Weekly Overview | Supreme Court Judgments: Oct 10 - Oct 14, 2022
1) Attempt by accused to cause delay in trial of serious offences should be dealt with iron hands: The Court observed that the trial must come to its logical end at the earliest. It added that any attempt on the part of the accused to delay the trial of serious offences is to be dealt with iron hands.
The Court dismissed the application for modification or substitution of a bail condition of the applicant who was accused of committing very serious offences and has used his power and influence to delay the trial for the past 11 years of filing the FIR.
Cause Title – Gali Janardhan Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Date of Judgment – October 10, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah and Justice Krishna Murari
2) Power of reappointment of VC vests with chancellor and not state govt- SC while upholding removal of Calcutta University VC: The Court held that the power of appointment including reappointment vests with the Chancellor and the State Government and thus upheld the impugned judgment of the Calcutta High Court.
The Bench heard an appeal against a judgment passed by the Calcutta High Court. The High Court had allowed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of quo warranto against the Vice-Chancellor (VC) of Calcutta University and held that the State government had no authority to appoint or re-appoint the VC under Section 8 of the Calcutta University Act 1979.
Cause Title – State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das & Ors.
Date of Judgment – October 10, 2022
Coram – Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli
3) Section 138 NI Act- Cheque dishonoured must represent legally enforceable debt on date of presentation: The Court while adjudicating upon a case related to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has held that the cheque dishonored must represent legally enforceable debt as on the date of maturity or presentation.
In this case, the Appellant had assailed the judgment of the Gujarat High Court which had dismissed the appeal against the judgment of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate by which the First Respondent was acquitted for the offence under Section 138 NI Act.
Cause Title – Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel & Anr.
Date of Judgment – October 11, 2022
Coram – Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli
4) Without any positive act by accused proximate to time of occurrence, conviction u/s. 306 IPC is unsustainable: The Court observed that merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
In this case, Appellants were charged under Sections 306 and 498A IPC for abetting the suicide of the deceased. It was alleged by the Prosecution that the deceased died due to the mental torture and cruelty shown by the Appellants towards the deceased. The Madras High Court had convicted the Appellants to life imprisonment for the alleged offences.
Cause Title – Mariano Anto Bruno & Anr. v. The Inspector of Police
Date of Judgment – October 12, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah and Justice Krishna Murari
5) Permitting one religious community to wear their religious symbol would be antithesis to secularism- Justice Hemant Gupta In Hijab Case: Justice Hemant Gupta while delivering the judgment in hijab case, dismissed all the appeals that were filed against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court which had held that Hijab is not an essential religious practice in the Islamic faith. The Court also held that the prescription of school uniform is a reasonable restriction, constitutionally permissible.
On the other hand, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that asking girls to take off their hijab before they enter the school gates is an invasion on their privacy, an attack on their dignity, and ultimately a denial to them of secular education.
Cause Title – Aishat Shifa v. The State of Karnataka & Ors. with connected matters
Date of Judgment – October 13, 2022
Coram – Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
6) Motor Accident Claim| No restriction on tribunal to award compensation exceeding amount claimed: The Court while enhancing the amount of compensation claimed by the Appellant (Mother of the deceased) in her Claim Petition has observed that there is no restriction on the Court/Tribunal to award compensation exceeding the amount claimed.
The Court enhanced the amount of compensation as awarded by the High Court from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs in a motor accident case of a 12-year-old child. The compensation was awarded to the mother of the deceased child who had filed a plea before the Apex Court for the enhancement of the compensation as awarded by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi.
Cause Title – Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto & Ors.
Date of Judgment – October 13, 2022
Coram – Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice J.K. Maheshwari
7) Inherent powers U/s. 482 CrPC can be exercised by HC to direct further investigation or reinvestigation in appropriate cases: The Court observed that the High Court can exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to direct further investigation or even reinvestigation in appropriate cases.
The Court further held that the provisions of Section 173(8) CrPC do not limit the powers of the High Court to pass an order under Section 482 CrPC for further investigation or reinvestigation, if the High Court is satisfied that such a course is necessary to secure the ends of justice.
