Existing User Account
Subscribe Premium

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: October 3 To October 9, 2022

Deepankar Malviya

16 Oct 2022 9:25 AM IST

    • Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: October 3 To October 9, 2022

    JUDGMENTS Terms Of Invitation To Tender Are Not Open To Judicial Scrutiny Unless They Are Arbitrary, Discriminatory Or Mala Fide : Supreme Court Observing that the terms of invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny, the Supreme Court set aside a Delhi High Court's order which had quashed the Airport Authority of India's tender conditions for selecting Ground...

    JUDGMENTS 

    Terms Of Invitation To Tender Are Not Open To Judicial Scrutiny Unless They Are Arbitrary, Discriminatory Or Mala Fide : Supreme Court

    Observing that the terms of invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny, the Supreme Court set aside a Delhi High Court's order which had quashed the Airport Authority of India's tender conditions for selecting Ground Handling Agencies(GHA) agencies at Group D Airports.

    A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari observed that the Delhi High Court committed a "serious error" by entertaining a writ petition at the instance of a third party- an advocacy group called Centre For Aviation Policy -when none of the GHAs challenged the tender conditions. Hence, the writ petition should have been dismissed on the ground of locus standi(Airports Authority of India versus Centre for Aviation Policy).

    The Supreme Court bench of Justices Surya Kant and V Ramasubramanian has held that motor accident compensation need not be reduced for the sole reason that that the business ventures and properties of the deceased were bequeathed to the claimants.
    The Supreme Court of India recently observed that an order of termination approved by an Industrial Tribunal is binding on the parties and a Labour Court cannot take a contrary view against it.

    Highlighting this, a Bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari observed, "Once the order of termination was approved by the Industrial Tribunal on appreciation of evidence led before it, thereafter the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal were binding between the parties. No contrary view could have been taken by the Labour Court contrary to the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal."

    The Supreme Court on India last week discussed the how compassionate appointment in public services is an exception to the general rule of appointments and how it flows out of pure humanitarian consideration.

    A Bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari observed that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis, i.e., after the death of the sole bread-winner.

    The Supreme Court recently held that the married daughter cannot be said to be dependent on her deceased mother and therefore, is not eligible for compassionate appointment. A Bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari observed,"The respondent cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased employee, i.e., her mother."

    Even otherwise, the Court said that the respondent won't be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground that a number of years had passed from the death of the deceased employee.

    The Supreme Court of India, last week, observed that mere stating in the plaint that a fraud has been played is not enough and that such allegations must be specifically averred in the plaint. If this isn't done, parties would try to get the suit within the limitation period, the court added.

    "Even the averments and allegations in the plaint with respect to fraud are not supported by any further averments and allegations how the fraud has been committed/played. Mere stating in the plaint that a fraud has been played is not enough and the allegations of fraud must be specifically averred in the plaint, otherwise merely by using the word "fraud", the plaintiffs would try to get the suits within the limitation, which otherwise may be barred by limitation", a Bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari explained.

    The Supreme Court has held that the High Courts while appointing the arbitrator can launch a preliminary inquiry to decide the issue of 'Excepted Matters' when an objection to that effect is taken by the respondent.

    The bench of Justices M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari held that if any dispute falls within the 'excepted' category provided in the contract between the parties, then it falls outside the scope of arbitration, therefore, no arbitration can happen apropos those matters.

    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, last Friday, reiterated that there's a very heavy duty cast upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt while considering circumstantial evidence.

    Highlighting this, a Bench of Chief Justice UU Lalit, Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed, "In a case of circumstantial evidence, the Court has to scrutinize each and every circumstantial possibility, which is placed before it in the form of an evidence and the evidence must point towards only one conclusion, which is the guilt of the accused. In other words, a very heavy duty is cast upon the prosecution to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt."

    NEWS THIS WEEK

    Rule Of Law Greatly Dependent On Independence Of Judiciary : Justice BV Nagarathna

    Recently, the Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli partly allowed an application moved by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai seeking modification of an earlier interim order seeking permission to carry out certain work pertaining to the Mumbai Coastal Road Project. The said Coastal Road Project is an infrastructure project, being undertaken to 'seamlessly connect south and north Mumbai'.

    Satellite Mapping And Geo Fencing Required To Detect Encroachments: Supreme Court

    In an order passed, the Supreme Court of India observed that modern technologies for Satellite mapping of lands and buildings and geo fencing are required to detect encroachments. A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay Shreeniwas Oka observed, "It is necessary that the modern technologies for Satellite mapping of lands and buildings to detect encroachments and unauthorized/illegal constructions and Geo fencing of lands/premises for prompt monitoring and control takes place."

    Opining that petitions seeking pre arrest bail are not same as money recovery proceedings petitions, the Supreme Court of India bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M. Trivedi recently annulled a condition imposed by the Jharkhand High Court of depositing 7.5 Lakhs as "victim compensation" while granting pre-arrest bail.

    Supreme Court Directs Rupee Co-op Bank's Appeal Against Cancellation Of Its License To Be Decided By October 31

    The Supreme Court bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli recently ordered that the stay granted by the Bombay High Court against the Reserve Bank of India's order cancelling the license granted to Rupee Co-Op Bank will stand restricted till October 31, 2022.

    The Top Court also directed that the appellate authority under Section 22(5) of the Banking Regulation Act 1949 shall take up the appeal for final disposal on 17 October 2022 and complete the disposal of the appeal on or before 31 October 2022.

    The Supreme Court bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari held that there is no ground to review the the judgment in Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. vs Axis Bank Limited which held that the National Company Law Tribunal has discretion to not admit the insolvency application filed by a financial creditor even if the corporate debtor is in default.

    Disposing of the review petition filed by Axis Bank, the Court stated that the observations in the judgment were made in the context of the facts of the case. The Court refused to accept the argument of Solicitor General of India that certain observations made in the judgment could be interpreted in a manner that might be contrary to the aims and objects of the IBC and render the law infructuous.

    J&K Delimitation Orders Finalised, Can't Be Challenged After Gazette Notification : Centre, ECI Tell Supreme Court

    The Ministry of Home Affairs, on behalf of the Union of India and the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir has filed a response along with the Election Commission of India before the Supreme Court opposing the pleas challenging the formation of the Delimitation Commission.

    The Supreme Court bench of Justices Surya Kant and MM Sundresh recently held that a notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act can only be a guiding factor in determining the income of the deceased in a motor accident claims case. When there is positive evidence regarding the income, reliance cannot be placed on minimum wages notification.

    The Central Government has proposed to submit before the Supreme Court a model builder-buyer agreement with mandatory clauses which cannot be altered by the States or the Union Territories. Taking note of these submissions, a bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli posted the matter for further consideration on November 28.

    Additional Solicitor General Aiswharya Bhati and amicus curiae Devashish Bharuka submitted before the Court that the model agreement will have Part A which will have core clauses with the mandatory provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 for the protection of the home buyers and Part B which will contain additional clauses as per the requirements of the individual States/UTs. However, these additional clauses will not be contrary to or dilute in any manner the clauses in Part 'A'.

    The Bar Council of India has in a plea seeking implementation of the principle of "One Bar One Vote" in the State of Rajasthan and upcoming elections of the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association at Jaipur, issued notice to the Secretary, Bar Council of Rajasthan and Secretary, Rajasthan High Court Bar Association.

    The Bar Council also directed a stay on the upcoming elections of the High Court Bar Association of the Jaipur Bench and elections of any other Bar Associations in order to ensure a fair and transparent elections. The Council had observed that, "the unruly, indecent and rustic behaviour in the course of the election should strictly be checked. If one voter is allowed to exercise his voting rights in more than one Bar Association, then the sanctity of such election becomes questionable."

    The Supreme Court bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia recently directed all the States and Union Territories to furnish information on their existing schemes operating for the welfare of the elderly with respect of (i) Pension for the elderly, (ii) old age homes in each District and (iii) level of geriatric care.

