Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: July 24 – July 28, 2023
1) Voter’s right to know about full background of candidate is added dimension to rich tapestry of constitutional jurisprudence
The Court in an appeal held that the voter’s right to know about the full background of a candidate is an added dimension to the rich tapestry of our constitutional jurisprudence.
An appeal by special leave was filed challenging the judgment of the Telangana High Court whereby it dismissed the application seeking rejection of the respondent’s election petition. The appellant contended that the election petition did not disclose any cause of action and was barred in law and hence liable to be rejected.
Cause Title- Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao & Ors.
Date of Judgment- July 24, 2023
Coram- Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar
2) Not necessary for courts to assign elaborate reasons or engage in roving inquiry over prosecution's case while granting bail: SC reiterates
The Court reiterated that it is not necessary for Courts to assign elaborate reasons or engage in a roving inquiry regarding the Prosecution's case while granting bail.
In this case, the Appellant was the brother of one of the deceased and an informant who lodged an FIR against the Respondents/Accused Individuals under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 3 read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (AA)
Cause Title- Rohit Bishnoi v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Date of Judgment- July 24, 2023
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
3) Cantonments Act| Bar u/s. 250 would apply regarding any order or notice unless an appeal u/s. 340 is preferred
The Court disposed of an Appeal, challenging the impugned order of the High Court, seeking directions against the Delhi Cantonment Board (DCB) to de-seal the subject property. The Court held that the bar under Section 250 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 (the Act) would only apply if the Appellant had received a notice or order from the DCB unless an appeal is preferred under Section 340 of the Act and the same would have to be disposed of under Section 343 (3) of the Act.
The Appellant had filed a civil suit against the respondent in 2018. The Appellant then filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the jurisdiction of the DCB to sanction building plans. The Apex Court dismissed the writ petition but directed the DCB to consider the Appellant's application for a building plan. The Appellant again filed an Appeal before the Court, contending that the civil suit should be dismissed because the Apex Court's order in the writ petition has rendered the civil suit moot.
Cause Title- Ram Kishan Thr. Legal Representatives & Anr. v. Manish Kumar & Anr.
Date of Judgment- July 24, 2023
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar
4) Restraint in interfering with questions of fact in second appeal u/s. 100 CPC is not an absolute rule
The Court dismissed a Civil Appeal challenging the impugned judgement of the High Court. The Court held that an appeal under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code (CPC) is maintainable only in two circumstances: when the case involves a substantial question of law or when the appellate decree has been passed ex parte. The Court noted that ordinarily in a second appeal the court should not disturb facts established by the first appellate court but that such a rule is not absolute.
The case was regarding a property dispute between two brothers, Gurbachan Singh (Appellant) and Gurcharan Singh (Respondent), who inherited a piece of land from their father, Suchet Singh, who died intestate in 1942. The Respondent bought a piece of land from Faqir Singh, who claimed to have an exclusive title and possession over the land. The Appellant forcibly took the land from the Respondent, claiming that Faqir Singh did not have any exclusive title or possession over the land. The Respondent filed a suit for possession of the disputed property, which the Court dismissed. The High Court also upheld the judgement.
Cause Title- Gurbachan Singh (Dead Thr Lrs) v. Gurcharan Singh (Dead Thr Lrs) And Ors.
Date of Judgment- July 24, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol
5) SC directs New India Assurance Co. to reimburse medical expenses incurred by insured in 2014 road accident in Nepal
The Court in a road accident case of 2014 that took place in Nepal has directed the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. to reimburse the medical expenditure incurred by the insured for the treatment of the injured husband and deceased wife.
The Court allowed an Appeal challenging the impugned order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), whereby the plea for reimbursement of medical expenses was rejected. The Respondent insured the Appellant's vehicle, which was initially covered in India and later in Nepal. The vehicle met with an accident and the Appellant claimed to have paid various amounts, including medical expenses and compensation, to the affected parties.
Cause Title- Hem Raj v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Date of Judgment- July 25, 2023
Coram- Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
6) Direction to return passports of wife and son as condition for release of man’s passport is completely illegal
The Court held that the direction to return the passports of wife and son as a condition for the release of a man’s passport is completely illegal.
In this case, the dispute involved in the appeals concerned the return of the passport of the appellant but the same was an outcome of a matrimonial dispute between the appellant and the 4th respondent i.e., his wife. The appellant was an accused of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 403, and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and during the course of the investigation, the Police issued a notice under Section 91 of the Cr.PC. calling upon him to produce his passport.
Cause Title- Chennupati Kranthi Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Date of Judgment- July 25, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal
7) Bombay Model Standing Order: Workman who has worked for 240 days in establishment is entitled to be made permanent
The Court in an appeal preferred by Bhartiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh against Jet Airways Ltd. observed that as per the Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959 i.e., Bombay Model Standing Order, a workman who has worked for 240 days in an establishment would be entitled to be made permanent.
An appeal arose out of the judgment of the Bombay High Court wherein it confirmed the award passed by the CGIT rejecting the demand of the appellant-Union for reinstatement with full back wages. The respondent company was involved in a commercial airline, flying aircraft for transporting passengers and cargo and the appellant represented around 169 workmen temporarily engaged on a fixed-term contract by the respondent in various cadres like loader-cum-cleaners, drivers, and operators.
Cause Title- Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh v. M/s. Jet Airways Ltd.
