Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: Nov 14 - Nov 18, 2022
1) Kathua Gangrape: Medical opinion regarding age of accused cannot be brushed aside- SC while holding that accused be tried as adult: The Court held that one of the accused in the sensational gang rape and murder case of an eight-year-old nomadic girl in Kathua was not a juvenile. It now can be tried afresh as an adult for the alleged offence committed by him in connivance with the other seven accused.
The Bench observed that the medical opinion regarding the age of the accused cannot be brushed aside in the absence of statutory proof of the same.
Cause Title: The State of Jammu & Kashmir (Now U.T. of Jammu & Kashmir) & Ors. v. Shubam Sangra
Date of Judgment: November 16, 2022
Coram: Justice Ajay Rastogi & Justice JB Pardiwala
2) SARFAESI ACT| SC deprecates HC's practice of entertaining writ petition without exhausting statutory remedy of appeal: The Court deprecated the High Court's practice of entertaining a Writ application in the exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal in a SARFAESI matter.
The Bench noted that the circuitous route appeared to have been adopted to avoid the condition of predeposit contemplated under the 2nd proviso to Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
Cause Title: Varimadugu Obi Reddy v B. Sreenivasulu & ors.
Date of Judgment: November 16, 2022
Coram: Justice Ajay Rastogi & Justice CT Ravikumar
3) Cheque Bounce Case- Additional accused cannot be impleaded after expiry of limitation period U/s. 142 NI Act: The Court in a cheque dishonour case has observed that an additional accused cannot be arraigned as an accused once the limitation period under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, has expired for taking cognizance.
The Court dismissed the appeal and held that no error was committed by the Allahabad High Court wherein the summoning orders passed by the Magistrate were quashed, on the ground that the director of a company would not be liable for prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 without the Company being arraigned as an accused.
Cause Title – Pawan Kumar Goel v. State of U.P. & Anr.
Date of Judgment – November 17, 2022
Coram – Justice Krishna Murari & Justice Bela M. Trivedi
4) Motor Accident Claim- Courts should be mindful that serious injury inflicts deep mental & emotional scars upon victim: The Court dealt with an appeal filed against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Shri Sidram S/o Raju Bhosale v. Shri Siddu Mahadev Bhosale & Anr. and observed that the Courts should be mindful in case of motor accident matters that a serious injury imposes physical limitations and inflicts deep mental and emotional scars upon the victim.
The Court also held, "The process of determining the compensation by the court is essentially a very difficult task and can never be an exact science. Perfect compensation is hardly possible, more so in claims of injury and disability."
Cause Title – Sidram v. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.
Date of Judgment – November 16, 2022
Coram – Justice Surya Kant & Justice JB Pardiwala
5) No negative equality can be claimed taking aid of article 14- SC while allowing Kerala State Electricity Board's Appeal: The Court while allowing the appeal of the Kerala State Electricity Board observed that no negative equality can be claimed by taking the aid of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The issue that was adjudicated upon by the Court was whether he respondent (industrial unit) was entitled to claim the benefit of incentive from the date of commercial production or from the date of energization.
Cause Title – Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. & Anr. v. Rubfila International Ltd.
Date of Judgment – November 15, 2022
Coram – Justice Ajay Rastogi & Justice CT Ravikumar
6) For claiming benefit/deduction U/s. 80-IB of IT Act, end product manufactured has to be considered: The Court held that for claiming deductions under Section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act, the assessee has to prove that what is ultimately manufactured is not an article classifiable in the Eleventh Schedule (entry 25).
The Bench observed, "Merely because the assessee is using the chemicals and ultimately what is manufactured is polyurethane foam and the same is used by assembly operators after the process of moulding as car seats, it cannot be said that the end product manufactured by the assessee is car seats/automobile seats."
Cause Title – M/s Polyflex (India) Pvt. Ltd. V The Commissioner of Income Tax & Another
Date of Judgment – November 17, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice MM Sundresh
7) For supplementary commission earned by travel agents, section 194H of IT Act is applicable, airlines liable to deduct TDS: The Court while dealing with a civil appeal filed by Singapore Airlines Ltd. against the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Delhi held that for every supplementary commission earned by the travel agents, Section 194H of the Income Tax Act is attracted and the airlines are liable to deduct TDS on the same.
The Court also held that if a relationship between the parties is of principal-agent under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 then the definition of "Commission" under Section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 stands attracted.
