Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: August 29 – September 2, 2022
1. SC upholds constitutional validity of Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, extending Gratuity benefit to teachers retrospectively – The Court upheld the constitutional validity of Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009 extending gratuity benefit to teachers of private Educational Institutions retrospectively.
The Bench observed that the amendment with retrospective effect remedies the injustice and discrimination suffered by the teachers on account of a legislative mistake.
Cause Title – Independent Schools' Federation of India (regd.) v. Union of India and Anr.
Date of Judgment – August 29, 2022
Coram – Justice Sanjiv Khanna & Justice Bela M. Trivedi
2. 'Serious Lapse': SC on incomplete question paper given to candidates in Punjab/Haryana Superior Judicial Service Exam 2019 – The Court took a serious view of the matter where incomplete criminal law question paper was handed over to candidates during the Punjab/Haryana Superior Judicial Exam 2019.
The Court observed that when the question paper was supplied initially, it contained only four questions (i.e. question nos.1, 2, 3 and 5), and the question paper was distributed to all the candidates containing four questions and question no.4 was found to be missing.
Cause Title – Harkirat Singh Ghuman v. Punjab & Haryana High Court & Ors.
Date of Judgment – August 29, 2022
Coram – Justice Ajay Rastogi & Justice CT Ravikumar
3. Party Autonomy backbone of Arbitration, Arbitrators cannot unilaterally fix their fee – In a significant judgment, the Court held that party autonomy is the backbone of Arbitration, hence Arbitrator cannot unilaterally fix their fees.
The Court also issued directives for governing the fees of Arbitrators in the judgment.
Further, while holding that the Arbitration Act treats claim and counter claim at par, the Court observed that an Arbitrator is entitled to separate fee for claim and counter claim.
The Court also noted that the highest fee payable to the Arbitrator is Rs. 30 lakhs which is payable to each individual arbitrator and not the tribunal as a whole.
Cause Title – Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Afcons Gunanusa JV
Date of Judgment – August 30, 2022
Coram – Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Surya Kant & Justice Sanjiv Khanna
Read further... (2nd Report)
Read further... (3rd Report)
Read further... (4th Report)
4. Inter-Departmental communications cannot be relied upon as basis to claim any right – The Court observed that inter-departmental communications cannot be relied upon as a basis to claim any right.
The Court also held that before something amounts to an order of the State Government, two things are necessary- First, the order has to be expressed in the name of the Governor as required by clause (1) of Article 166 and second, it has to be communicated.
Cause Title – Mahadeo & Ors. v. Sovan Devi & Ors.
Date of Judgment – August 30, 2022
Coram – Justice Hemant Gupta & Justice Vikram Nath
5. When public interest is clearly articulated and urgent, private interest must give away – SC in land acquisition case - While adjudicating upon a land acquisition case, the Supreme Court has observed that when the public interest is clearly articulated and is an urgent and pressing exigency, private interests must give away.
While emphasizing the importance to protect individual interests, the Bench further also observed that in a democratic society governed by the rule of law, the rights of an individual carry immense importance and are the foundational blocks on which our legal, social, and political milieu thrives.
Cause Title – Dr. Abraham Patani of Mumbai & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Date of Judgment – September 2, 2022
Coram – Justice Surya Kant & Justice Abhay S. Oka
6. Recovery from accused must be established first to raise presumption U/s. 54 of NDPS Act – The Court held that in order to raise a presumption under Section 54 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, it must be established that a recovery was made from the accused.
The case of the prosecution was that the appellant-accused and his friend, were carrying ganja in the dickey of a car. It was alleged that upon search, 47 Kgs. of ganja was found kept in three bags in the dickey of the car. The Special Court convicted the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act, and imposed a sentence of 10 years. However, the co-accused was acquitted by the Special Court. Appeal against conviction was dismissed by the High Court.
Cause Title – Sanjeet Kumar Singh @ Munna Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh
Date of Judgment – August 30, 2022
Coram – Justice Indira Banerjee & Justice V. Ramasubramanian
7. Delay in applying for amendment is no ground to disallow prayer: SC lays down principles on amendment of plaint - The Court was adjudicating upon an appeal by Life Insurance Corporation of India challenging the Order of Bombay High Court permitting the plaintiffs-respondents herein to amend the plaint seeking to enhance the amount towards the alternative claim for damages.
The Court observed that mere delay in applying for amendment of pleadings would not be a ground for rejecting the amendment.
