- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Weekly Round Up-...
Supreme Court Weekly Round Up- December 6 To December 12, 2021
Nupur Thapliyal
12 Dec 2021 12:00 PM GMT
JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Supreme Court Upholds RBI Regulations For Export Ban On PPE Kits; Says 'Well Being Of Masses Over Right To Business Of Few'Case Title : Akshay N Patel versus Reserve Bank of India and othersCitation : LL 2021 SC 711 The Supreme Court this week upheld the measures adopted by the Reserve Bank of India to implement the ban imposed by the Union Government on the export...
JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK
Case Title : Akshay N Patel versus Reserve Bank of India and others
Citation : LL 2021 SC 711
The Supreme Court this week upheld the measures adopted by the Reserve Bank of India to implement the ban imposed by the Union Government on the export of Personal Protective Equipment(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.
The Supreme Court examined the restrictions on the basis of the "test of proportionality" evolved in cases like KS Puttaswamy and Modern Dental College.
Case Title: Bangalore Development Authority vs N. Nanjappa and another
Citation : LL 2021 SC 712
The Supreme Court of India has 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.
The Bench has 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.
A Bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna has made the observations while delivering its judgement in a civil appeal filed by Bangalore Development Authority challenging the Karnataka High Court's order dismissing writ petitions filed by Bangalore Development Authority against the order passed by the Executing Court dismissing its applications under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC in Execution Case filed by the decree holder (R1) against the judgment debtor (R2)
Case Title : Amudhavali and others versus P. Rukmani and others.
Citation : LL 2021 SC 713
The Supreme Court has 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 and others versus P. Rukmani and others.
Case Title : Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Private Ltd versus Sanjeev Kumar Sharma and others
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(NCDRC) 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.
The Court added that however to pass such an order, the NCDRC has to pass a speaking order assigning cogent reasons.
A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna laid down this dictum in a case involving the interpretation of Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, which prescribes pre-deposit for filing appeal before the NCDRC.
Case Title: Parveen @Sonu v State of Haryana| Criminal Appeal No.1571 Of 2021
Citation : LL 2021 SC 715
The Supreme Court has 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.
The bench of Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy was considering a criminal appeal against the judgement dated March 17, 2020, passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court ("impugned order"). By way of the impugned order the High Court had dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant / accused and upheld the conviction and order of sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari.
The bench thus observed that the prosecution had failed to prove its case, that the appellant herein, had conspired with other accused for the offences for which he was charged.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs 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.
The accused was facing offences under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act(MCOCA) and various IPC offences. He was refused bail by the Special Judge/MCOCA and also the single judge of the Bombay High Court. After that, he filed a writ petition before the division bench challenging the validity of MCOCA. In the writ petition, the division bench passed an interim order to realise him on bail.
Challenging the division bench order, the State approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted that the accused had filed a writ petition under the guise of challenging the vires of the statute, after unsuccessful attempts at securing bail from jurisdictional courts. The Court termed this as "forum shopping" and deprecated this conduct in strong words.
Case Title: Rasmita Biswal & Ors vs 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 of India on Monday 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.
The Court has requested the Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice to examine the matter.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Abdul Nazeer and Justice Krishna Murari has made the recommendation for speedy disposal of the appeals concerning payment of compensation to the victims of road accident, and to curtail the pendency before the High Courts.
The Bench has also suggested that no further appeal against the order of the Appellate Tribunal need be provided and if any of the parties is aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Tribunal, they can always invoke the writ jurisdiction of the concerned High Court for appropriate reliefs.
Case Title: Ajay Kumar Shukla And Others V. Arvind Rai And Others| Civil Appeal No(s). 5966 Of 2021
Citation : LL 2021 SC 718
The Supreme Court has 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.
The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna in the present matter was considering civil appeals against the Allahabad High Court's order dated December 4, 2019.
The High Court while allowing the appeal against the order of Single Judge had observed that there was extraordinary delay on the part of the writ petitioners in approaching the Court in as much as the seniority list of 2006 which had formed the basis of the 2009 seniority list, was not challenged within a reasonable time.
Case Title: Shri K Jayaram & Ors vs Bangalore Development Authority.
Citation : LL 2021 719
The Supreme Court has 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.
The Court 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.
While noting that jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary, a Bench comprising Justice Abdul Nazeer and Justice Krishna Murari has observed that a litigant is bound to state all facts which are relevant to the litigation.
The Bench has observed that if some vital or relevant material is withheld by the litigant to gain advantage over the other side, the litigant would be guilty of playing fraud with the court as well as with the opposite parties which cannot be countenanced.
