Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: Feb 20 – Feb 24, 2023
1) Classification made by HC between pushtaini & gair-pushtaini landowners is violative of article 14- SC in case against Noida
In this case, writ petitions were filed by certain landowners whose land was acquired by NOIDA. The Allahabad High Court had passed orders in favor of NOIDA. The Supreme Court held that the classification made between Pushtaini and Gair-Pushtaini land-holders by the Allahabad High Court is violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
Holding that the impugned classification was liable to be struck down as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, the Court observed that the classification made by Greater Noida has been based on the object of giving fair compensation, however, such a laudable object of the classification would stand breached by the effects of such a classification, creating a dissonance between the object and its effect.
Cause Title- Ramesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Date of Judgment- February 20, 2023
Coram- Justice Krishna Murari and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
2) DNA Test| Children have right to not to have their legitimacy questioned frivolously as it is attribute of right to privacy
The Court observed that the DNA tests of children born during a valid marriage may be directed only when there is sufficient prima-facie material to dislodge the presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act.
In this case, the respondent-husband had filed a petition for divorce and a petition seeking custody of two children against the appellant-wife. The respondent contended that the appellant was in an adulterous relationship, and he filed an application seeking a direction that the second child is subject to DNA testing in order to ascertain his paternity. The Family Court passed an order in favor of the respondent by allowing DNA testing. The High Court affirmed the order.
Cause Title- Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia
Date of Judgment- February 20, 2023
Coram- Justice V Ramasubramanian and Justice BV Nagarathna
3) If power of attorney contains specific clause permitting sub-delegation then holder can sub-delegate his powers
The Court held that the law is settled that though the general power of attorney holder cannot delegate his powers to another person but the same can be delegated when there is a specific clause permitting sub-delegation.
In this case, general power of attorney was executed on behalf of the company in favour of one of its directors, who further authorised another person to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on behalf of the company.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed the complaint under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code as the same was not maintainable on the ground that the complaint was not filed by the person authorised, as he had no power to sub-delegate.
Cause Title- Mita India Pvt. Ltd. v. Mahendra Jain
Date of Judgment- February 20, 2023
Coram- Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal
4) Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code| Nominal transaction for benefit of non-tribal wouldn't fall exclusively within jurisdiction of authorities
The Court in an appeal held that as per Section 257 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, a nominal transaction for the benefit of a non-tribal may not fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities. The Court refused to interfere with the concurrent judgment and decrees of the three Courts below.
In this case, the respondent filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of a land purchased by him under a deed of sale. He purchased the said land from one seller and that seller belonged to the Scheduled Tribe. Though the respondent himself belonged to a Scheduled Tribe, the appellants contended that the purchase was on behalf of his master who was not a Tribal and that the purchase was actually a benami transaction for the benefit of a non-tribal.
Cause Title- Khora (Dead) Through Legal Heirs & Ors. v. Mohar Sai & Ors.
Date of Judgment- February 20, 2023
Coram- Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal
5) Compassionate appointment under national coal wage agreement: SC 'requests' HC to dispose of matter as expeditiously as possible
The Court while dealing with two appeals in a matter related to compassionate appointment under the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) requested the Chhattisgarh High Court to dispose of the writ appeals on its own merits as expeditiously as possible.
The Court said that the stay is operating in the two appeals since January 30, 2017, and May 8, 2017, respectively, and hence the appeals must be decided on merits.
Cause Title- South Eastern Coalfield Ltd. & Others v. Gulshan Prakash & Ors.
Date of Judgment- February 20, 2023
Coram- Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
6) Execution Courts must be conscious that they cannot draw a new decree- SC while setting aside order of execution court
The Court cautioned that the Execution Courts must be very cautious in supplementing their interpretation and conscious of the fact that they cannot draw a new decree. It has further reiterated that the Executing Court must take the decree as it stands.
