- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up:...
Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: October 17 To October 23, 2022
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
25 Oct 2022 10:05 AM IST
JUDGMENT THIS WEEK Valuation Of Shares For The Purpose Of Gift Tax Should Take Into Consideration Limitation And Restrictions: Supreme Court The Supreme Court has held that the valuation of shares for the purpose of gift tax must take into consideration the limitations and restrictions. The division bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice J.K. Maheshwari has observed that...
JUDGMENT THIS WEEK
The Supreme Court has held that the valuation of shares for the purpose of gift tax must take into consideration the limitations and restrictions.
The division bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice J.K. Maheshwari has observed that the equity shares under the lock-in period were not "quoted shares", for the simple reason that the shares in the lock-in period were not quoted on any recognised stock exchange regularity from time to time. There are no current transactions relating to these shares made in the ordinary course of business. The equity shares, being under the lock-in period, could not be traded and, therefore, remained unquoted on any recognised stock exchange.
The Supreme Court transferred all writ petitions which have been filed before various High Courts challenging the validity of the Banking Regulation (Amendment) Act 2020 to the Madras High Court.
"Since the petitions which are transferred have been instituted before diverse High Courts in the country, it would be appropriate if the Division Bench hearing the petitions permits such of the parties, who desire to appear through a virtual platform, to participate in the course of the hearing on that basis", the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli observed in the order allowing Transfer Petitions filed by the Reserve Bank of India.
Courts Should Not Sit Over Commercial Wisdom Of General Body Of Cooperative Society : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that the Courts should not sit over the commercial wisdom of the General Body of the Cooperative Society as an Appellate Authority.
The bench of CJI UU Lalit, Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and JB Pardiwala observed that the Co-operative Society is to function democratically and the internal democracy of a society, including resolutions passed in accordance with the Act, the Rules, and the bye-laws have to be respected and implemented.
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari reiterated that the recovery of the weapon used by the accused to commit the offence is not a sine qua non for conviction.
In this case, the accused were tried and convicted in a murder case. It was the prosecution case that owing to animosity between the friend of the accused, they had killed the deceased. The Madras High Court later acquitted the accused by allowing the appeal.
The Supreme Court bench of Justices BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna observed that the doctrine of promissory estoppel would not apply against the exercise of legislative powers of the State.
In this case, the High Court of Delhi, dismissed writ petitions filed by Hero Motocorp and Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. who claimed 100% budgetary support in lieu of the pre-existing 100% outright excise duty exemption for ten years from the date of the commencement of commercial production, as provided for by the said O.M. of 2003 issued by the Government of India.
The Supreme Court observed that a minister or public servant (a person covered by Section 199(2)) can file a private complaint alleging defamation and need not follow the special procedure prescribed by Section 199(2) & (4) CrPC.
"The special procedure is in addition to and not in derogation of the right that a public servant always has as an individual. He never lost his right merely because he became a public servant and merely because the allegations related to official discharge of his duties", the bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and V. Ramasubramanian said.
The statements such as "I will expose you", "I will expose your corrupt practices" and "I will expose the scam in which you are involved, etc." are not by themselves defamatory unless there is something more, the Supreme Court observed while quashing defamation complaint filed by Delhi Minister Manish Sisodia against BJP leader Vijender Gupta.
The bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and V. Ramasubramanian observed that defamatory statement should be specific and not very vague and general.
In a judgment, the Supreme Court explained the impact of reduction of the number of convicts below five pending an appeal against conviction under Section 149 IPC owing to the death of co-convicts.
The bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that 'abatement' is certainly different from 'acquittal' and therefore "the effect and impact of reduction of the number of convicts pending an appeal owing to the death of co-convicts is bound to be different from the effect and impact of reduction of the number of accused/convicts on account of acquittal".
The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered in an appeal against Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, explained the test for determining whether a case involves substantial question of law.
The bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari said that the appropriate test for determining whether the question of law raised in the case is substantial would be to see whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties.
The Supreme Court a bench comprising Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice JB Pardiwala held that Part IX B inserted by the Constitution (97th Amendment) Act, 2011 would not be applicable to the local co-operative societies and the same would be applicable to the multi-State co-operative societies and the societies within the Union territories.
The 97th Amendment granted a Constitutional status to cooperative societies and inserted Part IXB in the Constitution which specified several conditions for state laws relating to cooperative societies. In 2021, the Supreme Court( in the case Union of India vs Rajendra Shah and others) had upheld a judgment of the Gujarat High Court which struck down Part IXB on the ground that the amendment was passed without the requisite ratification by the States. However, the majority of the bench saved Part IXB to the extent it applied to multi-state co-operative societies.