Cause Title – Devendra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Date of Judgment– October 12, 2022
Coram – Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Aniruddha Bose
8) Duty of court to provide meaningful legal aid to accused at state's expense- SC while setting aside death sentence in murder case: While setting aside the death sentence awarded to a man under Section 302 IPC for murdering his wife and children in the Lakhimpur district in Uttar Pradesh in 2010, the Supreme Court has observed that it is the duty of the Court to provide meaningful legal aid to the accused at the State's expense.
The Court held that in the event on account of indigence, poverty or illiteracy or any other disabling factor if an accused is not able to engage a counsel of his choice, it becomes the duty of the Court to provide him appropriate and meaningful legal aid at the State expense.
Cause Title – Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Date of Judgment– October 13, 2022
Coram – CJI UU Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, and Justice J.B. Pardiwala
9) Employers obligated to deposit employee's contribution towards EPF or ESI to avail benefit of deductions under Income Tax Act: The Court upheld a judgment passed by the Gujrat High Court and held that an employer is obligated to deposit the employee's contribution to employee provident fund (EPF) or employee state insurance (ESI) to avail the benefit of deduction under Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act.
In this case, the common question involved was with respect to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and whether the appellant assessees were entitled to a deduction of amounts deposited by them.
Cause Title – Checkmate Services P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax - 1
Date of Judgment– October 12, 2022
Coram – CJI UU Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
10) Order of issuance of process liable to be set aside if no reasons given while concluding prima facie case against accused: The Court observed that the order of issuance of process is liable to be set aside if no reasons are given while concluding that there is a prima facie case against an accused.
The Court noted that the order of issuance of process is not an empty formality. The Court further held that the Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not and that the formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself.
Cause Title – Lalankumar Singh & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
Date of Judgment– October 11, 2022
Coram – Justice BR Gavai and Justice CT Ravikumar
11) SC holds Telangana power utilities guilty of contempt on plea filed by 84 employees of Andhra Pradesh power utilities: On a plea filed by 84 employees of the Andhra Pradesh Power Utilities, the two-judge Bench held Telangana Power Utilities guilty of Contempt of Court.
The power utilities of Telangana unilaterally relieved 1157 employees working with the power utilities of Telangana to join in respective power utilities of Andhra Pradesh which led to employees filing a number of Writ Petitions before the High Court challenging the decision of the power utilities of Telangana.
Cause Title – Y. Sai Satya Prasad & Ors. v. D. Prabhakara Rao & Ors.
Date of Judgment– October 11, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah and Justice AS Bopanna
12) Period spent in promotional post on officiating basis cannot be included for calculating length of service in particular post: The Court observed that the period spent in a promotional post on officiating basis cannot be permitted to be factored in for calculating the length of service in a particular post.
In this case, the dispute was on the question of seniority of the appellants and Respondent no.4 (Keruupfeu– "K") in the cadre of senior lecturer under the State Council of Educational Research and Training Service (SCERT), Department of Education, Government of Nagaland. The appellants were collectively seeking seniority over Keruupfeu.
Cause Title – Imlikokla Longchar & Ors v. The State of Nagaland & Ors.
Date of Judgment– October 11, 2022
Coram – Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Aniruddha Bose
13) Once suit for specific performance is filed within period of limitation, delay cannot be ground for refusing relief: The Court observed that as long as a suit for specific performance is filed within the period of limitation, delay cannot be a ground to refuse the relief of specific performance.
In this case, an appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court assailing the judgment of the Madras High Court which had allowed the appeal, modified the decree passed by the Trial Court, and decreed the suit by granting the prayer of specific performance and also for a permanent injunction against the Appellant (original Defendant) in respect of the suit property.
Cause Title – P. Daivasigamani v. S. Sambandan
Date of Judgment– October 12, 2022
Coram – Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
14) Setting up industries is part of development- SC while setting aside judgment swayed by personal philosophy of bench: The Court set aside a judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court while holding that there has to be a sustainable growth and existence of all facets and, that is why, laws have been framed, cheques and balance have been imposed so that development takes place side by side with the protection and preservation of nature and environment.
