Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: Jan 9 – Jan 13, 2023
1) SC stresses upon balance between sustainable development & environmental protection while permitting urban development
The Court while stressing upon the need for a proper balance between sustainable development and environmental protection appealed to the legislature, the executive, and policymakers to make necessary provisions for carrying out environmental impact assessment studies before permitting urban development.
The Court made the observations while prohibiting fragmentation or apartmentalization of residential units in phase-I of Chandigarh, saying it will injure the "Lungs" of the city as conceptualised by French architect Le Corbusier who had designed it.
Cause Title- Resident’s Welfare Association and Another v. The Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others
Date of Judgment- January 10, 2023
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice B.V. Nagarathna
2) SC allows appeal of SBI dismissing employee from service on account of opportunity of hearing granted by authority
The Court allowed an appeal filed by the State Bank of India in a matter related to the dismissal of an employee from the service on the ground that the Appointing Authority granted him an opportunity of hearing.
The Court after hearing the contentions of both parties observed that though the said order of dismissal was set aside by the Single Bench, the order of Single Bench had remained stayed pending the LPA filed by the Bank; and though the LPA was dismissed by the Division Bench, the said order in LPA was set aside by this Court, observing that the person who hears the matter has to decide it.
Cause Title- State Bank of India & Ors. v. Kamal Kishore Prasad
Date of Judgment- January 09, 2023
Coram- Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
3) While considering application for remission, courts should provide adequate reasoning
The Court reiterated that while considering the application for remission, the Courts should provide their opinion after taking into consideration the relevant factors that govern the grant of remission as laid down in Laxman Naskar vs. Union of India.
In this case, the petitioners were convicted for offences IPC and Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Corruption) Act and were undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment. The concerned Sessions Court which had convicted the petitioners, while delivering its opinion, rejected the application to allow remission of the remaining sentence.
Cause Title- Jaswant Singh & Ors. v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.
Date of Judgment- January 13, 2023
Coram- Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
4) Exclusion of Sikkimese woman from IT exemption because she marries non-Sikkimese is arbitrary, violative of constitution
The Court held that the exclusion of a Sikkimese woman from exemption allowed under the Income Tax Act merely because she has married a non-Sikkimese man after April 1, 2008, is "discriminatory and unconstitutional."
Asserting that a woman is not a chattel and has an identity of her own, the Court held that no justification has been shown to exclude a Sikkimese woman from such exemption. The verdict came on an appeal filed by the Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim and others seeking striking down of Section 10(26AAA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, more particularly, the definition of "Sikkimese" in Section 10 (26AAA) to the extent it excludes Indians who have settled in Sikkim prior to the merger of Sikkim with India on April 26, 1975.
Cause Title- Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr.
Date of Judgment- January 13, 2023
Coram- Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna
5) 'Against judicial discipline & propriety'- SC terms "absolutely unwarranted" certain findings of Rajasthan HC in murder case
The Court termed as "absolutely unwarranted" and against "judicial discipline and propriety" certain observations made by the Rajasthan High Court in its verdict in a matter in which the Apex Court had earlier confirmed the conviction of an accused in a murder case.
The Court observed that it was "not open" for the High Court to make comments on the investigation or merits of the case when the conviction was already confirmed by the Supreme Court after hearing the counsel for the accused.
Cause Title- State of Rajasthan v. Komal Lodha
Date of Judgment- January 13, 2023
Coram- Justice M R Shah and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
6) Taxing statutes cannot be tested on same principles as law affecting civil rights
The Court held that taxing statutes cannot be tested on the same principles as laws affecting civil rights and lawmakers should be given "greater latitude" while testing these legislations. The Apex Court set aside the July 2007 judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court which had held section 3A (3) of the Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 1999, as ultra vires.
The Court observed that Courts must show judicial restraint and not interfere with tax legislation unless it is shown and proved that such taxing statute is manifestly unjust or glaringly unconstitutional.
Cause Title- State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. Goel Bus Service Kullu, etc., etc.