Electricity Act - Not Permissible To Amend Tariff Order During 'Truing Up' Excercise : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that it is not permissible to amend the tariff order made under Section 64 of the Electricity Act, 2003, during the 'truing up' exercise.
The bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari held thus while disposing appeals filed by BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. and BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. against the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity. One of the substantial questions raised in the appeal was whether it is permissible to amend the tariff order made under Section 64 of the 2003 Act during the 'truing up' exercise? The appellants (who are are Distribution Licensees) challenged certain findings of the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission ('DERC') in the Tariff Order dated 26.08.2012 for Truing Up of financials for FY 2008Â-09 and FY 2009-Â10 and Aggregate Revenue Requirement ('ARR') for FY 2011Â -12.
The Supreme Court held that educational trust or societies, which seek exemption under Section 10 (23C) of Income Tax Act, should solely be concerned with education, or education related activities.
Where the objective of the institution appears to be profit-oriented, such institutions would not be entitled to approval, the bench of CJI Uday Umesh Lalit, Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and P S Narasimha observed.
The Supreme Court observed that Commercial Courts which are subordinate to the rank of the Principal Civil Judge in the District has jurisdiction to hear applications/appeals under Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996.
The bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari rejected the contention that all applications/appeals arising out of arbitration (other than the international commercial arbitration) shall only lie before the Principal Civil Court of a district.
The Supreme Court observed that the doctrine of res judicata is attracted not only in separate subsequent proceedings but also at subsequent stage of the same proceedings.
A binding decision cannot be ignored even on the principle of per incuriam because that principle applies to the precedents and not to the doctrine of res judicata, the bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose observed.
The Supreme Court observed that the supply of illegible or blurred copies of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority amounts to violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
The detenu is always entitled to be supplied with the legible copies of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority and such information made in the grounds of detention enables him to make an effective representation, the bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar observed.
The Supreme Court of India bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sudhanshu Dhulia recently urged to take a view that advances the cause of justice rather than a technical view while dealing with matters on payment of compensation to land losers.
Land Loser means a person whose land has been acquired by the Government for public interest and who possesses a proper certificate.
The Supreme Court held that the age of the deceased and not the age of the dependents in case of the death of a bachelor is to be the basis for multiplier. The order was passed by a bench comprising Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.
The issue at hand concerned a High Court judgement which had reduced the compensation payable to the appellant(s)–claimants whose son had suffered fatal injuries and passed away on account of a motorcycle accident. In the first instance, the tribunal had arrived at the figure of Rs. 3,683/- per month, on the basis of which, compensation was directed, after holding that the appropriate multiplier was 18. However, against this order of the tribunal, the Insurer had approached the High Court, which in its impugned Judgment, reduced the multiplier to 9 having regarding the age of the surviving mother, who was the deceased's dependent.
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari observed that the qualification prevailing on the date of applying for compassionate appointment is to be considered and not the date on which the application for compassionate appointment is considered.
In this case, the Central Administrative Tribunal directed the Delhi Jal Board to consider the candidature of an applicant for the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC). The High Court of Delhi dismissed the writ petition filed by the Board challenging this order of CAT and therefore it approached the Apex Court.
A Supreme court bench comprising Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Aniruddha Bose observed that Section 32 Of the Advocates Act, 1961 does not create a bar for a General Power of Attorney holder to appear on behalf of a plaintiff, simply because the GPA was enrolled as an advocate.
When the witnesses are related/interested, their testimonies have to be scrutinized with greater care and circumspection, the Supreme Court observed while acquitting accused in a murder case.
Jabbar Ali and others were convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 IPC and the Gauhati High Court had dismissed their appeals.
Before the Apex Court bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and BV Nagarathna the appellants mainly contended that the prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses in the present case and that the witnesses were related to each other and that all the witnesses have given contradictory versions as to who gave the fatal blow to deceased.
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose observed that 'minimum wages notification' can be considered to determine the notional income of deceased in motor accident claim cases.
