- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Weekly Round Up,...
Supreme Court Weekly Round Up, August 9 To August 15, 2021
Nupur Thapliyal
15 Aug 2021 9:16 PM IST
JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Improper To Quash FIR U/s 482 CrPC When There Are Serious Triable Allegations In Complaint, Reiterates Supreme CourtCase: Kaptan Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh; CrA 787 OF 2021Citation: LL 2021 SC 379The Supreme Court observed that it is improper to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code when there are serious triable allegations in...
JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK
Case: Kaptan Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh; CrA 787 OF 2021
Citation: LL 2021 SC 379
The Supreme Court observed that it is improper to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code when there are serious triable allegations in the complaint.
Appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, the Supreme Court reiterated while setting aside a High Court judgment.
In this case, pursuant to direction of Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC, the police registered FIR against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC. The complaint pertained to non-execution of a sale deed. The accused approached the High Court seeking quashing of FIR and entire criminal proceedings alleging that the same has been lodged only with a view to pressurize the accused handover the plot to the complainant. The High Court allowed the petition.
Case: Krishna Gopal Tiwary vs Union of India ; CA 4744 OF 2021
Citation: LL 2021 SC 378
The Supreme Court has observed that 2010 amendment of Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 is not retrospective.
As per the 2010 amendment, the upper-limit of amount of gratuity payable as per Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 was increased as Rupees 10 lakhs from Rupees 3.5 lakhs.
The bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna observed that the benefit of higher gratuity is one-time available to the employees only after the commencement of the Amending Act.
3. Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Services Rules 2017 Has No Retrospective Operation: Supreme Court
Case: Anand Kumar Tiwari vs High Court of Madhya Pradesh ; WPC 675 of 201
Citation: LL 2021 SC 376
The Supreme Court observed that Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2017, has no retrospective operation.
The roster shall be prepared and maintained only after the commencement of operation of the Rules, the bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose observed. After the introduction of the 2017 Rules, seniority inter-se direct recruits and promotees shall be determined on the basis of Roster, the court added.
The court, however, observed that the delay to bring the seniority rule in accord with the directions given in All India Judges' Association case, is not justified.
4. There Cannot Be Repeated Test Identification Parades Till Accused Is Identified: Supreme Court
Case: Umesh Chandra vs. State of Uttarakhand; CrA 801 OF 2021
Citation: LL 2021 SC 374
The Supreme Court observed that there cannot be repeated Test Identification Parades till such time that the prosecution is successful in obtaining identification of the accused.
The bench of Justices Navin Sinha and R. Subhash Reddy observed that mere identification in the test identification parade cannot form the substantive basis for conviction unless there are other facts and circumstances corroborating the identification. It reiterated that a test identification parade under Section 9 of the Evidence Act is not substantive evidence in a criminal prosecution but is only corroborative evidence.
5. Right To Shelter Does Not Mean Right To Government Accommodation: Supreme Court
Case: Union of India vs Onkar Nath Dhar ; CA 6619 OF 2014
Citation: LL 2021 SC 372
The right to shelter does not mean right to government accommodation, the Supreme Court observed while setting aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court order allowing a retired Intelligence Bureau Officer to retain Government accommodation.
The court observed that government accommodation is meant for serving officers and officials and not to the retirees as a benevolence and distribution of largesse. The bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna added that compassion howsoever genuine does not give a right to a retired person from continuing to occupy a government accommodation.
The court also directed the Centre to submit a report of the action taken against the retired Government officials who are in Government accommodation post their retirement by virtue of the orders of the High Courts on or before 15.11.2021.
Case: Kay Bouvet Engineering Ltd. vs Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Private Limited ; CA 1137 OF 2019
Citation: LL 2021 SC 370
The Supreme Court observed that adjudicating authority has to reject an application seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, if a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory.
The bench of Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai observed that, at this stage, the authority is not required to be satisfied as to whether the defence is likely to succeed or not and it cannot go into the merits of the dispute.
The court allowed the appeal against the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal order which had set aside the National Company Law Tribunal order rejecting the application filed by Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Private Limited seeking initiation of CIRP against Kay Bouvet Engineering Ltd.
7. Foreign Award Can Be Binding On Non-Signatories To Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court
Case: Gemini Bay Transcription Pvt. Ltd. vs. Integrated Sales Service Ltd. ; CA 8343-8344 OF 2018
Citation: LL 2021 SC 369
The Supreme Court has held that a foreign award can be binding on non-signatories to the arbitration agreement and can be thus enforced against them.
In this regard, the Court referred to Section 46 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which deals with the circumstances under which a foreign award is binding. The Court noted that the provision speaks of "persons as between whom it was made" and not parties to the agreement. "Persons" can include non-signatories to the agreement.
"First and foremost, Section 46 does not speak of "parties" at all, but of "persons" who may, therefore, be non-signatories to the arbitration agreement", the Court said in its judgment in the case Gemini Bay Transcription Pvt. Ltd. vs. Integrated Sales Service Ltd.
Case: Brajesh Singh vs. Sunil Arora ; Contempt Petn (Civil) 656 OF 2020
Citation: LL 2021 SC 367
With the objective of decriminalization of politics, the Supreme Court on Tuesday directed that the political parties must publish the criminal antecedents, in any, of the candidates within 48 hours of their selection.
