Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: April 24 – April 28, 2023
1) Tax Law| Loss in pursuance to penalty is not available for deduction regardless of nature of business
The Court allowed an appeal preferred by the Revenue Department, which challenged the decision of the High Court drawing a distinction between a claim for deduction of a loss incurred in an illegal business as against a claim of a loss qua a legitimate business, though illegality is attached to it.
It was held that a penalty or a confiscation is a proceeding in rem, and therefore, a loss in pursuance to the same is not available for deduction regardless of the nature of business, as a penalty or confiscation cannot be said to be incidental to any business.
Cause Title- Commissioner of Income Tax Jaipur v. Prakash Chand Lunia (D) Thr.Lrs. & Anr
Date of Judgment- April 24, 2023
Coram- Justice MR Shah and Justice MM Sundresh
2) Assessing officer cannot make addition in respect of completed assessment in absence of incriminating material
Considering the issue regarding the jurisdiction of Revenue Officers in case of completed assessment, the Court ruled that no addition is permitted in respect of completed assessment in absence of any incriminating material.
The Appellant had approached the Apex Court seeking assertion on the scope of assessment under section 153A and contending that the AO is competent to consider all the material that is available on record, including that found during the search, and make assessment of 'total income'. This was opposed by the Respondent (Taxpayer) and argued that, if no assessment proceeding is pending on the date of initiation of the search, the AO may consider only the incriminating material found during the search and is precluded from considering any other material derived from any other source.
Cause Title- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd.
Date of Judgment- April 24, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R Shah and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
3) Auction: Plea of limitation can’t be allowed to stand in way of determination of applicant’s right & monetary claims
The Court in an appeal relating to the auction has observed that a plea of limitation cannot be allowed to stand in the way of the determination of the applicant’s right and entitlement to monetary claims.
In this case, an application was filed seeking clarification of the order passed by the Apex Court in an SLP whereby a judgment of the Bombay High Court upholding the setting aside sale of a property by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal was not interfered with. The auction sale confirmed in favour of the applicant (company) was set aside with the applicant entitled to a refund of the entire sale amount along with the accrued interest, if any, after deducting the mesne profits and/or losses.
Cause Title- Rockline Construction Company v. Doha Bank QSC & Ors.
Date of Judgment- April 24, 2023
Coram- Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Sanjay Karol
4) No proximate link established to justify attachment of property of relatives or purchaser of property: SC allows pleas
The Court while allowing interlocutory applications said that no proximate link could be established to justify the attachment of the property of relatives of the petitioner or the purchaser of her property to compensate for the defaults.
The petitioner through interlocutory applications prayed for the vacation or modification of the order of the Apex Court so far as it reflected the properties of the applicants. In this matter, the property in dispute was alleged to have been owned by the petitioner and her husband who procured food grains and alleging fraud, cheating, and dishonesty, certain FIRs were registered against them.
Cause Title- Ritika Awasty v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Date of Judgment- April 24, 2023
Coram- Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Sanjay Karol
5) Limitation period commences only with decree becoming enforceable & capable of being executed
The Court in an appeal has reiterated that the limitation period under the Limitation Act, 1963, would commence only with the decree becoming enforceable and capable of being executed. The Bench noted in this matter that the cause of action to execute the compromise decree arose when the premises were taken away from the possession of the decree holders i.e., the respondents.
In this case, an appeal was preferred by the appellant against the judgment passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Such a decision was assailed on the ground that the execution application was filed after 12 years from the date of the decree and the same was, therefore, barred by time under the law.
Cause Title- Shaifuddin (Dead) Thr. LRS. v. Kanhaiya Lal (Dead) Thr. LRS. & Ors
Date of Judgment- April 24, 2023
Coram- Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Sanjay Karol
6) "Investigation officer did not meet obligations, numerous infirmities present"- SC while setting murder accused at liberty
The Court set a murder accused at liberty on finding that there were numerous infirmities that affected the conduct of the Investigation Officer which called into question the investigation conducted by him.
In this case, the appellant approached the Apex Court against a judgment passed by the High Court. The appellant alone had been convicted for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, Section 201 of the IPC, and Section 25(1)(1-b)(a) of the Arms Act. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and fines, and the sentences under the various offences were to run concurrently.