Date of Judgment- July 25, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol
8) Article 136: Appeal against order of NCDRC is maintainable only if powers are exercised u/s. 21(a)(i) of Consumer Protection Act
The Court while dealing with an SLP (Special Leave Petition) observed that an appeal against the order of NCDRC (National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) is maintainable only if the order passed by it is in the exercise of its powers under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The petition seeking leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution was at the instance of M/s Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited (petitioner), against the decision of NCDRC by which it dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner thereby affirming the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) of Delhi, holding that the respondent no. 1 /complainant was entitled to receive the claim amount and appropriate compensation from the petitioner and its joint venture partner viz. Allahabad Bank (respondent No. 2) for the goods stolen from the premises in question
Cause Title- M/s. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Jain & Anr.
Date of Judgment- July 26, 2023
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
9) Non-family shareholdings in property cannot be bound by the terms of MoU since they are not parties to document
The Court observed that non-family shareholdings, in any event, cannot be bound by the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) since they are not parties to the document.
In this case, the Appellant and the first Respondent were brothers who conducted business together under the name Sachdeva & Sons. They purchased properties in the name of the Appellant and his deceased father which were later transferred to the business, and an MoU was signed to sell joint properties to pay off debts. The Appellant moved an application under Section 8 of the 1996 Act that the Trial Court dismissed but was later referred to arbitration by the High Court.
Cause Title- Vinod Kumar Sachdeva (Dead) Thr Lrs v. Ashok Kumar Sachdeva & Ors
Date of Judgment- July 25, 2023
Coram- Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
10) "He didn’t run away": SC holds Army man guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder for killing his friend
The Court held an Indian Army man guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC) who was convicted for killing his colleague by firing one bullet via rifle under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
In 2004, the appellant and deceased were posted for duty and were part of the guard headed by the Guard Commander. It was alleged that at night, the deceased brought a bottle of country liquor and both consumed the same. Thereafter, there was an altercation between them on the issue of inter-se seniority which led to heated arguments as a result of which the appellant snatched a rifle from the deceased’s hands and fired one bullet at him.
Cause Title- No.15138812Y L/Nk Gursewak Singh v. Union of India & Anr.
Date of Judgment- July 27, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol
11) HC cannot suspend licence of a registered medical practitioner for misconduct as it falls with National Medical Commission
The Court while setting aside the orders of the Division Bench and the Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court revived the license of a registered medical practitioner which was suspended by the High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
The Bench was of the opinion that such a punishment could not have been handed down under the Act as it falls exclusively under the jurisdiction of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, and therefore is unsustainable.
Cause Title- Gostho Behari Das v. Dipak Kumar Sanyal & Ors.
Date of Judgment- July 28, 2023
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sanjay Karol
12) Merit of evidence has to be appreciated by trial court and not by High Court in revision under Section 319 CrPC
The Court set aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had allowed the revision petition of an accused declaring him innocent as during the investigation it could not be established that he used the gun during the commission of the offence, and had actually fled from the spot.
In this case, the appellant before the Court was the informant in the case and was a prosecution witness (PW-9) in an FIR registered under Sections 458, 460, 2 323, 302, 148, 149 and 285 of IPC, 1860 read with Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959. As per the allegations, fifteen assailants had broke open the complainant’s house to assault the inmates armed with lathis, gun and pistols.
Cause Title- Sandeep Kumar v. The State Of Haryana & Anr.
Date of Judgment- July 28, 2023
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
13) Discipline is implicit hallmark of armed forces & non-negotiable condition of service: SC upholds AFT’s order of dismissal from service
The Court dismissed a petition challenging an order passed by the Armed Forces of Tribunal (AFT), Lucknow upholding the charge levelled against the appellant under Section 39(b) of the Army Act, 19504 of overstaying the leave granted to him without sufficient cause, thereby dismissing him from service.
In the pertinent matter, the appellant was initially granted leave for 39 days from November 8, 1998 to December 16, 1998. His request for extension of leave on compassionate grounds was allowed by the respondents and was granted advance annual leave for 30 days in the year 1999.
Cause Title- Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad v. Union Of India And Others
Date of Judgment- July 28, 2023
Coram- Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Rajesh Bindal
14) Mere participation in seminars cannot constitute offence under bail-restricting sections of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act
The Court while dealing with a batch of two appeals against the two judgments of the Bombay High Court held that mere participation in seminars cannot constitute an offence under the bail-restricting Sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
The appellants preferred appeals against the judgments of the High Court which rejected their prayers for bail. A Special Judge under the Unlawful Activities Act had dismissed their bail pleas and the detentions of the appellants was on the basis of the same FIR in respect of the offences under Sections 121, 121A, 124A, 153A, 505(1)(b), 117, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 18B, 20, 38, 39 and 40 of the 1967 Act.
Cause Title- Vernon v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr
Date of Judgment- July 28, 2023
Coram- Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
15) Whether question of ad volrem court fee would survive for consideration once amendment of plaint to include fee was allowed: SC remands matter to High Court
Whether the question of ad volrem court fee would survive for consideration once the amendment of the plaint to include the fee was allowed, the issue has been remanded by the Supreme Court to the High Court for fresh consideration including the issue whether the Court of Additional District Judge-II, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi could proceed with the suit further when once the amendment is allowed as above and whether, the suit, thereafter, be presented before the lowest court having the jurisdiction.
In this case, an appeal by special leave was directed against the final order passed by the Delhi High Court whereby it allowed pleas and set aside the orders passed by the Additional District Judge-II (ADJ-II), Central Tis Hazari Courts. The appellants were the defendants in the suit and the suit was originally filed by the respondent before the High Court for declaration and cancellation of the gift deed and sale deed and also for mandatory as well as permanent injunction.
Cause Title- B.P. Naagar & Ors. v. Raj Pal Sharma
Date of Judgment- July 28, 2023
Coram- Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