In this case, the Appellants (Agrawal) and Respondents (Kotharis) entered a joint venture agreement as equal shareholders. Thereafter, the Respondents bid for the entire 50% shareholding of the Appellants, which was accepted. However, the Respondents included the loan amount in the consideration amount, which was unacceptable to the Appellants.
The Kotharis filed a Commercial Suit for the declaration that the agreement was binding on the Agrawal. This was followed by a Notice of Motion seeking a decree on admission, which was awarded. The Execution Court held that the decree was ambiguous, as the Agarwals had neither filed any reply to the Notice of Motion, nor any written statement.
Cause Title- Sanwarlal Agrawal & Ors. v. Ashok Kumar Kothari & Ors.
Date of Judgment- February 21, 2023
Coram- Justice Krishna Murari and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
7) Minority schools won't be eligible to receive grant for expenditure towards teachers retained beyond retirement age
The Court held that under the Grant-in-Aid Code, any school receiving grants from the Government would not be eligible to receive said grants towards the expenditure of those teachers that are employed beyond the age-bar stipulated by the Code.
The Court observed that any registered minority Secondary School receiving Grant-in-Aid from the State-Government, then such school would not be entitled to receive any grant in respect of the expenditure incurred for continuing such employee or teacher beyond the age of 58 or 60 years, as the case may be.
Cause Title- State of Gujarat & Ors. v. HB Kapadia Education Trust & Anr.
Date of Judgment- February 21, 2023
Coram- Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Bela M Trivedi
8) Apex Court’s power transferring criminal cases u/s. 406 CRPC remains intact incase of cheque bounce offences for ends of justice
The Court held that its power to transfer criminal cases under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure remains intact in relation to the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 if it is found expedient for the ends of justice.
In this case, the Court was dealing with the two transfer petitions filed under Section 406 of CrPC by the petitioners seeking transfer of the cases pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur to the South West District Courts, Dwarka, New Delhi.
Cause Title- Yogesh Upadhyay and Anr. v. Atlanta Limited
Date of Judgment- February 21, 2023
Coram- Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Kumar
9) More than a prima facie case is necessary to summon additional accused under CrPC- SC observes on power of summoning
The Court held that the power of summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised routinely, and the existence of more than a prima facie case is necessary to summon an additional accused.
In this case, the Appellants appeared before the Supreme Court as they were discontent with the High Court's decision to summon the Appellants as additional accused in a trial.
Cause Title- Juhru & Ors. v. Karim & Anr.
Date of Judgment- February 21, 2023
Coram- Justice Surya Kant and Justice JK Maheshwari
10) Courts will not interfere in cases of different pay scale for similar posts if a reasonable classification is made
The Court held that Pay Commissions may be justified in recommending different pay scales for similar posts. Further, the Court also held if the State accepts such differentiation based on a reasonable classification, then the Court will not interfere.
The Court also noted that the equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the Executive and not of the Judiciary. The Courts therefore should not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions which undertake rigorous exercise for job evaluation after taking into consideration several factors.
Cause Title- Union of India v. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association and Anr.
Date of Judgment- February 22, 2023
Coram- Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M Trivedi
11) Prosecution's entire case cannot be discarded simply because of one witness's inconsistency- SC holds mother guilty of murdering child
The Court held that the entire prosecution case cannot be disbelieved and discarded simply because one Police Witness did not project the case in a consistent manner.
In this case, an appeal was preferred against an order which held the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, awarding her the punishment of imprisonment for life. The appellant had been convicted of the murder of her five-year-old child in her mother-in-law's house.
Cause Title- Vahitha v. State of Tamil Nadu
Date of Judgment- February 22, 2023
Coram- Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Bela M Trivedi
12) SC dismisses plea of judicial officers who were not considered by AP HC collegium for appointment as judges
The Court dismissed the petition filed by Andhra Pradesh judicial officers who were not considered for the appointment of judges in the High Court by the Andhra Pradesh High Court collegium.
The petitioners alleged that their services as presiding officers of Fast Track Courts were not considered by the High Court collegium while making recommendations for the judgeship.