Cause Title- Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh
Date of Judgment- April 24, 2023
Coram- Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sanjay Karol
7) Murder of Ex-CM’s Brother: HC cannot direct investigation must be in printed or written form- SC extends CBI probe
The Court while dealing with a matter relating to the murder of the brother of former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy held that the High Court cannot direct that the investigation of a person who has been interrogated as a suspect in the conspiracy should be in the printed or written form.
The Court has extended the investigation by the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) till June 30, 2023. The Court said that the High Court has misapplied itself and passed an extraordinary order in terms of the directions which have been issued and that an order of this nature would stultify the investigation.
Cause Title- Suneetha Narreddy v. Y.S. Avinash Reddy & Anr.
Date of Judgment- April 24, 2023
Coram- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha
8) Supreme Court condemns HCs decision to convict accused in absence of trial court records, passes directions for digitization of records
The Court held that a High Court should not decide on an appeal in the absence of records from the Trial Court. The Court also issued directions to the High Courts to ensure the digitization of all lower Court records.
In this case, an appeal arose out of a judgment passed by the High Court whereby the appellant was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the proceedings before the High Court, it was noted that the entire record of the Trial proceedings had been lost and was not traceable.
Cause Title- Jitendra Kumar Rode v. Union of India
Date of Judgment- April 24, 2023
Coram- Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Sanjay Karol
9) Arbitration agreement in unstamped contract which is exigible to stamp duty is not enforceable in law: SC observes by 3:2 majority
The Court by a three: two majority opinion, has ruled that an instrument that is exigible to stamp duty, may contain an arbitration clause, and which is not stamped, cannot be said to be a contract, which is enforceable in law within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Contract Act and is not enforceable under section 2(g) of the said Act.
The judgment was delivered by the Constitution Bench observing that being unstamped or insufficiently stamped, the agreement would not be available to be ‘admitted in evidence’ and ‘to be acted upon’, till it is validated following the procedures prescribed under the provisions of the Stamp Act and till then, it would not exist ‘in law’.
Cause Title- N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt Ltd v. Indo Unique Flame and Ors.
Date of Judgment- April 25, 2023
Coram- Justice K.M. Joseph, Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
10) Delhi Rent Control Act: High Court has gone far beyond scope of revision U/S. 25-B(8): SC restores order of rent controller
The Court while restoring the order passed by the Rent Controller said that the High Court had gone far beyond the limited scope of revision in terms of Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Court was deciding a matter wherein the High Court had reversed the orders of eviction.
The Bench said that it cannot endorse the approach of the High Court and that the appellant gave out a detailed description of the extent of accommodation available in the suit property as also the accommodation presently in her occupation and the nature and extent of her requirement.
Cause Title- Kusum Lata Sharma v. Arvind Singh
Date of Judgment- April 25, 2023
Coram- Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Kumar
11) When sale deed is presented for registration authority must ascertain its correct market value
The Court while sending back a case to Assistant Stamp Collector has asserted that when a sale deed is presented for registration, the registering authority must ascertain the correct market value of the property on the date of execution of the document.
The Court noted that the stamp duty is payable on the basis of such market value and not on the consideration mentioned in the document, and that if the consideration mentioned is more than the market value, the stamp duty will be payable on the consideration shown.
Cause Title- Shanti Bhushan (D) Thr. LR & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Date of Judgment- April 25, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal
12) NDPS Act| Convicting merely on ground that person was registered vehicle owner is legally unsustainable
The Court held that convicting a person under the NDPS (Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances) Act, 1985 merely on the ground that he was the registered owner of the vehicle is not legally sustainable.
The Court relied upon its decision in the case of Bhola Singh v. State of Punjab (2011) 11 SCC 653 wherein it was held that unless the vehicle is used with the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof, which is sine qua non for applicability of Section 25 of the NDPS Act, conviction thereunder cannot be legally sustained.
Cause Title- Harbhajan Singh v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment- April 25, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal
13) Trial Court cannot impose modified sentence of life imprisonment fixing lengthier term for specified offences
The Court held that only High Court and the Supreme Court has the power to impose a modified punishment within the punishment provided for in the Indian Penal Code for specified offences.