In this case, notifications were issued under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, for the acquisition of some land. 11 Writ Petitions were filed, praying for the quashing of the notifications. Pertinently, more than 90% of the landowners accepted the compensation amount.
Cause Title – M/s. M.S.P.L. LIimited vs The State of Karnataka & Ors.
Date of Judgment– October 11, 2022
Coram – Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Vikram Nath
15) PC Act| Delay in issuance of sanction order does not lead to quashing of criminal proceedings: The Court held that Non-compliance with a mandatory period cannot and should not automatically lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings because the prosecution of a public servant for corruption has an element of public interest having a direct bearing on the rule of law.
The Court also held that the Appointing Authority should decide upon the request for sanction within the period of three months (extendable by one more month for legal consultation) under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Cause Title – Vijay Rajmohan v. State Represented By The Inspector of CBI, ACB, Chennai, Tamil Nadu
Date of Judgment– October 11, 2022
Coram – Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
16) Provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 2013 are not applicable to acquisition under J&K Act, 1990: The Court held that the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the Act, 2013) shall not be applicable to the acquisition under the Jammu & Kashmir State Land Acquisition Act, 1990.
The Court was dealing with an appeal challenging the Order passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh whereby the Court directed the appellants to determine and pay to the original land owners the compensation under the Act, 2013 on the ground that no award under the State Land Acquisition Act, 1990 has been published and/or declared.
Cause Title – Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) & Ors. v. Nisar Ahmed Ganai & Ors.
Date of Judgment– October 12, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah and Justice Krishna Murari
17) Supreme Court sets aside Gujarat HC's order granting interim relief to Adani ports special economic zone: The Court set aside Gujarat High Court's order granting interim relief to Adani Ports Special Economic Zone Limited (APSEZL) which was in dispute with Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC).
In this case, the Gujarat High Court had permitted the APSEZL to acquire 34 acres of land that was adjacent to Mundra Port in Gujarat if CWC failed to get approval as SEZ complaint-Unit within three months.
Cause Title – Central Warehousing Corporation v. Adani Ports Special Economic Zone Limited (APSEZL) and Others
Date of Judgment– October 13, 2022
Coram – Justice BR Gavai and Justice CT Ravikumar
18) Restricted transfer would not make equity shares in lock-in period into "quoted shares" defined under Wealth Tax Act: The Court observed that restricted transfer would not make the equity shares in the lock-in period into "quoted shares" as defined vide sub-rule (9) to Rule 2 of Part A of Schedule III of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.
The Court also held that the possibility of transfer of shares to promoters by private transfer/sale does not satisfy the conditions to be satisfied to regard the shares as quoted shares.
Cause Title- Deputy Commissioner of Gift Tax v M/S BPL Limited
Date of Judgment- October 13, 2022
Coram – Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice JK Maheshwari
19) Stock Broker has to obtain certificate of registration from SEBI for each of stock exchange where he operates: The Court held that under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, a stockbroker has to obtain a certificate of registration from SEBI for each of the stock exchanges where he operates.
In this case, the Court set aside the Order of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court holding that a single registration with SEBI is sufficient even if the stock broker has various memberships and functions from several stock exchanges and, therefore, will have to pay the fee for the initial registration with SEBI.
Cause Title – Securities and Exchange Board of India v. National Stock Exchange Members Association and Anr.
Date of Judgment – October 13, 2022
Coram – Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice BV Nagarathna
20) False response by accused in a case based on circumstantial evidence would become additional link in chain of events: The Court reiterated that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the accused offering a response that is not true, such a response, in itself, would become an additional link in the chain of events.
The Court was dealing with an appeal challenging the Judgment of the Gauhati High Court dismissing the appeal against the Judgment passed by the Trial Court whereby the appellant-accused was held guilty of murdering his wife.