Case Title : The Director of Indian System of Medicine and another versus Dr.Susmi CT and another
Citation: LL 2021 SC 720
The Supreme Court has 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 Court added that if the State offers proper explanations for not reporting the vacancies, judicial interference must be uploaded.
In the instant case The Director of Indian System of Medicine and another versus Dr.Susmi CT and another, the Supreme Court found fault with the Kerala Administrative Tribunal's interim order directing the reporting of 28 vacancies in the post of Medical Officer(Ayurveda) in the Department of Indian System of Medicine.
The Court also disapproved the Kerala High Court's judgment which dismissed the Department's challenge against the KAT order.
Case Title : Nivedita Singh v. Dr. Asha Bharti And Ors. Civil Appeal No 103 of 2021
Citation : LL 2021 SC 721
The Supreme Court has 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 ("Act") 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 ("NCDRC"), 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.
The Court observed that it was the admitted case of the Appellant that she had not paid any consideration to the Respondent doctors and nurses to avail their services and therefore, would not be covered under the definition of consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act.
Case Title: Mohd Zahid vs State through NCB
Citation : LL 2021 SC 722
The Supreme Court has 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.
"...while awarding the sentence or punishment in case of NDPS Act, the interest of the society as a whole is required to be taken into consideration. Therefore, 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 the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances", the Court observed in the case Mohd Zahid vs State through NCB.
Case Title : Jacob Punnen and another versus 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 while allowing mediclaim relief to two senior citizens.
In this case Jacob Punnen and another versus United India Insurance Co Ltd, a bench comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and KM Joseph was considering an appeal against an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which denied relief to the appellants.
The appellants, two senior citizens, had availed a mediclaim policy from United India Insurance in 1982, which was renewed on yearly basis. In 2008, the second appellant had to undergo angioplasty surgery. A claim of Rupees 3.82 lakhs was submitted by the appellants to the insurer with respect to the angioplasty surgery. The coverage at the relevant time was Rs 8 lakhs. However, the insurer accepted the claim for only Rupees 2 lakhs, saying that the renewed agreement had a clause which limited the liability with respect to surgeries like angioplasty to an amount of Rs.2 lakhs.
Case Title: Gulab v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 2021
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.
The Apex Court 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.
A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, AS. Bopanna and Vikram Nath dismissed an appeal filed by an accused challenging the order of Allahabad High Court affirming his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC") and sentence of life imprisonment.
Case Title: Manmohan Nanda V. United India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr
Citation : LL 2021 725
The Supreme Court has 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.
The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna in the present matter was considering a civil appeal against the order dated 22nd May, 2015, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ("Commission") in a Consumer Complaint by which the appellant's complaint was dismissed on the ground of non disclosure of material facts.
The bench 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".
Case name: Murthy vs 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
In this case, the Madras High Court allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment of the Trial Court which dismissed the suit for grant of Letters of Administration.
Case Title: Commissioner of GST and Central Excise v. M/s. Citi Bank N.A. Civil Appeal No(s) 8228 of 2019
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.
Case name: Basant Devi v Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd
Citation : LL 2021 SC 728
The Supreme Court has 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.
Case Title: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited v. M/s. JSW Steel Limited & Ors. | Civil Appeal Nos. 5074-5075 OF 2019
Citation : LL 2021 SC 729
The Supreme Court has observed that captive consumers/captive users are not liable to pay the additional surcharge leviable under Section 42(4) of the Electricity Act, 2003 ("Act, 2003").
It was 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.
The bench of Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna in the present matter was considering a civil appeal passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, Delhi ("impugned judgement").
In the impugned judgement, the Appellate Tribunal had allowed the appeals preferred by the respondents the 'captive consumers' and had set aside the order passed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission ("State Commission") by which the State Commission had held that the group of 'captive consumers' are liable to pay additional surcharge.
Case name: State of Odisha vs 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.
In this case, the allegation against certain public servants who were occupying crucial positions in Bhubaneswar Development Authority and in the Housing and Urban Development Department, Government of Odisha was that they surreptitiously distributed prime plots in Commercial Complex District Centre, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar. It was alleged that all the accused persons have committed the offences under Section 120B IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the 3 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Allowing their petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, the Orissa High Court quashed the FIR.
Case name: Kallu Khan vs 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. NonÂ-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.