The Court was hearing an appeal by a man convicted for raping his 9 year old daughter. The scope of the appeal was restricted to the sentence imposed upon the appellant. The Trial Court had sentenced him to life imprisonment and in addition the Additional Sessions Judge directed that the appellant should not be given any clemency by the State before he spent at least 20 years in jail. The Delhi High Court had upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.
Cause Title- Ravinder Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi
Date of Judgment- April 25, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Sanjay Kumar
14) Role of power of attorney holder is limited to representing the principal
The Court reiterated that the role of a Power of Attorney holder is limited to representing the principal. In this case, the High Court had made some unwarranted remarks against the appellant while hearing a property dispute. The dispute was between Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar and Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar.
Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar, who held a Power of Attorney executed in his favour by Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar, had filed a restoration application in the High Court after the Second Appeal filed by Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar was dismissed for default. Subsequently, the appellant approached the Apex Court, challenging those remarks.
Cause Title- Yogesh Navinchandra Ravani vs Nanjibhai Sagrambhai Chaudhary & Ors.
Date of Judgment- April 25, 2023
Coram- Justice BR Gavai and Justice Vikram Nath
15) Denying promotion on ground that employees don’t possess necessary minimum qualification of matriculation isn’t justified
The Court held that rejection of the claim for non-functional in situ promotion on the ground that the employees do not possess the necessary minimum qualification of matriculation as per the rules is not justified under the law.
The Bench said that both ACP and MACP Schemes are schemes devised which are with the object of ensuring that the employees who are unable to avail of adequate promotional opportunities, get some relief in the form of financial benefits.
Cause Title- Amresh Kumar Singh & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Date of Judgment- April 25, 2023
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Pankaj Mithal
16) "Purpose is not to hamper daily activities of citizens but to protect forests"- SC modifies 2022 order on ESZs around protected forests
The Court observed that the purpose of an extended buffer zone is not to hamper day-to-day activities of the citizens but to protect forests. In that context, the Court has modified its 2022 order mandating a 1-kilometre eco-sensitive zone (ESZ) around protected forests, to hold that it would not be applicable in cases where a draft or final notification for development has already been issued.
In this case, an IA was filed by the Union of India, praying for the modification of an order passed by the Apex Court in June 2022. In the order, it was held that each protected forest must have must have an extended buffer zone of minimum one kilometre measured from the demarcated boundary.
Cause Title- In Re: TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgment- April 26, 2023
Coram- Justice BR Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath, and Justice Sanjay Karol
17) Ayurveda doctors not entitled to equal pay as allopathic doctors: SC while setting aside Gujarat HCs order
The Court while setting aside the order passed by the Gujarat High Court has held that Ayurveda Doctors are not entitled to equal pay as Allopathic Doctors having MBBS degrees. The Court said that both categories of doctors are certainly not performing equal work to be entitled to equal pay and that MBBS doctors are made to attend hundreds of patients, which is not the case with Ayurveda doctors.
In this case, a batch of appeals arose out of a common order passed by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court confirming the order of the Single Judge, holding that the respondents possessing a degree of BAMS (Bachelor of Ayurved in Medicine and Surgery) should be treated at par with the doctors holding MBBS degrees and that they are entitled to the benefits of the recommendations of the Tikku Pay Commission.
Cause Title- State of Gujarat & Ors. Etc. v. Dr. P.A. Bhatt & Ors. Etc.
Date of Judgment- April 26, 2023
Coram- Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal
18) Probe agency cannot file chargesheet without completing investigation, such chargesheet if filed doesn’t extinguish right to default bail
In a landmark judgment, the Court held that without completing the investigation of a case, a chargesheet or prosecution complaint cannot be filed by an investigating agency to deprive an arrested accused of his right to default bail. The Court further added that such a chargesheet, if filed by an investigating authority without first completing the investigation, would not extinguish the right to default bail.
The Court was dealing with a plea by the wife of the accused wherein the remand of the accused was renewed on grounds of investigation not being completed and was continued from time to time, and he was never released on default bail. Subsequently, the petitioner sought to incorporate additional grounds and prayers for seeking bail which was allowed by the Apex Court and interim bail was granted.