Cause Title – Md. Anowar Hussain v. State of Assam
Date of Judgment – October 13, 2022
Coram – Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Aniruddha Bose
21) Central Excise Tariff Act | Product's incidental purpose can't warrant different classification- SC confirms MVAC are not heat pumps: The Court upheld a decision passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) holding that the Modified Vapour Absorption Chillers is not a heat pump.
In this case, an appeal was filed under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The main issue for consideration was whether the Modified Vapour Absorption Chillers (MVAC) manufactured by the Appellant was classifiable as a heat pump under heading 84.18 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
Cause Title – M/s Thermax Ltd. through its Director v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-1
Date of Judgment – October 13, 2022
Coram – Justice KM Joseph and Justice Hrishikesh Roy
22) Conduct of an accused by itself cannot be a ground to convict him for a serious offence like murder: In this case the Court acquitted a person who was convicted for murder by setting aside the Judgment passed by Karnataka High Court.
The Court observed that although the conduct of an accused may be a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, yet the same, by itself, cannot be a ground to convict him or hold him guilty and that too, for a serious offence like murder.
Cause Title – Subramanya v. State of Karnataka
Date of Judgment – October 13, 2022
Coram – Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice JB Pardiwala
23) WB Co-operative Societies Act- Cannot negate decision of GB for single member's disapproval, unless decision is vitiated by fraud: The Court held that merely because one single member of co-operative Society in minority disapproves of the decision, that cannot be the basis to negate the decision of the General Body, unless it is shown that the decision was the product of fraud or misrepresentation or was opposed to some statutory prohibition.
The Court made this observation while dealing with an appeal filed by the Co-operative Society registered under the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1940.
Cause Title – The Bengal Secretariat Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank and Housing Society Ltd. v. Aloke Kumar & Anr.
Date of Judgment – October 13, 2022
Coram – Chief Justice UU Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice JB Pardiwala
24) Kerala Co-op. Societies Act- Member of society executing document in his own capacity not entitled to remission of stamp duty: The Court upheld a judgment passed by the Kerala High Court, and observed that considering the express provision contained in Section 40(1) (a) of the Kerala Act, 1969, a member of the society executing the document in his own capacity or in the capacity of a Guardian or a minor shall not be entitled to the benefit of remission of stamp duty.
In this case, appeals were preferred against judgments passed by the High Court holding that the benefit of remission of stamp duty is available only in respect of instruments executed by or on behalf of a society or by an officer or member thereof and instrument so executed should be relating to the business of the society, and the benefit of remission can be claimed by the society only if, but for such remission, the society, an officer, or the member, as the case may be, would have been liable to pay such stamp duty.
Cause Title – Kerala Land Reforms & Development Co-operative Society Limited v. The District Registrar (General) & Another
Date of Judgment – October 14, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah and Justice Krishna Murari
25) Supreme Court refuses to interfere with HC order granting ₹6,55,000 compensation in a motor accident claim: The Court refused to interfere with the Judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court awarding compensation of Rs. 6,55,000 with 7.5 % interest in a motor accident claim.
In this case, the accident occurred in November 2010 when the deceased Hari Ram was riding on a three-wheeler with his brother from Mitrol to Palwal, Haryana. The vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1, i.e., Ram Kishan and was insured with respondent no. 3 (Insurance Company).
Cause Title – Roopwati & Ors. v. Ram Kishan & Ors.
Date of Judgment – October 14, 2022
Coram – Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
26) Order 8 Rule 6-A CPC not a bar for taking on record delayed counter-claim filed before framing of issues: The Court observed that the requirements of Order VIII Rule 6-A CPC or Rule 95 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules don't operate as a bar for taking the belatedly filed counter-claim on record, which was filed before framing of issues.
In this case, the counter-claim in question was filed 13 years after filing of the written Statement and the Single Judge of the High Court dealing with the trial of suit in question, had accepted the notice of motion moved by the defendant-appellant so as to take the belatedly filed counter-claim on record. The Division Bench of the High Court, however, set aside the order so passed by the Single Judge.
