Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: Dec 5 - Dec 9, 2022
1) Employees employed by contractor cannot automatically become employees of principal employer under Sec. 10 Contract Labour Act 1970: The Court observed that there is no provision under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 that the workers/employees employed by the contractor automatically become the employees of the principal employer.
The Court reiterated that the question of directing the principal employer to absorb or regularise the services of contract labourers arises when under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "CLRA Act") it is contended that the contract between the principal employer and the contractor is sham and bogus and the remedy is purely under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Cause Title - Kirloskar Brothers Limited v. Ramcharan & Ors.
Date of Judgment – December 5, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice Hima Kohli
2) Motor Vehicle Act- Just compensation to be determined on fairness, reasonableness & equitability- SC reiterates: The Court in a motor accident case observed that under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act, just compensation must be determined on fairness, reasonableness, and equitability.
The Court also held that reliance can also be placed on Income tax returns while computing the compensation in motor accident cases.
Cause Title – Smt. Anjali & Ors. v. Lokendra Rathod & Ors.
Date of Judgment – December 6, 2022
Coram – Justice Krishna Murari & Justice Bela M. Trivedi
3) Transfer of property to children can be cancelled only if established that it was subject to condition of maintaining parents: The Court observed that effectuating the transfer of property to children subject to a condition of maintaining senior citizen/parent is not necessary under Section 23 (1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and that existence of such conditions must be established before the Tribunal.
The Bench observed, ""Effecting transfer subject to a condition of providing the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor – senior citizen is sine qua non for applicability of sub-section (1) of Section 23."
Cause Title – Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi & Anr.
Date of Judgment – December 6, 2022
Coram – Justice SK Kaul & Justice Abhay S. Oka
4) Unless title over land is crystallised in suit, public project cannot be stalled invoking Article 226: The Court observed that unless and until the title over the property is clear in a pending suit, a project which is to be implemented for a public purpose cannot be stalled in the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
this case, the appeal was preferred against the order of the Bombay High Court wherein the appellant was directed to remove itself and hand over the possession of the land to the respondent as the possession was secured forcibly and the same was arbitrary and illegal.
Cause Title – Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited v. Orbit Motels and Inns Private Limited, Nagpur & Ors.
Date of Judgment – December 6, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice MM Sundresh
5) Power U/s. 319 CrPC must be exercised before pronouncing sentence in case of conviction- SC's constitution bench: The Court's Constitution Bench pronounced the judgment answering the reference regarding the ambit of powers under Section 319 of the CrPC.
The Bench held that the power under Section 319 CrPC must be exercised before pronouncing sentence in case of conviction.
The Court answered substantial questions of law that were placed before it in the context of Section 319 CrPC.
Cause Title – Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. The State of Punjab
Date of Judgment – December 5, 2022
Coram – Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice BR Gavai, Justice AS Bopanna, Justice V Ramasubramanian, & Justice BV Nagarathna
6) Maintaining predictability in taxation law is of utmost importance- SC while allowing revenue's appeal: The Court while allowing Revenue's appeal observed that "Maintaining predictability in taxation law is of utmost importance."
The Court further held that the general principles of Section 4(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (CEA), read with Rule 11 of the CEVR, are meant to provide a pathway for determination of the "normal price" and "value" of goods in cases where no alternative methodology is applicable. This fulfils the dual objectives of being in consonance with the Circular dated 01.07.2002 and harmonizing different provisions of the CEA and Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 (CEVR).
Cause Title – Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Rohtak v. Merino Panel Product Ltd.
Date of Judgment – December 5, 2022
Coram – Justice Surya Kant & Justice JB Pardiwala
7) SC suggests amending Hindu Succession Act which excludes female members of scheduled tribes from its preview: The Court urged the Central Government to consider amending the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act which excludes the members of the Scheduled Tribe from the purview of the Hindu Succession Act.
The Court was dealing with the question of whether the appellant in the instant case being the daughter is entitled to the share in the compensation with respect to the land acquired, on survivorship basis under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act.
Cause Title – Kamla Neti (Dead) through LRs v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors.
Date of Judgment – December 9, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice Krishna Murari
8) Land acquisition proceedings shall not lapse if award not made as on commencement of LA Act 2013- SC reiterates: The Court in three different judgments related to Land acquisition matters reiterated the land acquisition proceedings shall not lapse if the award is not made as on the commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
In all three cases, the Appellant had assailed the judgment of the Delhi High Court which had declared that the land acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 2013.
Date of Judgment – December 9, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice CT Ravikumar
9) Supreme Court enhances compensation awarded by Karnataka HC to worker engaged in construction of government hospital: The Court while allowing an appeal recently enhanced the compensation at Rs. 9,30,000/- to the worker awarded by the Karnataka High Court who was engaged in the construction of a government hospital.
The Bench noted the fact that the appellant suffered from disablement of permanent nature.
Cause Title – Chandramma v. Manager, Regional Office, NCC Limited and Anr.
Date of Judgment – December 9, 2022
Coram – Justice Krishna Murari & Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
10) Strict rules of evidence as applicable in a criminal trial are not applicable in motor accident compensation cases: The Court observed that "strict rules of evidence as applicable in a criminal trial, are not applicable in motor accident compensation cases".
In this case, the heirs and dependents of the deceased approached the Supreme Court against orders passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, by which the High Court had reduced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to the Claimants. The High Court had refused to consider the salary certificate and pay slip of the deceased on the ground that the individual who issued the documents was not examined before the Tribunal.
Cause Title – Rajwati @ Rajjo v. United India Insurance Company Limited
Date of Judgment – December 9, 2022
Coram – Justice Krishna Murari & Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
11) Courts must consider socio-economic background of claimants while awarding compensation in permanent disability cases: The Court held that the Courts must consider the socio-economic background of the claimants while awarding compensation in cases of permanent disability.
The bench also observed that persons from marginalized backgrounds often face an additional layer of discrimination due to bodily disabilities.
Cause Title – Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
Date of Judgment – December 9, 2022
Coram – Justice Krishna Murari & Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