Cause Title- Ritu Chhabaria v. Union Of India & Ors
Date of Judgment- April 26, 2023
Coram- Justice Krishna Murari and Justice C. T. Ravikumar
19) Clarification of order via intervention in proceedings to which person is totally alien is not liable to be allowed
The Court while dealing with a miscellaneous application filed by an applicant has observed that clarification of an order through intervention in the proceedings to which the person is totally alien is not liable to be allowed.
The Court said that the law laid down by it is binding on all under Article 141 of the Constitution but before applying the law, the court where the proceedings are pending is required to test the applicability of the law declared by it on the basis of the facts of a particular case.
Cause Title- Mukul Agarwal & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Date of Judgment- April 26, 2023
Coram- Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
20) Law declared by apex court binding on all but courts should test facts of case they are seized with to know applicability of the law to such case
The Court held that the law declared by it is binding on everybody but an authority/court seized with a particular case must test the facts of that case in order to conclude that the law declared by the court is applicable to the facts of such case. In this case, the applicant, who was not a party to the case decided by the Apex Court vide Order March 22, 2022, had sought clarification of the said order solely on the ground that the same may have a bearing on the case of the applicant.
Three criminal prosecutions were launched by the Revenue Department against the applicant which in turn were based upon three adjudication proceedings initiated by the department. The Counsel for the applicant contended that in all three adjudication proceedings, the issue was decided in favour of the applicant by CESTAT. Still the criminal proceedings are continuing. The applicant prayed that the proceedings against the applicant is liable to be quashed in light of the law laid down by the Court in the Order dated March 22, 2022.
Cause Title- Vijay Kumar Ghai & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Date of Judgment- April 26, 2023
Coram- Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
21) NDPS Act: Serious doubt about prosecution’s case that substance recovered was contraband- SC acquits persons
The Court in a matter relating to the NDPS (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances) Act, 1985 has acquitted the persons saying that there was serious doubt about the prosecution’s case that the substance recovered was contraband.
The Court said that the prosecution has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants were in possession of the contraband or that they brought the contraband to the hotel room of the accused.
Cause Title- Bothilal v. The Intelligence Officer Narcotics Control Bureau
Date of Judgment- April 26, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal
22) Hindu Marriage Act| A marriage that has broken down irretrievably amounts to cruelty to both parties
The Court in an appeal has held that a marriage that has broken down irretrievably amounts to cruelty to both parties i.e., the husband and wife under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court said that the multiple Court battles between both parties and the repeated failures in mediation and conciliation is at least testimony of the fact that no bond survives between the couple.
The Court further said that the nature of the relationship, the general behaviour of the parties towards each other, or a long separation between the couple are relevant factors which a Court must take into consideration.
Cause Title- Rakesh Raman v. Kavita
Date of Judgment- April 26, 2023
Coram- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice J.B. Pardiwala
23) Vacancies not necessarily be filled based on law which existed on date when they arose
The Court reiterated that the vacancies are not required to be filled on the basis of law which existed on the date when they arose.
The Court relied upon its judgment in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Raj Kumar and Ors. 2022 wherein it was observed that there is no rule of universal application that vacancies must be necessarily filled on the basis of the law which existed on the date when they arose and that when there is no statutory duty cast upon the State to consider appointments to vacancies that existed prior to the amendment, the State cannot be directed to consider the cases.
Cause Title- State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Rachna Hills & Ors.
Date of Judgment- April 27, 2023
Coram- CJI D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha
24) Later offer tendered was of no legal significance & rightly not acknowledged by authority: SC in an auction case
The Court in an auction case dismissed the appeal on the ground that the later offer tendered by the appellants was of no legal significance and rightly not acknowledged by the authority.
The Court said that the question of locus was never raised by the appellants before the High Court and once the subject issue has been looked into by the High Court on merits and it is persuaded that order of the AAIFR confirming the bid pursuant to its order is not legally sustainable, there is no justification at this stage to non-suit the claim of the appellants prayed for.