As per the claimants, the Deceased was a fish vendor cum driver and was earning at least Rs. 25,000/ per month. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found that the Deceased was a driver and fixed his monthly income at Rs.14,000/Â. Additionally, assuming that the Deceased received at least Rs.3,500/ as rent, the Tribunal calculated his final notional income as Rs.17,500/Â-. In appeal, the High Court observed that the maximum monthly income that could have been reckoned is Rs. 10,000/-. In view of this, the High Court substantially reduced the compensation granted by the Tribunal from Rs. 32,39,000/ to Rs. 19,70,000/-.
The Supreme Court set aside an Allahabad High Court order that dismissed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution merely on is not maintainable as remedy by way of revision under Section 115 CPC is available.
There is a difference and distinction between the entertainability and maintainability, the bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari observed.
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice of India Lalit, Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice PS Narasimha has held that entities created with the object of advancing general public utility cannot seek exemption under the Income Tax Act 1961 under the head "charitable purposes" if they are engaging in any trade, business, commerce or providing any service for any consideration.
However, in the course of carrying out the general public utility, the assessee can engage in incidental trade or business or provide services for consideration and can generate profits. If the receipts generated out of such incidental activities are within the quantified limits, the trusts are entitled to seek income tax exemption.
Once a Chemical Examiner establishes that the seized 'poppy straw' indicates a positive test for the contents of 'morphine' and 'meconic acid', it is sufficient to establish that it is covered by the Section 2(xvii)(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Supreme Court held in a judgment delivered today.
The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and CT Ravikumar observed that no further test would be necessary for establishing that the seized material is a part of 'papaver somniferum L'.
The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice of India Lalit, Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice PS Narasimha has pronounced a significant judgment on the scope of exemption for "charitable purposes" under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act 1961 in relation to statutory authorities and professional bodies.
With effect from 01.04.2009, after the Finance Act 2009, a proviso was added to the section to state : "Provided that the advancement of any other object of general public utility shall not be a charitable purpose, if it involves the carrying on of any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business, or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business, for a cess or fee or any other consideration, irrespective of the nature of use or application, or retention, of the income from such activity".
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli held that no offence for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is made out if the cheque is presented for the full amount without endorsing the part-payment made by the borrower after the issuance of the cheque.
The Court held that the sum reflected on the cheque will not be the "legally enforceable debt" as per Section 138 NI Act, when it has been presented for encashment without endorsing the part-payment. Part-payments must be endorsed on the cheque as per Section 56 of the NI Act. If such endorsement is made, the cheque can be presented for the balance amount, and the offence under Section 138 NI Act will be attracted if such a cheque with endorsement of the part-payment gets dishonoured, explained the Court.
The Supreme Court observed that the National Green Tribunal should test the bonafides and credentials of applicants before permitting them to seek orders which have far reaching effects.
Before a litigant is permitted to knock the doors of justice and seek orders which have far reaching effects of affecting the employment of thousands of persons, stopping investment in the State, prejudicing the interests of the farmers; the credentials and bonafides of the applicants must be tested, the bench of Justices BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna observed.
Setting aside the orders passed by National Green Tribunal, the Supreme Court upheld the Uttar Pradesh Government decision granting licences to new wood-based industries.
The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna observed that the State and its authorities should ensure that environmental concerns are duly attended to.
The Supreme Court has observed that the claim of State Cricket Associations for income tax exemption on the ground of "charitable purposes" require deeper scrutiny as their activities are run on business lines.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice PS Narasimha allowed the appeals filed by the revenue department and directed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to re-examine the claims made by Gujarat Cricket Association, the Saurashtra Cricket Association, Baroda, Rajkot and Rajkot Cricket Associations for income tax exemption.
The Supreme Court observed that an anticipatory bail cannot be granted merely because custodial interrogation is not required.
The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused, the bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala observed.
The court was considering an appeal filed by mother of a victim in a POCSO case against the Kerala High Court order that granted anticipatory bail to the accused.
NEWS THIS WEEK
A bench comprising Justices S Abdul Nazeer and V Ramabsubramanian, which reserved the judgment on September 22, said that it has dismissed Manoj Tiwari's appeal, however has allowed Vijender Gupta's appeal. During the hearing, the bench had observed that Gupta's tweets did not appear defamatory.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S Oka appointed Senior Advocate R Rajasekhar Rao as an amicus curiae for assistance on the issue.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna was considering the petition filed by Mishra challenging the July 26 order of the Allahabad High Court which dismissed his regular bail application.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India UU Lalit and Justice Bela M Trivedi dismissed the special leave petitions filed by the Kerala Government and certain unions of the employees of the airport against the judgment of the Kerala High Court which upheld the lease of the Airport to AEL in October 2020.
