Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: Dec 12 – Dec 16, 2022
1) Accused's plea on applicability of Section 300(1) CrPC has to be considered at the stage of discharge U/s. 227 CrPC: The Court observed that the accused's plea on the applicability of Section 330(1) CrPC has to be considered at the stage of discharge under Section 227 CrPC.
The Bench held that the High Court did not consider the aforesaid aspect and therefore, remitted the matter back to the Trial Court to consider the plea of the accused on the applicability of Section 300(1) CrPC at the stage of discharge which is a stage prior to the framing of charge under Section 228 CrPC.
Cause Title – Chandi Puliya v. The State of West Bengal
Date of Judgment – December 12, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice CT Ravikumar
2) Unsuccessful candidates do not have vested right to insist upon their consideration in absence of any such rule: The Court held that in absence of any rule requiring to prepare a waiting list of candidates going through the selection process, the unsuccessful candidate had no vested right to insist upon their consideration.
The Bench observed that under the Uttar Pradesh Direct Recruitment 2015 Rules the merit list has to be sent by the Commission to the appointing authority and that in case of non-joining, the vacancies were to be carried forward to the next process of selection.
Cause Title – The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Karunesh Kumar & Ors.
Date of Judgment – December 12, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice MM Sundresh
3) Employee can't be denied back wages merely because there was a stay on reinstatement order which ultimately came to be confirmed: The Court observed that merely because there was an interim order/stay of the order of reinstatement, the employee cannot be denied back wages/wages when ultimately the reinstatement order came to be confirmed.
In this case, the appellant was working with the respondent – bank. In the departmental proceedings, he was dismissed from service. The order of dismissal was challenged by the appellant.
Cause Title – D.N. Krishnappa v. The Deputy General Manager
Date of Judgment – December 12, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice CT Ravikumar
4) Land acquisition proceedings shall not lapse if award not made as on commencement of LA Act 2013- SC reiterates: The Court has reiterated that 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.
The Bench held that the view taken by the High Court is unsustainable and placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors.
Cause Title – Lucknow Development Authority v. Mehdi Hasan (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. & Ors.
Date of Judgment – December 12, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice MM Sundresh
5) S. 18(2) LA Act- Cannot dismiss reference applications as barred by limitation if liberty reserved by HC: The Court held in view of the liberty reserved by the High Court in favor of the Appellants to pursue remedy as may be available to them for enhancement of compensation, the reference application could not have been dismissed as barred by limitation under Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
In this case, the Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Reference Court, which had rejected the reference under Section 18 of the Act as barred by limitation.
Cause Title – Manharlal Shivlal Panchal & Others v. The Deputy Collector & Special Land Acquisition Officer & Others
Date of Judgment – December 12, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice CT Ravikumar
6) Section 313 CrPC- Accused must be explained circumstances appearing as evidence against him so that he can offer explanation: The Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court wherein the accused were convicted of the murder of the deceased on the ground that the charges framed against the accused were not only misleading but also no opportunity was given to the accused to explain the circumstances in which the deceased was allegedly killed.
The Court observed that questioning an accused under Section 313 CrPC is not an empty formality and thus held -
"The requirement of Section 313 CrPC is that the accused must be explained the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him so that accused can offer an explanation. After an accused is questioned under Section 313 CrPC, he is entitled to take a call on the question of examining defence witnesses and leading other evidence."
Cause Title – Kalicharan & Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
Date of Judgment – December 14, 2022
Coram – Justice SK Kaul & Justice Abhay S. Oka
7) Indian Contract Act- Onus to prove pre-estimated amount was penal in nature squarely lies on party seeking refund: The Court while allowing an appeal filed against the judgment passed by the Punjab High Court held that if the contractual terms clearly provide the factum of the pre-estimated amount being in nature of 'earnest money', the onus to prove that the same was penal in nature squarely lies upon the party seeking a refund.
The Bench was dealing with a matter in which the appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed and the decree entitled the respondent for the recovery of the earnest money which constituted of partly paid sale consideration in lieu of the concerned agreements to sale along with requisite interest.
Cause Title – Desh Raj & Ors. v. Rohtash Singh
Date of Judgment – December 14, 2022
Coram – Justice Surya Kant & Justice Bela M. Trivedi
8) Dispute between promotees, direct appointees over inter-se seniority- SC refers matter to Constitution Bench: The Court while adjudicating upon a dispute between direct recruits and promotees over inter se seniority for the post of Inspector in Gujarat's Income Tax Department has referred the matter to the Constitution Bench for final disposal.
The Court held that the seniority fixed based on the decision in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. N.R. Parmar & Ors 2012 (13) SCC 340 has to be given effect as the decision in the case of K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. v. Ningam Siro & Ors. 2020 (5) SCC 689 is applied prospectively and the inter se-seniority so fixed would be protected.
Cause Title – Hariharan & Ors. v. Harsh Vardhan Singh Rao & Ors.
Date of Judgment – December 14, 2022
Coram – Justice S. Abdul Nazeer & Justice Abhay S. Oka
9) Clear case of deficiency of service & non-bonafide conduct- SC while allowing appeal against Max Life Insurance Corp.: The Court while allowing an appeal filed by the appellants against Max Life Insurance Corporation i.e., respondent no. 2 and Axis Banks Ltd. has held that it is a clear case of deficiency of service and non-bonafide conduct by Max Life.
The Bench further stated that the impugned judgment passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (National Commission) is unsustainable and hence, set aside the same.