Cause Title- Rajiv Kumar Jindal and Others v. BCI Staff Colony Residential Welfare Association and Others
Date of Judgment- April 27, 2023
Coram- Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
25) Onus to prove acquisition by adverse possession lay on defendant once title of property has been proved by plaintiff
The Court held that once the title of the property has been proved by the plaintiff, the onus to prove acquisition by adverse possession lay on the defendant. In this case the father of the appellants filed a suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction as an indigent person which came to be dismissed by the Trial Court.
A suit was filed by the appellants seeking partition and separate possession against their father and the purchaser of suit schedule property, namely, Mudegowda (the deceased respondent), which was also dismissed. Appellants filed a suit against Mudegowda for perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule property, which suit came to be dismissed whereunder it was held that Mudegowda possessed a valid title to the suit property.
In the light of observation made to the effect that Mudegowda was at liberty to seek for possession of suit schedule property resulted in Mudegowda filing a suit, which was decreed in his favour. However, the appeal filed by the appellants herein came to be allowed on the ground that the Munsif Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Plaint was registered for possession which came to be dismissed.
Cause Title- Prasanna And Others V. Mudegowda (D) By Lrs.
Date of Judgment- April 27, 2023
Coram- Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Aravind Kumar
26) Attempt to turn purely contractual dispute between parties into criminal case amounts to abuse of process of law
Finding that the complainant made an attempt to turn a purely contractual dispute between the parties into a criminal case, the Court dismissed the complaint filed before the Trial court under Sections 403, 406, 420 and 120B of the IPC.
The Court noticed that though an attempt was made at the time of the hearing to contend that it has only filed the complaint after it came to know about the fraud in the year 2009, there is no averment to that effect in the complaint.
Cause Title- Prakash Aggarwal v. Ganesh Benzoplast Limited and Anr.
Date of Judgment- April 28, 2023
Coram- Justice B.R Gavai and Justice Vikram Nath
27) Murder Case| SC overturns capital punishment, observes conduct of accused does not fall with ‘rarest of rare’ category
The Court recently overturned the decision of the High Court in awarding capital punishment to an accused for the offence of murdering his sister and another as the act of the accused did not fall under the rarest of the rare case.
After considering the medical evidence and finding that the accused-appellants have not acted in a brutal manner, inasmuch as there is only single injury inflicted on both the deceased, a three-judge Bench observed that "the present case cannot be considered as ‘rarest of rare’ case, so as to award death sentence".
Cause Title- Digambar vs. State of Maharashtra
Date of Judgment- April 28, 2023
Coram- Justice B.R Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Karol
28) [U.P. UPD Act] State cannot permit development authorities to levy charges other than those provided U/S. 15(2-A)
Noting that the intention of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 is to levy only those charges/fees provided/mentioned under Section 15(2-A) of the Act, 1973, the Court held that levy of other charges can be said to be hit by Article 265 of the Constitution of India.
After considering the submissions insofar as the levy of other charges by way of inspection fee/supervision fee while granting of sanction layout plan, sub-division charges, stacking charges and impact fee etc., except levy of development charges/fees, was concerned, the Court observed that as per Section 15(2-A) of the Act, 1973, the Development Authority can levy only those charges, namely, development fees, mutation charges, stacking fees and water fees.
Cause Title- Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority & Anr. v. Rajesh Sharma and Ors.
Date of Judgment- April 28, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R Shah and Justice J.B Pardiwala
29) SC quashes order granting pension benefits from state govt to employees appointed in Rajasthan dairy development corporation
The Court set aside the High Court’s Order declaring the employees appointed in Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federations entitled to receive pensionary benefits from the state government.
The Court noted that once the employees, earlier working with the state government, became an employee of the Dairy Development Corporation / Milk Federation Unions, they ceased to have the lien with the State Government, hence they shall not be entitled to the pensionary benefits as State Government employees.
Cause Title- State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Dr. Hamir Singh Chouhan (Dead) by LRs & Ors
Date of Judgment- April 28, 2023
Coram- Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar
30) Home secretary of state govt cannot order re-investigation of case by another agency at the instance of accused
The Court held that Home Secretary of the State Government cannot order further investigation or re-investigation of a case by another agency at the instance of the acused.