Cause Title- C. Yamini & Others v. The High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Amravathi & Anr.
Date of Judgment- February 23, 2023
Coram- Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
13) Violation of principles of natural justice: SC allows appeal of Odisha lokayukta for conducting preliminary inquiry against MLA
The Court allowed the appeal filed by the Office of the Odisha Lokayukta against the judgment passed by the Orissa High Court on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
The appellant had challenged the decision of the High Court wherein it set aside the order passed by the Odisha Lokayukta to conduct a preliminary inquiry against an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly in the exercise of power under Section 20(1) of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014.
Cause Title- Office of the Odisha Lokayukta v. Dr. Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi and Others
Date of Judgment- February 23, 2023
Coram- Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
14) Suit was barred by limitation: SC restores trial court order dismissing man's plea for compensation in la proceedings
The Court allowed the appeals filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh under the Articles 58 and 72 of the Limitation Act. The State had challenged the judgment passed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court wherein it allowed the appeal of the respondent and quashed and set aside the judgment of the Trial Court.
The Court asserted that when the Trial Court held that the suit was barred by limitation considering Articles 58 and 72 of the Limitation Act and when the same was confirmed by the First Appellate Court, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the said findings of facts in the exercise of powers under Section 100 of the CPC.
Cause Title- State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. Chandervir Singh Negi
Date of Judgment- February 24, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
15) Land Acquisition- SC orders grant of compensation to original owners of land used by state for road construction
The Court in an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh ordered compensation to the original owners of the land as per market price which was used by the State for the purpose of construction of a road. The State had challenged the judgment passed by the High Court by which it refused to condone the delay in preferring the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) against the order of the Single Judge.
The Court while considering the fact that there was a huge delay of 20 years in filing the writ petition before the High Court directed that the original writ petitioners shall be entitled to all the statutory benefits but shall not be entitled to any interest under the from 1996 to the date of filing of the writ petition.
Cause Title- State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. Rajiv and Anr.
Date of Judgment- February 24, 2023
Coram- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
16) SC affirms Madras HC's decision setting aside cancellation of E Palaniswami as interim general secretary of AIADMK
The upheld an order passed by the Madras High Court which set aside the cancellation of the election of Edappadi K Palaniswami as interim General Secretary of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK).
In this case, the batch of petitions before the Court included an appeal by the O Panneerselvam camp against a Judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court upholding the resolution passed at the general council meeting, by which he was expelled and Palaniswami was appointed as the interim General Secretary.
Cause Title- Thiru K Palaniswamy v. M Shanmugam & Ors.
Date of Judgment- February 23, 2023
Coram- Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Hrishikesh Roy
17) Scope of review under order 47 rule 1 of CPC is limited, questions decided cannot be permitted to be reargued
The Court reiterated that exercise of power of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 Of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) is limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner could not be permitted to re-agitate and reargue questions which had already been addressed and decided by the Court earlier.
The issue before the Apex Court was whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court was justified in allowing the review application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and setting aside the reasoned judgment and order passed in main writ petition.
The Apex Court noted that while the impugned judgment in review was passed, the High Court had considered the Survey Report which was already dealt with by the High Court while deciding the main writ petition.
Cause Title- S. Murali Sundaram v. Jothibai Kannan & Ors.
Date of Judgment- February 24, 2023
Coram- Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar
18) Specific Relief Act- Court cannot routinely allow time extension for making payment of balance amount of consideration
The Court observed that a Court cannot as a matter of course, allow extension of time under Specific relief Act for making payment of balance amount of consideration in terms of a decree.
The Court observed that discretionary power under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act (SRA) was to be exercised judiciously as it aimed to provide complete relief to both the parties in terms of a decree of specific performance and the Court had to pass an order as the justice may require.