Jain's counsel Vivek Jain Advocate on Record withdrew the matter so as to pursue the bail remedy expeditiously.
Last week (October 11), a bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari had issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate on Jain's petition and posted the matter for hearing on October 31.
A bench comprising Justices Krishna Murari and S Ravindra Bhat dismissed the petition challenging the Madras High Court's judgment which held that Smartha Brahmins do not constitute a religious denomination.
The outgoing CJI UU Lalit had recommended the name of Justice Chandrachud as his successor on October 11. As the CJI, Justice Chandrachud will have a term of over two years astill November 10, 2024 - making it one of the longest terms for a CJI in the recent past.
A Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay Shreeniwas Oka further said that in a bail matter, the other aspects need not be gone into, in excruciating detail.
The court was hearing a Special Leave Petition moved by Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir challenging the bail granted to PDP leader, Waheed Ur Rehman Parra by the Jammu & Kashmir High Court. Parra was alleged of engaging in Terrorist activities.
The government has also said that the decision was taken as per the policy dated 09.07.1992 "as directed by" the apex court and not "under the circular governing grant of remission to prisoners as part of celebration of 'Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav'. The government considered the opinions of seven authorities to grant the remission, it has told the apex court.
The application sought that the live-streaming should be done strictly in accordance with the judgement in Centre for Accountability and Systemic Change (CASC) &Ors. v. Secretary General &Ors., (2018) 10 SCC 639. The matter was heard by bench comprising CJI UU Lalit and Justice Bela M Trivedi.
The petition states that the cause of action to file the present petition arose when Mr. Sharma visited the Hathras court in February, 2022 and came to know that there are no district court premises, infrastructure and other facilities for judicial officers, litigants and advocates. In fact, the District Court in Hathras is running in a rental area, in the horse stable, in an old fort.
A Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kolhi agreed with Advocate, Mr. Gaurav Sharma, appearing on behalf of NMC that the impugned order does not merit interference by the Apex Court.
A Bench comprising Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kolhi also asked Advocate, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave to assist ASG Bhati.
In response to the PIL filed by BJP leader and Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay seeking uniformity in the personal laws regulating marriage divorce, maintenance and alimony, the Ministry said,
"A series of judgments are stated, where is the factual scenario, where is the application of mind?" Justices Ajay Rastogi asked.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the government responded that the judgments were only mentioned for easy reference and it could have been avoided.
On August 26, by virtue of the Supreme Court's order on August 23, the duo was shifted from Tihar Jail to Mandoli jail in Delhi. The Court's order came after Sukesh had filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India alleging that officials in Tihar are torturing him for not meeting their demands of money. The Enforcement Directorate had opposed the allegations and said that Sukesh was operating his extortion racket from the jail with the connivance of certain officials, against whom action had been taken.
The bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar observed thus while setting aside the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta directing ÂWest Bengal University of Health Sciences to grant admission to some Âcandidates after the cut-off date.
Senior Advocate Balasubramaniam, appearing for Ganesh, submitted before a bench comprising Justices Krishna Murari and S Ravindra Bhat that the accused was not present at the place of incident when the crime took place. He also alleged that there was "hostile attitude" by the State Government against him.
A Bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna was told by Senior Advocate Arvind P Datar, who appeared for the NGT, that the High Court's order will have pan-India ramifications, as the notices have been quashed in their entirety. This would mean that transfer of cases from other Zonal Benches to Delhi will also be affected, and not just the transer from the Western Zone Bench.
The bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Vikram Nath heard the matter. It was argued by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for Manik that the Court had granted him protection from arrest in the CBI matter and that would also extend upon the ED. "The Enforcement Directorate is piggy-riding upon the Central Bureau of Investigation," Rohatgi said.
Advocate Mahfooz Hasan Nazki, appearing for Project 39A, bought to the notice of the court that another matter challenging Section 376DB of IPC was also under consideration before the Supreme Court, insofar as it provided sentencing court the power to grant death penalty.
Last week, the bench of Justices K. M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy had orally suggested to the counsel in the matter an alternative route for resolving the dispute- asking if the Maharashtra state Waqf Board can be left free to exercise its full power under section 40 of the 1995 Waqf Act with regard to the so-called trusts which, according to the Board, are hiding under the identity of a trust but are in substance a waqf, by undertaking an inquiry after giving individual notice to all of them.