The Court made this observation in the case wherein the Secretary (Home) State of U.P had transferred investigation of a murder case to CBCID after the mother of the accused had moved an application in that regard.
Cause Title- Bohatie Devi (Dead) v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors
Date of Judgment- April 28, 2023
Coram- Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar
31) SC directs HC to reconsider plea of candidates who failed to qualify for the post of sub inspector allegedly due to incorrect questions
The Court remanded a matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration wherein few candidates claimed that they failed to achieve minimum qualifying marks in a competitive examination due to incorrect questions. The Court added that it will be open for the High Court to call for the expert’s opinion with respect to the questions of which the answers were alleged to be incorrect.
The Court noted that the petitioners applied for the post of Sub Inspector of Police. Their cases were not considered for further appointment as they were found ineligible, having failed to achieve the minimum qualifying marks. They submitted their objections with respect to nine questions and according to the petitioners answers with respect to nine questions were incorrect.
Cause Title- Sachit Kumar Singh & Ors. Etc. Etc. v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Etc. Etc
Date of Judgment- April 28, 2023
Coram- Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar
32) Probationers not entitled to appraisals from date of appointment automatically when requisite is subject to target achieved & approval
The Court while allowing the appeal in part quashed the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka which had directed an addition to the existing pay to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) from the date of their initial appointment automatically.
It was alleged by the original respondent-petitioner in the appeal, that since the appellant(s) were not appointed as of April 1 2003 and they were appointed subsequently in the year 2007 and, therefore, not entitled to the additional 2% without doing the hard work. Therefore, in the matter, the dispute was the addition of 2% while there was no dispute with respect to the 10% addition.
Cause Title- Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited & Ors. v. Sri. B. G. Manamohana Priyanka & Ors.
Date of Judgment- April 28, 2023
Coram- Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar
33) SC quashes forgery & cheating case registered against ex-cm Parkash Singh badal, son Sukhbir
The Court quashed cheating and forgery case registered against former chief minister of Punjab Parkash Singh Badal and his son Sukhbir, Chief of Shiromani Akali Dal. It was alleged in the complaint that Shiromani Akali Dal filed a false Constitution with Election Commission of India to gain recognition as a political party.
The main allegation in the complaint was that in the year 1989 and as per the Constitution prevailing at the relevant time, i.e., in the year 1989, Shiromani Akali Dal (Badal) was engaged in non-secularism but they contested and got seats in the elections to the SGPC, therefore, the Memorandum annexed with the application for registration under Section 29-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 was false.
Cause Title- Parkash Singh Badal v. Balwant Singh Khera and Ors.
Date of Judgment- April 28, 2023
Coram- Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar
34) Order 7 Rule 11| Cleverly drafted plaints creating illusionary cause of action, to be rejected by courts at earliest
While quashing the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which had rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court reiterated that there cannot be any dispute with respect to the proposition of law that while deciding the application under Order VII Rule XI, mainly the averments in the plaint only are required to be considered and not the averments in the written statement.
The Court added that however on considering the averments in the plaint as they are, the plaint is ought to have been rejected being vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by limitation and it is a clear case of clever drafting.
Cause Title- Ramisetty Venkatanna & Anr. v. Nasyam Jamal Saheb & Ors.
Date of Judgment- April 28, 2023
Coram- Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar
35) Reservation to residents is permissible but 75% of total seats is a wholesale: SC directs MP govt to fix seats again for B.Ed & M.Ed Courses
The Court directed the Madhya Pradesh Government to reconsider its reservation policy mandating 75% reservation for State residents for admission in Veena Vadini Samaj Kalyan Vikash Samiti, a training institute that trains teachers for B.Ed and M.Ed courses.
The Court further directed the authorities to fix the seats again for the next academic year since the academic session for the year 2022-23 has already commenced.
Cause Title- Veena Vadini Teachers Training Institute (Run By Veena Vadini Samaj Kalyan Vikash Samiti) v. State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Date of Judgment- April 28, 2023
Coram- Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
36) Expiry of leases by efflux of time or valid termination in past would not render such lessees as “encroachers”
The Court observed that the expiry of leases, or other arrangements, by efflux of time or their valid terminations, in the past, cannot be construed to mean that such lessees become “encroachers”.