One Kallu Khan was concurrently convicted under Sections 8 & 21 of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along with fine of Rs. 1,00,000. In appeal, the accused made the following arguments: That in absence of handling and disposal of seized narcotic drags/psychotropic substances, the danger of reÂcirculation of seized contraband back into the system cannot be ruled out. That the procedure, as contemplated under Section 50(1) of NDPS Act, has not been followed. That the ownership of the vehicle is not of the accused, and the link of the vehicle in commission of the offence qua accused is missing. That the contraband article has not been produced in the court during evidence.
IMPORTANT APEX COURT UPDATES
1. [Gujarat Riots] 'Not Interested In Targeting Anybody', Says Kapil Sibal; Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Zakia Jafri's Plea
The Supreme Court heard the rejoinder and sur-rejoinder arguments in a petition filed by Zakia Ehsan Jafri challenging the closure report filed by SIT discarding the allegations of larger conspiracy by high state functionaries and other entities in the Gujarat riots of 2002 that ensued the Godhra train massacre.
Over a course of fourteen days, a Bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar heard the submissions of Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Senior Advocate Mr. Mukul Rohatgi appearing on behalf of SIT, at great length.
The crux of Mr. Sibal's argument was that the SIT did not conduct investigation on the crucial aspects of the matter, which was essential to establish a larger conspiracy. He questioned the inadequacy in the investigation, inter alia, with respect to police inaction and complicity, presence of two Ministers, namely, Ashok Bhatt and Zadafia in the Ahmedabad city police control room, mobile phone data of police officials, VHP affiliated persons appointed as Public Prosecutors etc.
2. Tripura Violence: Supreme Court Stays Further Proceedings In FIRs Registered Against HW Networks Journalists
The Supreme Court issued notice on a writ petition challenging the FIRs registered by the Tripura police over the reports on communal violence in the state.
The plea has been filed by media company Theos Connect (which operates the digital news portal HW News Network), two of its journalists Samridhi Sakunia and Swarna Jha, and its Associate Editor Arti Ghargi.
The bench headed by Justice D. Y. Chandrachud also stayed all further proceedings pursuant to the FIRs dated 14.11.2021 and 18.11.2021.
Four weeks' time is granted for filing the counter-affidavit, with liberty to the petitioners to serve the standing counsel for the state of Tripura.
3. Supreme Court Dismisses NIA's Plea Challenging Default Bail To Sudha Bharadwaj In Bhima Koregaon Case
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by the National Investigation Agency challenging the default bail granted to lawyer-activist Sudha Bharadwaj by the Bombay High Court on December 1, after over three years of her arrest in the Bhima Koregaon case.
A Bench comprising Justice UU Lalit, Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Bela Trivedi observed that there was no reason to interfere with the Bombay High Court's order and dismissed the NIA's Special Leave Petition.
Sudha Bhardwaj was granted default bail by Bombay High Court on 1st December based on a finding that the Additional Sessions Court, Pune, which extended the time for investigation in the case beyond 90 days, was not competent to do as it was not notified as a Special Court under Section 22 of the NIA Act. The High Court had directed her to be produced before the Trial Court on December 8 to complete the bail formalities.
4. Supreme Court Pulls Up States Over Laxity In Processing COVID Death Compensation Claims; Directs Them To Give Wide Publicity For Scheme
The Supreme Court expressed concern regarding the lackadaisical attitude of some of the States in disbursal of the ex-gratia compensation to the family of COVID victims in compliance with the slew of directions issued by the Apex Court on 4th October, 2021.
On perusal of the affidavit/status reports filed by the States, a Bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna was displeased with the manner in which the States are dealing with the disbursal process of the ex-gratia payments. It is pertinent to mention, that out of all the affidavits filed by the States, the Court took up the affidavits of five States, namely, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat, while assuring that the others would be taken up for consideration on the next date of hearing i.e. 10th December.
5. Supreme Court Directs Maharashtra Police To Not File Chargesheet Against Param Bir Singh; Seeks CBI's Views On Taking Over Probe
The Supreme Court restrained the Maharashtra police from filing chargesheets in the FIRs against the now suspended former Mumbai Police Commissioner Param Bir Singh, but allowed the investigation to proceed.
The Court also sought the views of the Central Bureau of Investigation regarding taking up the investigation in the FIRs registered by Maharashtra Police against Param Bir Singh over allegations of misconduct and corruption, as they are interlinked with the matters already under the investigation of the central agency.
The bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by Singh against the September 16 judgement of the Bombay High Court. In the impugned judgement, the High Court had dismissed Param Bir's writ petition which was filed challenging the two inquiries ordered by the State Home Ministry for allegedly violating service rules and corruption charges as non maintainable.