While laying down the principles applicable to amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, the bench held that all amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side.
Cause Title – Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited & Anr.
Date of Judgment – September 1, 2022
Coram – Justice Aniruddha Bose & Justice J.B. Pardiwala
8. Arbitrator has discretion U/s. 31(7)(b) of Arbitration Act to award Post-Award interest on part of sum – The Court held that an arbitrator has the discretion under Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 to award post-award interest on part of the sum.
The Court also held that the arbitrator must exercise discretion to grant post-award interest reasonably and in good faith, taking into account all relevant circumstances.
The Bench further observed, "According to Section 31(7)(b), if the arbitrator does not grant postaward interest, the award holder is entitled to post-award interest at eighteen percent."
Cause Title – Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd. v. Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd.
Date of Judgment – September 1, 2022
Coram – Justice DY Chandrachud & Justice AS Bopanna
9. TN Highways Act - Non-Filing of answer to objections by Department shall not vitiate entire acquisition process – The Court observed that under section 15(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, non-filing of answer to the objections by the Highways Department and/or non-furnishing of the copy of the same to the land owners shall not vitiate the entire land acquisition process and/or notification issued.
The Bench held that non-filing of the statement by highways department will not vitiate the entire process of acquisition process and/or the notification issued under subsection (1) of Section 15 of the Act, 2001.
Cause Title – M. Mohan v. State Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Date of Judgment – September 2, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice BV Nagarathna
10. Order XXI Rule 90 (3) CPC – Absence or defect in attachment of property sold is not ground for setting aside sale – The Court heard dispute regarding the non-payment for acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act 1984 which had spanned over more than three decades.
The Court observed that under Order XXI Rule 90(3) CPC, absence or defect in attachment of property sold is not a ground for setting aside sale.
The Bench held that fraud or material irregularity and substantial injury must be satisfied to set aside sale under Order XXI Rule 90(3) CPC.
11. Dissenting Debenture holders have right to stand outside proposed resolution plan – SC holds in exercise of Article 142 – The Court while exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution observed that dissenting debenture holders have a right to stand outside the proposed resolution plan.
The Court under Article 142 of the Constitution stipulated directions to mitigate the potential denial of rights.
Cause Title – Securities and Exchange Board Of India v. Rajkumar Nagpal & Ors.
Date of Judgment – August 30, 2022
Coram – Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Surya Kant and Justice AS Bopanna
12. There cannot be any punishment less than life imprisonment for murder convict – The Court observed that any sentence/punishment less than imprisonment for life cannot be given to an accused who is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Bench noted that any punishment less than imprisonment for life for the murder offence would be contrary to Section 302 of IPC.
The Court made this observation while dealing with an appeal challenging the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reducing a murder convict's sentence from life imprisonment to the sentence already undergone while maintaining his conviction for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/34 IPC.
Cause Title – State of Madhya Pradesh v. Nandu @ Nandua
Date of Judgment – September 2, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice Krishna Murari
13. Acquittal in criminal trial would not amount to reversal of findings of "misconduct" in departmental proceeding - While holding that criminal proceedings and department proceedings are entirely different, the Supreme Court has observed that a mere acquittal in a criminal trial, would not amount to a reversal of the findings of "misconduct", which were arrived in a departmental proceeding.
The Bench emphasized that disciplinary proceedings are governed by a different standard of proof, which are different from what is applied in a criminal proceeding.
Cause Title – State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Phool Singh
Date of Judgment – September 2, 2022
Coram – Justice S Ravindra Bhat & Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
14. Cannot accept that parents would go home, take meal & go to bed after seeing son being assaulted - SC acquits murder convicts – The Court acquitted two murder accused while refusing to accept the statement given by the parents of the deceased that they took meal and slept after seeing their son being assaulted.
The Bench was adjudicating upon an appeal challenging the Judgment passed by the Gauhati High Court upholding the conviction of two murder accused.
The prosecution case mainly rested on the testimony of the father and mother of the deceased, who had allegedly seen the two accused persons assaulting their son with a weapon.
Before the High Court, the reliability of their testimony was seriously put to question. However, the High Court rejected the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants.
Aggrieved appellants-accused approached Supreme Court.
Cause Title – Dibaker Nunia & Anr. v. State of Assam
Date of Judgment – August 30, 2022
Coram – Justice Dinesh Maheshwari & Justice Bela M. Trivedi