A bench comprising Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai modified the direction in its February 13, 2020 judgment in that regard.
In paragraph 4.4 of the February 2020 judgment, the Supreme Court had ordered that the details shall be published within 48 hours of the selection of the candidate or not less than two weeks before the first date for filing of nominations, whichever is earlier.
Also Read: Decriminalization Of Indian Politics: 13 Key Observations Made By Supreme Court Today
IMPORTANT APEX COURT UPDATES
Tamil Nadu MP Dr. T. Thirumaavalavan has written a letter to the Attorney General for India, KK Venugopal, seeking his consent for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against the directors of the NSO Group for alleged "military grade surveillance" of a Supreme Court justice, while he still was in office, two Supreme Court registry officials on the judicial side of the writ section, and another Supreme Court staffer.
The MP has also sought consent for initiation of contempt against incumbent secretary of Home Mr. Ajay Bhalla, as well as the previous Secretary of Home Mr. Rajiv Gauba, for alleged involvement in the Pegasus Snooping scandal.
The Supreme Court this week requested the NALSA to consider issuing a uniform country-wide SOP for protecting the rights of convicts to secure pre-mature release in accordance with the provisions of law.
The bench of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud and M. R. Shah was hearing SLPs lodged from jail against the judgment of the High Court confirming the conviction of the petitioners under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Dr Rajiv Nanda, advocate, was nominated by the Registry of this Court as Amicus Curiae in the matter.
After a setback, Future Group firm Future Coupons Private Ltd moved the Supreme Court on August 12, seeking a stay against the order passed by the single bench of the Delhi High Court that directed attachment of assets of Future Coupons, Future Retail, Future Group Promote Kishore Biyani's assets and issued a show-cause notice for Civil Arrest of Biyani and other directors of Future Group.
Notably, a bench headed by Justice RF Nariman of the Supreme Court had last week had 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 Emergency Award passed by Singapore arbitrator stalling FRL-Reliance deal was enforceable in Indian law and had also held that single judge's order was not appealable to the division bench of the High Court under Section 37(2) of the Arbitration Act.
The Supreme Court this week directed the Union of India to fill up all vacancies in the NCDRC in the same time frame as stipulated for the states/UTs to fill up the vacancies in SCDRCs, being 8 weeks.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy passed the direction in a suo motu case taken to address the issue of unfilled vacancies in consumer disputes redressal commissions.
Also, the Court directed the Union Government to present before it the legislative impact study with respect to the Consumer Protection Act 2019 within 4 weeks. Legislative impact assessment is an informed law-making process under which social, economic, environmental and institutional impacts of legislative proposals are made.
5. Supreme Court Directs Centre, States To Fill Up Vacancies In NCDRC & SCDRCs Within 8 Weeks
The Supreme Court this week directed all State Governments and Union Territories to fill up the vacancies in the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions within 8 weeks from today.
Also, the Central Government has been directed to fill up the vacancies in the National Consumer Dispute Rederssal Commission within 8 weeks from today.
Further, the Court directed Chief Secretaries of States & Centre (Secretary, Consumer) to be present in the virtual hearing on the next date in case of non-compliance of the directions regarding filling up of vacancies in Consumer Redressal Commissions.
The Supreme Court this week pulled up the Central Government for the delay on the part of central investigation agencies like CBI, ED and NIA in filing status reports as regards the criminal cases pending against MPs and MLAs.
A Bench comprising CJI Ramana, Justice Vineet Saran and Justice Surya Kant noted that the Court has been asking for the status report relating to investigations by special agencies in the present case since September 2020, and while the Enforcement Directorate recently filed its report, CBI is yet to file it.
The Supreme Court this week granted time till Monday to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to seek instructions from the Government on the nine petitions seeking probe into the Pegasus snooping controversy, on a request made by him
While doing so, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Vineet Saran and Justice Surya Kant asked the Petitioners to refrain from indulging in "parallel debates" outside the Court, on social media platforms.
The Supreme Court this week observed that the report submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on the suspicious killing of Jharkhand judge Uttam Anand does not indicate anything on motive or reason behind the crime.
"There is nothing in the sealed cover", the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana told Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta as the matter was taken.
The Solicitor General replied that whatever development has taken place after the CBI took over has been given in the sealed cover.
The bench,also comprising Justices Vineet Saran and Justice Surya Kant, directed the CBI to submit weekly reports on the progress of the investigation to the Jharkhand High Court and requested the Chief Justice of the High Court to monitor the investigation.
The Supreme Court this week directed the Union of India to place on record the final report of the National Task Force appointed by it to formulate a methodology for scientific allocation of liquid medical oxygen to all the states/UTs amid the COVID 2nd wave together with an 'Action Taken Report' indicating the steps which have been taken to implement the report of the NTF.
The bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and M. R. Shah recorded that the NTF appointed by the Court has held numerous meetings and submitted its report to the Union government. "Since the NTF comprises eminent doctors drawn from across the country, we would require the Union of India to duly apprise the Court of the steps which have been taken to ensure that the recommendations are duly observed at the policy level to enhance preparedness and for the foreseeable future and the present. The Union government shall complete the exercise of preparing the action taken report and placing it on record within two weeks", directed the bench.