The Court also observed that nor would past tenants whose possession is disputed, and eviction proceedings pending against them before a court, fit that description under Section 3(ee) of the Wakf Act, 1995.
Cause Title- P.V. Nidhish and Ors. v. Kerala State Waqf Board and Anr.
Date of Judgment- April 28, 2023
Coram- Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta
37) SC upholds requirement of pre-import condition to claim IGST & GST compensation cess on imports made under advance authorization
The Court upheld the requirement of pre-import condition to claim IGST and GST compensation cess on imports made under "advance authorization" (AA). In this case, appeals were directed against a judgment and order of the Gujarat High Court wherein mandatory fulfillment of a "pre-import condition" incorporated in the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) of 2015-2020 and Handbook of Procedures (HBP) 2015-2020, was set aside.
According to the High Court, such fulfillment in order to claim exemption of Integrated Goods and Services Tax and GST compensation cess on input imported into India for the production of goods to be exported from India on the strength of an advance authorization was arbitrary and unreasonable.
Cause Title- Union of India & Ors. v. Cosmo Films Limited
Date of Judgment- April 28, 2023
Coram- Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta
38) Perfectly valid piece of legislation, not ultra vires to any law" - SC upholds validity of HP general sales tax act provision
The Court held that Section 16-B of the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act is not ultra vires to any provision of the law thereby upholding the validity of the statute. In this case, the issues primarily revolved around Section 16-B of the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968. The Section provides for tax to be the first charge on property.
Referring to the decision in the case of Central Bank of India vs State of Kerala, the Court observed that section 16-B of the HPGST Act is a perfectly valid piece of legislation and is not ultra vires the Constitution and/or the Banking Companies Act as erroneously held in the decision of the High Court dated 2nd January, 2008.
Cause Title- State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. vs M/s AJ Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Date of Judgment- April 28, 2023
Coram- Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta
39) Non-Grant of seniority based on revised marks will render process of re-evaluation redundant
Observing that once marks are increased on re-evaluation, the respective candidates whose marks are increased will have to be placed at the appropriate place in the merit list, the Court held that "non-grant of seniority based on revised marks, would render the process of re-evaluation redundant".
The Court also held that having failed to challenge the earlier decision to have the re-evaluation of 13 candidates only and even having not applied for the re-evaluation at the relevant time though the exercise of re-evaluation was going on thereafter, it was not open for the Respondents to make a grievance subsequently that the re-evaluation of the marks of 13 candidates cannot be at their disadvantage.
Cause Title- Sunil and Ors. v. High Court of Delhi and Ors.
Date of Judgment- April 28, 2023
Coram- Justice MR Shah and Justice Sanjay Karol
40) Section 173(8) CrPC: Not necessary to review or recall order accepting closure report prior to carrying out further investigation
The Court held that "prior to carrying out a further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC, it is not necessary for the Magistrate to review or recall the order accepting the final report".
In this case, the High Court had quashed the full proceedings of the CBI against the accused on the ground that the CBI could not have undertaken further investigation Section 173(8) of the CrPC. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was right in taking the view that the Special Court could not have taken cognizance upon the chargesheet filed by the CBI based on further investigation, having once already filed a closure report in the past and the same having been accepted by the court concerned at the relevant point of time.
Cause Title- State Through Central Bureau Of Investigation v. Hemendhra Reddy & Anr. Etc.
Date of Judgment- April 28, 2023
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice JB Pardiwala
41) Action instituted u/s 31 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 for cancellation of an instrument is not an action in rem
The Court reiterated that an action instituted under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for cancellation of an instrument is not an action in rem. The Court relied upon its decision in the case of Deccan Paper Mills Company Limited v. Regency Mahavir Properties and Ors.
The Court noted that a three-judge bench in the case of Deccan Paper Mills Company Limited v. Regency Mahavir Properties and Ors had held that an action instituted under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for cancellation of an instrument is not an action in rem.