Date of Judgment- January 13, 2023
Coram- Justice SK Kaul, Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Vikram Nath
7) Encroachers of land cannot challenge its acquisition u/s. 24(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 2013
The Court held that encroachers could not be permitted to take benefit of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the Act) and challenge the acquisition of land because if they were permitted to take the benefit it would be promoting illegality, which could not be the intention of the legislature.
In this case, the appeal had been preferred against the impugned judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein the Court had allowed the writ petition and had declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question had deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
Cause Title- State of Haryana & Ors. v. Sushila & Ors.
Date of Judgment- January 13, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
8) Insurance Company shall pay sum required to lawfully reinstate insured to its former condition
The Court while allowing an appeal observed that the insurance company should pay such sum as would be required to reinstate or repair such property if the same could lawfully be reinstated to its former condition.
In this case, appeal was preferred against the impugned judgment of NCDRC wherein the order of the SCDRC, Punjab was modified and the appellant was awarded depreciated value instead of the reinstatement value. The appellant had obtained Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy on reinstatement value and the surveyor appointed by the insurance company observed/assessed as such the loss on reinstatement value basis at Rs. 29,17,500 and on depreciated value at Rs. 12,60,000.
Cause Title- M/s Oswal Plastic Industries v. Manager, Legal Deptt N.A.I.C.O. Ltd.
Date of Judgment- January 13, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
9) Persons other than searched persons shall be liable to pay interest on late filing of return even in absence of notice U/S. 158BC of IT Act
The Court held that persons other than searched persons shall be liable to pay the interest on late filing of the return under Section 158BC even in absence of a notice under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act and even for the period prior to 01.06.1999.
In this case, the dispute arose with respect to the levy of interest under Section 158BFA(1) of the Income Tax Act in respect of assessment completed under Section 158BD of the Act for belatedly filing the return of income for the block period and also the levy of surcharge under Section 113 of the Income Tax Act.
Cause Title- K.L. Swamy v. The Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
Date of Judgment- January 13, 2023
Coram- Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar
10) SC Bench issues split verdict regarding requirement of establishing validity of POA to ascertain validity of sale deed
The Court heard a matter pertaining to the requirement of establishing the validity of a power of attorney in order to establish the validity of a sale deed. The Bench has issued a split verdict in the matter. Justice MR Shah allowed the appeal, while Justice BV Nagarathna dismissed it.
In this case the defendants said that their predecessor-in-interest held out that original defendant No. 1 was in possession of the suit land for more than thirty years and was running a business from the said property, while denying that the plaintiffs had acquired any right, title or interest as claimed over the suit land. The original defendants also claimed to be in peaceful possession of the property for over forty years and it was their case that they were paying the municipal taxes and land revenue and other statutory dues. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had started a pucca construction on ‘Schedule C’ property and forcibly dispossessed them from the said property.
Cause Title- Manik Majumder and Others v. Dipak Kumar Saha (Dead) through Lrs. & Others
Date of Judgment- January 13, 2023
Coram- Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna
11) SC bench issues split verdict in suit for specific performance where sale agreement wasn't given effect within time stipulated
The Court heard a matter pertaining to the specific performance of a contract, where the agreement of sale had not been given effect within the time stipulated. The Bench issued a split verdict. Justice MR Shah allowed the appeal, while Justice BV Nagarathna dismissed it.
In this case, the plaintiff and defendants had entered into an agreement to sell, and the plaintiff paid an advance towards the part sale consideration amount. The balance consideration was agreed to be paid by the plaintiff within six months, provided the defendants make available the documents of title, including the purchase certificate under the Kerala Land Reforms Act.
Thereafter, the plaintiff served a legal notice upon the defendants to execute the sale deed to which the defendants sent a reply and refused to execute the sale deed and canceled the agreement to sell. Subsequently, the plaintiff instituted a suit for the specific performance of the agreement to sell and in the alternative return the plaintiff’s amount with interest.
Cause Title- C. Haridasan v. Anappath Parakkattu Vasudeva Kurup & Others
Date of Judgment- January 13, 2023
Coram- Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna
