Vesting Act").

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.

6. 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: Supreme Court

Case name: AT Mydeen vs. 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 a judgment delivered on Friday.

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.

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

Case name: Dinesh Mahajan vs 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.

One of the grounds raised in the petition was that there is an apprehension of threat of life.

"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.

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

Case Title: Dayle De'Souza vs Government of India Through Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C) And Another Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 3913 of 2020.]

Citation : LL 2021 SC 622

The Supreme Court has 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. ("the Company")and one Mr. Vinod Singh, Madhya Pradesh head of M/s. Writer Safeguards Pvt. Ltd.

9. Will Can't Be Revoked By Subsequent Agreement; Revocation Only By Modes Under Section 70 Succession Act : Supreme Court

Case Name: Badrilal vs Suresh & Ors

Citation : LL 2021 SC 624

The Supreme Court has 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 will by a subsequent agreement.

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

Case Title: P.B. Nayak And Ors. v. Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant And Ors. Civil Appeal No(s) 4613 of 2013]

Citation : LL 2021 SC 626

The Supreme Court has 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 was deciding a case related to Bhilai Steel Club. Few employees, whose services in the club were terminated, approached the authority under the Madhya Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, challenging their dismissals. The authority under the Act held the termination of services to be illegal and directed the reinstatement of the employees.

11. Prior Sanction Of Magistrate Not Mandatory For Investigating Non-Cognizable Offence Along With Cognizable Offence : Supreme Court

Case Title: The State of Jammu and Kashmir vs Dr Saleem ur Rehman| Criminal Appeal No. 1170 of 2021

Citation: LL 2021 SC 618

The Supreme Court has held that prior sanction of the Magistrate is not mandatory for investigating a non-cognizable offence along with a cognizable offence.

A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna held so while dealing with an appeal against a judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, which quashed an FIR for offences under under the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Ranbir Penal Code. The High Court, among other grounds, had quashed the FIR observing that prior sanction of the Magistrate as per Section 155 of the J&K Code of Criminal Procedure was not obtained for investigating the offence of criminal conspiracy, which was non-cognizable as per the Ranbir Penal Code. The High Court also held the delay in completing preliminary enquiry as a reason to quash the case.

IMPORTANT APEX COURT UPDATES

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

The Supreme Court this week set aside the order of the Calcutta High Court which imposed a complete ban of 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 

2. Karnataka Govt Revises 'No Plans To Deport Rohingyas' Affidavit; Files New Affidavit In Supreme Court

Revising its earlier stand that there were no plans to deport Rohingya refugees in the state, the Karnataka Government has filed a fresh affidavit before the Supreme Court stating that it will adhere to any order passed by the Court in this matter.

The affidavit stated that while 126 Rohingyas have been identified in the State, the Karnataka State Police has not housed Rohingyas in any camp or detention centre within its jurisdiction.

The previous affidavit had given the number as 72. The first affidavit stated "72 Rohingyas identified in the Bengaluru City are working in various fields and Bengaluru City police have not taken coercive action against them as of now and there is no immediate plan of deporting them."

3. Can Covid Parole Leave Period Be Considered To Calculate Convict's Actual Period Of Sentence?: Supreme Court Asks Maharashtra Govt To Decide

The Supreme Court has granted liberty to the State of Maharashtra to take a policy decision as to whether or not the Covid Leave period of parole of a convict can be considered for calculating his period of actual sentence.

The State has also been asked to decide whether such a decision is to be applied to all the prisoners or some exceptions are required to be made.

A Bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli has granted a time period of four weeks to the State to do the needful, and has directed the case to be listed again after four weeks.