Cause Title- M/S. Asian Avenues Pvt Ltd. V. Syed Shoukat Hussain
Date of Judgment- April 28, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal
42) Promotion of transferred employee will not entitle them to benefit of higher scale applicable to employees normally promoted
Finding that the Appellants who were given the benefits have retired from service and recoveries were sought to be made from them though they were not at fault in the grant of those benefits at the time of promotion, the Court directed that no recovery of the amount already paid to them be effected.
In this case, Appellant was appointed as Assistant Grade II at the University of Calicut, where she was promoted to Assistant Grade-I. Thereafter, she was transferred to M.G. University, where she was promoted as Senior Grade Assistant and thereafter, to Selection Grade Assistant. Later, the Appellant applied for an inter-university transfer to Kerala University. As per the policy, the Appellant was placed as the junior most Assistant in the entry cadre of Assistant Grade-II. Even though her pay was fixed on the promotional post, the same was withdrawn based on an audit objection.
Cause Title- M Sasikala Devi v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Date of Judgment- April 28, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal
43) SC rejects additional demand by BUDA for allotment of plot in contravention to price negotiated under lease-cum-sale agreement
The Court reiterated that no additional price can be demanded for the allotment of the plot if no such clause exists in the allotment letter or the lease-cum-sale agreement signed between the parties. The Court while holding so dismissed the appeal filed by the Belgaum Urban Development Authority (BUDA).
Noticing that even though sale consideration as such has not been mentioned in the lease-cum-sale agreement, however, the price as negotiated between the parties is clearly mentioned in the letter of allotment, the Court observed that "the price as negotiated between the parties has to be read as part of the lease-cum-sale agreement".
Cause Title- The Belgaum Urban Development Authority vs. Dhruva & Anr.
Date of Judgment- April 28, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal
44) SETCOM ought to decide in respect of undisclosed income only after following due procedure U/S. 245 of IT Act
The Court recently set aside the order passed by High Court and remitted the matter to the Settlement Commission (SETCOM) for a fresh decision in accordance with law and on its own merits and after following due procedure as required under Section 245 of Income tax Act, 1961.
In this case, a search was conducted on the business premises as well as the residence of the partners and notices were issued to all the taxpayers. Pursuant to filing of returns, an application uwas filed by the assessee before the SETCOM. The High Court directed the SETCOM to dispose of the application under Section 245D. Accordingly, SETCOM disposed of the proceedings and settled the undisclosed income at Rs. 59,00,000/-. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued the show cause notice for re-assessment on various transactions which are detected but were not disclosed by the appellants before the SETCOM. However, when the said show cause notice was subject-matter of writ before the High Court, the AO passed assessment order. When this was challenged before the High Court by way of an amendment, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title- Jagdish Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
Date of Judgment- April 28, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R Shah and Justice C.T Ravikumar
45) Services rendered as work charged cannot be counted for purpose of pension
The Court recently held that denying pension after rendering service as work charged for a number of years on the ground that they have not completed the qualifying service can be said to be unfair and illegal. The Court reiterated that there is always a difference and distinction between a regular employee appointed on a substantive post and a work charged employee working under work charged establishment.
In a nutshell, the High Court while upholding Rule 5(v) of the Work Charged Establishment Revised Service Conditions (Repealing) Rules, 2013, had held that the period spent in the work charged establishment would be counted only to the extent of the shortfall in the qualifying period of service for grant of pension, which shall be made up by adding that period spent under the work charged establishment and that the entire period spent under the work charged establishment would not be considered.
Cause Title- Uday Pratap Thakur and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Date of Judgment- April 28, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R Shah and Justice C.T Ravikumar
46) HC failed to consider conditions stipulated in Sale Agreement- SC sets aside order granting relief for specific performance of sale agreement
After perusing the sale agreement which specifically stated that in case of failure on the part of the seller to execute the sale deed within the stipulated time the buyer shall be entitled to double the amount given as an advance, the Court quashed the order passed by the High Court granting relief for specific performance of the sale agreement.
The Court also noted that while allowing the second appeal and overturning the judgments and orders passed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, the High Court did not frame the substantial question of law, which is required to be framed under Section 100 of the CPC.
Cause Title- T.D. Vivek Kumar & Anr. Vs. Ranbir Chaudhary
Date of Judgment- April 28, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R Shah and Justice C.T Ravikumar