The information was provided to the District Magistrate Dahod by the district superintendent of police when the government was considering the proposal to release the convicts including Mitesh Chimanlal Bhatt on remission after 14 years of imprisonment in the Bilkis Bano case. The document disclosing the same is part of the annexures in the government's reply to a petition challenging the premature release of convicts in the Bilkis Bano case.
While issuing notice, a Bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy asked the Union to respond and tagged the matter with a pending petition which sought from similar prayers with the present plea.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal appearing for the petitioners told the court that our electronic devices, more often than not, have personal sensitive data, political views, financial information.
A Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay Shreeniwas Oka however clarified that it was not giving imprimatur to the observations made by the High Court regarding the interpretation of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act
Mentioning the matter before a Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kolhi, Mr. Mehta submitted that the Constitution Bench headed by Justice Chandrachud was to commence with the hearing on 9th November, 2021. However, stating that he would be travelling outside India from 7th November, 2022 to 13th November, 2022 for official work, he requested the Bench for some accommodation.
A bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Vikram Nath observed that the High Court direction for CBI probe at an early stage "may fall short of the standards" laid down in the judgment in State of West Bengal and Others vs. Sampat Lal and Others [(1985) 1 SCC 317]. But considering the submission of the counsel for the CBI and the fact that investigation by the said agency has substantially progressed, the bench said that it does not want to stall such investigation at this stage and wait to see if the State Police can carry on the same investigation impartially.
The information was provided to the District Magistrate Dahod by the district superintendent of police when the government was considering the proposal to release the convicts including Mitesh Chimanlal Bhatt on remission after 14 years of imprisonment in the Bilkis Bano case. The document disclosing the same is part of the annexures in the government's reply to a petition challenging the premature release of convicts in the Bilkis Bano case.
A Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar, while considering hearing the St.Stephen's case, observed that advocates can't keep interrupting their counterparts just because they don't agree to the arguments advanced.
"Just because you don't agree with the argument does not mean you can keep interrupting. Let him (advocate) make submissions", Justice Rastogi observed.
The High Court had vacated the ad-interim stay granted to Anitha on August 4. This order prompted him to move the Supreme Court.
The Board seeks to declare divorce given to Muslim women without following the due procedure as null & void with retrospective effect.
The Board sought a direction from the Court to declare that divorce given to Muslim women without following the due procedure of conciliation in the presence of a witness be declared as null and void respectively. It also sought that Talaq-e-Hasan and other forms of unilateral extra judicial talaq be declared an evil plague.
The bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Vikram Nath also refused a plea to allow Manik Bhattacharya to meet his counsels and asked that this application should be made before the appropriate court.
A Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar, while considering hearing the St.Stephen's case, observed that advocates can't keep interrupting their counterparts just because they don't agree to the arguments advanced.
"Just because you don't agree with the argument does not mean you can keep interrupting. Let him (advocate) make submissions", Justice Rastogi observed.
In a judgment delivered in 2013 disposing a habeas corpus petition filed by a parent, the High Court had also imposed a fine of Rs. 2 lakh on AMOFOI for allegedly facilitating marriage of a minor girl. B Ramachandra CST Voltaire, representing the organisation, approached the Apex Court challenging the observations made and the fine imposed.
It is for the RBI to decide as to whether and, if so, what action is necessary, the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli observed while permitting the petitioner to pursue a representation before the RBI.
The bench of Justices K. M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy was dictating its order on the Maharashtra state Waqf Board's appeal against the 2011 decision of the Bombay High Court where the High Court had quashed the constitution of the Maharashtra state Board of Waqfs on the ground that on the date of constitution of the Board by the state government, there was no survey report as to the number of Shia or Sunni waqfs existing in the state. The High Court had directed that until survey is completed and the Wakf Board is constituted, the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 would continue to apply to all the Muslim Public Trusts.
In the impugned order passed on 13.06.2022, NCLAT had also upheld that direction of the CCI to Amazon to pay Rs. 200 Crores penalty under Section 43A of the Competition Act, 2002. The NCLAT has directed Amazon to deposit the penalty within 45 days and comply with the CCI order.
A Division Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli, while declining to set aside the High Court order, observed,
"In our considered that the judgement of the High Court does not fall for interference owing to the above reasons."
The Court called for a further progress report to be filed by the trial judge after 6 weeks. The matter will be next listed on December 13.
The Court directed on September 5 that the trial should be preferably concluded by 31st January 2023.