Cause Title – Gokal Chand (D) Thr. LRS. v. Axis Bank Ltd. & Anr.
Date of Judgment – December 15, 2022
Coram – Justice KM Joseph & Justice Hrishikesh Roy
10) When liability can be estimated with certainty it should be considered as liability which may be discharged in future & not a contingent one: The Court observed that when liability can be estimated with certainty, it should not be treated as a contingent one and should be considered as a liability which can be discharged in future.
The Bench observed that, ""When the liability is capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty, the liability is not to be treated as a contingent one and should be considered as a liability which may be discharged at a future date."
Cause Title – Wave Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Date of Judgment – December 15, 2022
Coram – Justice KM Joseph & Justice Hrishikesh Roy
11) No legal bar to base conviction upon hostile witness testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence: The Court observed that there is no legal bar to raise a conviction upon a "hostile witness" testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence.
The Court noted that the fact that a witness has been declared "hostile" does not result in an automatic rejection of his evidence.
The Constitution Bench was dealing with the question- Whether, in the absence of direct evidence of demand of bribe, is it not permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Prevention of Corruption Act based on other evidence.
Cause Title – Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Date of Judgment – December 15, 2022
Coram – Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice B. R. Gavai, A. S. Bopanna, Justice V. Ramasubramanian & Justice B. V. Nagarathna
12) Service Jurisprudence: candidate applying for a post cannot be made to suffer for no fault of his- SC reiterates: The Court reiterated that a candidate applying for a post cannot be punished or made to suffer for no lapse on his part or for no fault of his.
The Bench observed that the delay in producing U.P. Council registration either at the time of submitting the applications forms or even at the time of verification of the documents could not be attributed to the appellants as there was no fault on the part of the appellants. "Therefore, for no fault(s) of theirs, the appellants could not have been made to suffer." held the Apex Court.
Cause Title – Kumari Laxmi Saroj & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Date of Judgment – December 15, 2022
Coram – Justice M.R. Shah & Justice Hima Kohli
13) Cannot claim same compensation as was awarded for lands acquired after 5 years- SC reduces compensation: The Court modified the compensation awarded to the original claimants by the Allahabad High Court and reiterated that the claimants were not entitled to the same compensation as was awarded for the lands acquired after 5 years, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The Bench observed, "the claimants shall not be entitled to the same compensation as awarded with respect to the lands acquired after 5 years from the date of acquisition in the present case."
Cause Title – New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Omvir Singh
Date of Judgment – December 15, 2022
Coram – Justice M.R. Shah & Justice Hima Kohli
14) GUJCOCA- Apart from 'continuing unlawful activity', offence of 'organised crime' is constituted by at least one instance of continuation: The Court in an appeal filed by the State of Gujarat against the order passed by the Gujarat High Court held that the offence of the 'organised crime' is constituted by at least one instance of continuation apart from the 'continuing unlawful activity' under the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015.
The Bench was dealing with a criminal matter in which the High Court had ordered the release of the respondent (accused) on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(i) and (ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015.
Cause Title – The State of Gujarat v. Sandip Omprakash Gupta
Date of Judgment – December 15, 2022
Coram – Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice J.B. Pardiwala
15) Second Dying Declaration Only Piece Of Evidence Naming Deceased's Husband: SC While Acquitting Man In A Cruelty Case: The Court while dealing with an appeal filed by the appellant i.e., the husband of the deceased being aggrieved by his conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the sentence imposed upon him acquitted him on the fact that the second dying declaration is the only piece of evidence which names the appellant as one of the perpetrators of cruelty on the deceased along with the other accused.
The Court further noted that it is necessary to consider the evidentiary value of the dying declaration which was relied on by the prosecution to convict the appellant.
Cause Title – Rajaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Date of Judgment – December 16, 2022
Coram – Justice S. Ravindra Bhat & Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
16) Unexplained inordinate delay can be considered as crucial factor for quashing criminal complaint: The Court observed that unexplained inordinate delay can be considered a very crucial factor as grounds for quashing a criminal complaint.
In this case, in the year 2013, a Drug Inspector (respondent) inspected the premises of the appellant and alleged contravention of S.18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 read with Rule 65(5)(1)(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945. A show cause notice was issued after nearly three years and a complaint was filed in 2016, four years after the initiation of inquiry against the appellant.
The appellant then approached the Madras High Court and sought for quashing of the complaint under Section 482 CrPC.
Cause Title – Hasmukhlal D. Vora & Anr. v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Date of Judgment – December 16, 2022
Coram – Justice Krishna Murari & Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
17) Supreme Court enhances compensation in motor accident case to ₹ 25.20 lakhs in which a farmer lost his life: The Court enhanced the compensation in a motor accident case to Rs. 25, 20, 000 in which a farmer lost his life.
The Court while allowing an appeal filed by the wife of the deceased held that the appellants were entitled to an enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 25,20,000/- towards loss of dependency and the three appellants being the children and mother of the deceased, are entitled to ₹40,000/- each towards filial and parental consortium.
Cause Title – Harpreet Kaur & Ors. V. Mohinder Yadav & Ors.
Date of Judgment – December 15, 2022
Coram – Justice Krishna Murari & Justice S. Ravindra Bhatt
18) Land acquisition proceedings shall not lapse if award not made as on commencement of LA Act 2013- SC reiterates: The Court disposed of three separate matters related to land acquisition involving the same issue.
The Court reiterated that 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.
Date of Judgment – December 15, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