Cause Title – Mahesh Govindji Trivedi Vs. Bakul Maganlal Vyas & Ors.
Date of Judgment – October 12, 2022
Coram – Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Aniruddha Bose
27) Once claim based on adverse possession is held to be untenable & ownership claim is negated, possession can't be protected: The Court observed that once the claim of title on the basis of adverse possession is held not tenable and ownership claim is negated, thereafter the possession or alleged possession cannot be protected by passing a decree of permanent injunction.
The Court was dealing with an appeal challenging the Judgment passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a suit involving the ownership claim of a property.
Cause Title – Kesar Bai v. Genda Lal & Anr.
Date of Judgment – October 14, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah and Justice Krishna Murari
28) Accused can be convicted even if weapon is not recovered, if there is direct evidence in the form of eye witness: The Court held that an accused can be convicted even in the absence of recovery of weapon if there is direct evidence in the form of eye witness. The Court also observed that there can be a conviction on the basis of the deposition of the sole eye witness, if the said witness is found to be trustworthy and/or reliable.
The Court set aside and quashed the order of the Madras High Court whereby the Court allowing the appeal, has acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and has reversed the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court.
Cause Title – State through the Inspector of Police vs. Laly @ Manikandan & Another Etc.
Date of Judgment – October 14, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah and Justice Krishna Murari
29) Unless concurrent findings are found to be perverse, same should not be interfered with under section 100 of CPC: The Court observed that unless the concurrent findings were found to be perverse, the same should not be interfered with in exercise of powers under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code.
The Court made this observation while dealing with an appeal challenging the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court setting aside the Order passed by the First Appellate Court and the Trial Court decreeing the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,36,550.
Cause Title – Kapil Kumar v. Raj Kumar
Date of Judgment – October 14, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah and Justice Krishna Murari
30) Deceased didn't opt for pension scheme: SC holds that family of the deceased-employee is not entitled to pension: The Court upheld the Order passed by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court holding the family of a deceased employee not entitled to receive pension.
The Court observed that the appellant's deceased husband could have opted for pension under the NPS that was made available to the work charged employees in terms of the order dated July 2, 2015. But he did not opt for the said Scheme.
Cause Title – Sunita Burman v. The Commissioner, M.P. Housing And Infrastructure Development Board and Others
Date of Judgment – October 14, 2022
Coram – Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli
31) MP VAT Act- Writ petition under Article 226 bypassing statutory appeal cannot be entertained: The Court observed that a writ petition preferred under Article 226, bypassing statutory appeal, cannot be entertained. It held that the parties should first exhaust Statutory Alternative Remedies available to them rather than approaching the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Court dismissed the writ petition preferred by the respondent herein – original writ petitioner– assessee on the ground of alternative efficacious statutory remedy of appeal available to the respondent.
Cause Title – The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another v. M/s Commercial Engineers and Body Building Company Limited.
Date of Judgment – October 14, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah and Justice Krishna Murari
32) Standard with which case of pre-existing dispute under IBC is employed can't be equated with principle of preponderance of probability: The Court held that the standard with reference to which a case of a pre-existing dispute under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) must be employed cannot be equated with the principle of preponderance of probability.
In this case, the Court held that the NCLAT had erred in its finding about the existence of Pre-existing Dispute. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order.
Cause Title – Rajratan Babulal Agarwal v. Solartex India PVT. LTD. & Ors.
Date of Judgment – October 13, 2022
Coram – Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice Hrishikesh Roy
33) Section 11A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 will apply if acquiring authority fails to pay 80% compensation before possession: The Court observed that the provisions contained in Section 11A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall be applicable to cases in which the acquiring authority has not complied with the requirement of subsection (3A) to Section 17 of Act, 1894 by tendering and paying eighty per centum of the estimated compensation before taking possession.
Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 states that the Collector shall make an award under section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceeding for the acquisition of the land shall lapse.
Cause Title – M/s Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr.
Date of Judgment – October 14, 2022
Coram – Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice V. Ramasubramanian