Cause Title- P. Shyamala v. Gundlur Masthan
Date of Judgment- February 24, 2023
Coram- Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar
19) Constitutional Courts can order further investigation or re-investigation even after charges are framed: SC directs further investigation against Jitendra Awhad
The Court directed further investigation against the former Minister of Maharashtra Jitendra Awhad in a case where four policemen beat a man for criticizing the Minister’s act of ridiculing the Prime Minister.
The Court said that the victim has a fundamental right to a fair trial and investigation in this matter. The allegation against the former Minister and NCP leader was that he caused police to bring a man who authored a critical Facebook post to his Bungalow and instructed his men to beat him and make him apologise.
Cause Title- Anant Thanur Karmuse v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Date of Judgment- February 24, 2023
Coram- Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar
20) PMLA- Provisions of Section 45 shall be applicable to anticipatory bail proceedings
The Court observed that the provisions of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 shall be applicable with respect to the anticipatory bail applications/proceedings under Section 438 Cr.PC.
In this case apprehending his arrest, the respondent had preferred the Anticipatory Bail, which was granted by the Telangana High Court. Against the order of the High Court, ED had preferred the appeal before the Apex Court.
Cause Title- The Directorate of Enforcement v. M. Gopal Reddy & Anr.
Date of Judgment- February 24, 2023
Coram- Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar
21) Reducing cut-off marks for employment to particular category when others already acquired some rights violates Article 14
The Court in an appeal relating to Reservation for the post of Supervisor Instructor Class III held that reducing the cut-off marks only for the purpose of providing employment to a particular category when the others have already acquired some right is an affront to Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Court was hearing a matter in which the decision of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court giving its imprimatur to the decision of the Departmental Selection Committee in reducing the qualifying marks for the post of Supervisor Instructor Class III, after the publication of the result to facilitate the inclusion of candidates constituting horizontal reservation was challenged.
Cause Title- Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Date of Judgment- February 20, 2023
Coram- Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice M.M. Sundresh
22) Land Acquisition| Public interest is paramount, lands should not be released in favour of influential people
The Court dismissed an appeal preferred by the State of Haryana and observed that the State Government is guardian of the public interest and the public and the public interest was required to be considered the paramount interest rather than releasing the lands at initial stage in favour of the influential persons. The State shall take care in future and must use the lands acquired for the purpose for which the same have been acquired otherwise the object and purpose of acquiring the land will be frustrated.
In this case, the State of Haryana approached the Supreme Court as they were aggrieved by an order passed by the High Court, through which the State was directed to release certain acquired land(s) from acquisition.
Cause Title- State of Haryana & Ors. v. Niranjan Singh & Ors. Etc.
Date of Judgment- February 24, 2023
Coram- Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar
23) Communicating annual confidential report without providing sufficient time to challenge it amounts to non-communication of report
The Court set aside the proceedings of a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) of the Manipur High Court while holding that communicating the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) without providing sufficient time to an employee for challenging the assessment of their performance would be treated as non-communication of the evaluation report.
In this case, the petitioner preferred a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, praying for an order to set aside the DPC communication denying her promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar and directing the respondents to hold the procedure afresh.
Cause Title- R.K. Jibanlata Devi v. High Court of Manipur through its Registrar General & Ors.
Date of Judgment- February 24, 2023
Coram-Justice MR Shah and Justice CT Ravikumar
24) Incase reversal of acquittal is sought, prosecution is required to annul & discharge fortified presumption of innocence
The Court in a murder case observed that in case the reversal of acquittal is sought, the Prosecution is required to discharge a more onerous responsibility to annul and reverse the fortified presumption of innocence.
The Court upheld the acquittal of the persons who were alleged to have attacked and killed a man on the ground that the additional layer of protection is granted to an accused if he already enjoys an acquittal. The Court was dealing with an appeal preferred against the judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein the respondents were acquitted of the charges framed against them.
Cause Title- Roopwanti v. State of Haryana and Ors.
Date of Judgment- February 24, 2023
Coram-Justice Krishna Murari and Justice BV Nagarathna