The petitioner sought direction to the Union of India and the State Governments to initiate independent, credible and impartial investigation into the incidents of hate crimes and hate speeches. The petitioner also prayed for directions to initiate appropriate action under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and other relevant penal laws against the speakers and organizations engaging in such hate crimes.
A Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and C T Ravikumar observed that remedial steps in this regard need to be taken immediately. The Bench was prompted to makes these observations after Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi informed that it was very difficult to get Ekta Kapoor's petition listed for hearing before the Patna High Court. According to him, the High Court is clogged with bail applications and criminal appeals.
"Though we heard the Counsels appearing for the parties at some length. Considering the facts and circumstances on record and particularly the fact that the submissions would not be over in one session, the matter is released from being part heard…"
The bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari observed thus while disposing an application filed by former Karnataka Minister Gali Janardhan Reddy seeking modification of bail condition to enter, stay and function in the Districts of Bellary in Karnataka and District of Ananthapuram and Cuddapah in Andhra Pradesh.
The bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Vikram Nath observed that the interim protection granted as regards CBI action cannot operate against the ED even if the underlying allegations are similar
The Court issued a writ of quo warranto against Dr.Rajashree after setting aside her appointment as null and void abinito.
A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar pronounced the verdict in a petition filed by Professor Dr Sreejith PS challenging the VC appointment as violative of the stipulations of the University Grants Commission.
In its judgment delivered on September 8, 2021 in the case filed by Common Cause, the Supreme Court had directed that further extension should not be given to SK Mishra, whose term as ED Director was then to end on November 16, 2021. In that judgment, the Court had held that the Centre could extend the term of ED Director beyond 2 years only in "rare and exceptional circumstances". Later, in November 2021, a few days ahead of the end of SK Mishra's term, the Centre promulgated an Ordinance to amend the CVC Act to enable the Centre to extend the term of ED Director up to 5 years. The Ordinance was replaced by an Act passed by the Parliament in December 2021. Based on the Ordinance, Mishra was given a further extension of one year.
"You can edit the Wikipedia article", a bench comprising Justices AS Bopanna and PS Narasimha orally observed.
The Counsel for the organization submitted, "What we have seen is that after filing the petition they edited certain parts".
A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh dismissed the petition by terming it as a "publicity interest litigation". The bench refused to interfere with the order of the Allahabad High Court which dismissed the petitioner's plea in March 2022.
A bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar refused to interfere with the Kerala High Court's order which rejected the survivor's transfer plea. The survivor approached the Court alleging bias on the part of the presiding judge of the trial court.
The extension was sought on the ground that as a result of lockdown and later restrictions during Covid-19, the Counselling for academic year 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 could not meet the time schedule and the commencement of the session was delayed.
Manichan @ Chandran was convicted by the Kollam Sessions Court on 16th July, 2002 and was sentenced to life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.30,45,000/- (Rupees thirty lacs and forty five thousand only). His appeal was dismissed by the Kerala High Court.
A Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli irked by the nature of the petition noted -
"The petition is frivolous and an abuse of the process of the court. The allegations made against the highest constitutional office are without any sense of responsibility and expunged from the record."
Before a Bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde argued that most of the issues were covered by Noel Harper judgement which upheld the FCRA Amendment Act. He then requested the Court to dispose of the petition granting him liberty to make a representation to the government for ancillary issues which arose after FCRA amendment Act.
On September 29, the Supreme Court had directed for Navlakha to be taken to a hospital of choice for a thorough medical check-up after Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that he had many health complications. The Hospital was also asked to submit a report to the Court based on the check-up.
The bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy was considering a petition seeking the urgent intervention to stop the growing menace of targeting and terrorizing the Muslim community in India.
"Article 51A says we should develop a scientific temper. And where have we reached in the name of religion? It is tragic", Justice Joseph remarked during the hearing.
A bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy directed the Governments of NCT of Delhi, Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh to file a report before the Court regarding the actions taken on the hate speech crimes which happened within their jurisdiction.
Previously, the time-schedule prepared by the erstwhile Medical Council of India was approved by an order dated 18.01.2016. According to the said schedule the last date for filling up of MBBS seats against stray vacancy is 31st August of the relevant academic years. As per this 2016 order of the Supreme Court no admission can be made in MBBS course after May 31 of the concerned academic year.
Highlighting this, a Division Bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy observed,
"The Constitution of India envisages Bharat as a secular nation and fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and unity and integrity of the country is one of the guiding principles enshrined in the Preamble. There cannot be fraternity unless members of the community from different religions or castes are able to live in harmony"