    The bench also asked the State and Union Territories to file the present status regarding implementation of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act and asked them to furnish the information to the Advocate-on-Record of the Union of India and the Union shall thereafter file a revised status report within one month thereafter.

    The Supreme Court bench of Justices BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna recently held that a case where the award holder was responsible for delaying the proceedings which led to a huge lapse of time would be a fit case of exercising power under Article 142 to reduce the rate of interest on the sum of award.

    The Court further held the Arbitration and Conciliation Act casts a duty upon the arbitral tribunal to give reasons as to how it deems the rate of interest to be reasonable. Moreover, the Court held that no interest would be payable for the period on which there were lapses on the part of the award holder.

    The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S Oka recently dismissed a petition challenging the use of Electronic Voting Machines in election process with a cost of Rupees 50,000. "It appears that party which may not have got much recognition from the electorate now seeks recognition by filing petitions!", the Court observed while dismissing the petition filed by Madhya Pradesh Jan Prakash Party.


    The Supreme Court bench of Justices BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna sustained the relief granted by the Bombay High Court to Senior Advocate Aspi Chinoy and few others by holding that the Maharashtra Government cannot insist on NOC for registering the subsequent transfer of flats built on a land leased to a developer.

    The Court clarified that the State government is not entitled to a premium when the land is not allotted to a society but to a builder on lease, who has constructed flats for private individuals, who in turn formed a Co-operative Society.

    The Supreme Court has reiterated that the chief examination and cross-examination of a witness must be recorded on the same day or the following day. There should be no ground for adjournment in recording the examination-in-chief/cross-examination of the witnesses.

    A bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar made these observations while considering a special leave petition challenging an order granting bail to an accused in a murder case. The petitioner informed the Court that the examination of prosecution witness was getting adjourned despite the mandate under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

    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 Supreme Court, recently, issued notice in a plea, to consider the limited issue, whether salary paid on secondment of employees is a taxable service under Section 65(105)(k) of the Finance Act, 1994.

    A Bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and J.K. Maheshwari directed the Registry to list and tag the plea with another petition titled Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-IV v. M/s. Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd., which raises the same issue and is pending adjudication.

    Recently, the Supreme Court bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli partly allowed an application moved by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai seeking modification of an earlier interim order seeking permission to carry out certain work pertaining to the Mumbai Coastal Road Project.

    The said Coastal Road Project is an infrastructure project, being undertaken to 'seamlessly connect south and north Mumbai'. It is an about 29 kilometre long access controlled expressway that will connect Marine Lines in the south to Kandivali in the north. At present, the road segment between Marine Drive and Worli is under construction.

    In a plea assailing the outcome of the elections of the Bihar Cricket Board that took place on 25.09.2022, the Supreme Court bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli recently, granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum to seek remedy. It noted that it is not proper for the Apex Court to consider disputed questions in the present proceedings.

    'Country Has Complete Faith In Justice Chandrachud': BCI Condemns Letter Against SC Judge As Malicious & Baseless

    The Bar Council of India has condemned the attempts made by "some people with vested interests" to tarnish the image of Supreme Court judge Justice DY Chandrachud, who is next in line to be the Chief Justice of India.

    Slamming a letter circulated by one Mr Rashid Khan Pathan raising allegations against Justice Chandrachud, the BCI said "it is nothing but a scurrilous and malicious attempt to interfere with the functioning of Judiciary and the administration of Justice." The timing of the letter was questioned, as it was released soon after the Union Law Minister requested the incumbent CJI UU Lalit to name his successor. The BCI noted that complaint purportedly lodged by RK Pathan, who claims to be the President of "Supreme Court and High Court Litigant Association", was made viral online, when Justice Chandrachud is likely to be elevated as the CJI.


    Tags
    Supreme CourtSupreme Court Weekly Roundup
    Next Story
    X
    sidekick
    x
    IP subscription is detected for  
    Please register yourself for unlimited free access.
    Redirecting to register page...