Cause Title – Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. C.I.T., Delhi
Date of Judgment – November 14, 2022
Coram – Justice Surya Kant & Justice MM Sundresh
8) Relief sought under non statutory contract does not entitle state to ward-off scrutiny of its action or inaction under contract- SC explains: The Court held, "The mere fact that relief is sought under a contract which is not statutory, will not entitle the respondent-State in a case by itself to ward-off scrutiny of its action or inaction under the contract, if the complaining party is able to establish that the action/ inaction is, per se, arbitrary.", while explaining the scope of judicial review of action by the State.
In this case, an appeal was filed against a judgment passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in which the Court set aside an order passed by the Madhya Pradesh Power Management Company Limited, thereby terminating a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) that it entered into with Sky Power Southeast Solar India Private Limited.
Cause Title – MP Power Management Company Limited Jabalpur v. M/s. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Private Limited & Others
Date of Judgment – November 16, 2022
Coram – Justice KM Joseph & Justice Hrishikesh Roy
9) Bar on civil courts U/s. 34 SARFAESI act shall be applicable only where DRT/appellate tribunal is empowered to decide matter: The Court held that the bar on civil court jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 shall be applicable only where the Debt Recovery Tribunal and/or Appellate Tribunal is empowered to decide the matter.
The Court while setting aside the impugned order of the High Court imposed Rs. 25000 costs on the Bank.
Cause Title – Mrs. Leelamma Mathew v. M/s Indian Overseas Bank & Ors.
Date of Judgment – November 17, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice Krishna Murari
10) High Court erred in awarding statutory benefits & interest for delayed period of 22 Years– SC while allowing NOIDA's appeal in land acquisition case: The Court in a Land Acquisition case in which the Allahabad High Court provided condonation of a delay of 22 years that the Court has erred in awarding other statutory benefits and interest for the delayed period. Also, it observed that the High Court was justified in condoning the delay.
The Court observed, "To saddle with the liability to pay statutory benefits and interest for the delayed period upon the beneficiary/acquiring body would be a financial burden upon the public body and it may increase the project cost which shall be against the public interests."
Cause Title – New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Rameshwar @ Ramesh Chandra Sharma (Dead) through Legal heir & Anr.
Date of Judgment – November 17, 2022
Coram – Justice MR Shah & Justice MM Sundresh
11) To avail benefit of set off U/s. 428 CrPC, detention undergone by convict must be in 'same case': The Court while dealing with a case related to Contempt of Court held that to avail benefit of set off under Section 428 CrPC, the detention undergone by the convict must be in the same case.
The Bench observed, "As far as Section 428 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, an indispensable requirement to invoke Section 428 of Cr.P.C. is that there must be a conviction. The conviction must be followed by a sentence of imprisonment. It must be for a term and it should not be imprisonment in default of payment of fine. If these requirements exist, then the occasion opens up for applying the beneficial provisions of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. However, for it to be invoked the existence of detention undergone by the convict during investigation, enquiry or trial in the 'same case' is indispensable. If these requirements are satisfied, the convict would be entitled to the set off for the period of detention which he has undergone."
Cause Title – Mr. Vinay Prakash Singh v. Sameer Gehlaut & Ors.
Date of Judgment – November 14, 2022
Coram – Justice KM Joseph & Justice J Hrishikesh Rou
12) "Arbitrator was justified in granting claim for escalation"- SC while upholding decision of MP High Court: The Court upheld the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in an appeal filed challenging such a decision under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, and held that the Arbitrator was justified in granting the claim for escalation.
The Court noted, "The Executive Engineer, in our opinion, has certainly acted beyond the scope of the contract. The role of the Executive Engineer was only to forward the decision of the Superintending Engineer and enable the Contractor to raise a claim for escalation."
Cause Title – The State of Madhya Pradesh v. M/s Sew Construction Limited & Ors.
Date of Judgment – November 18, 2022
Coram – Justice AS Bopanna & Justice PS Narasimha
13) SC enhances compensation towards loss of future amenities & income granted by HC in motor accident case: The Court while dealing with an appeal filed against the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. in which the appellant sought the correctness of the judgment and award passed by the Karnataka High Court reassessed the compensation in terms of loss of future amenities and loss of income and enhanced the compensation granted by the High Court.
The Bench while assessing the permanent disability at 30%, observed, "PW-2- doctor, who treated the appellant- claimant has assessed permanent disability of 54% which we find is on the higher side. As the claimant sustained comminuted fracture of tibia bones of both legs, we assess the whole-body disability at 30%. We also propose to enhance the compensation under the heads of pain and suffering due to two surgeries undergone and future surgeries to be undergone. Also towards loss of future amenities and towards loss of income during laid up period for a period of twelve months compensation is enhanced."
Cause Title – T. J. Parameshwarappa @ Parameshwarappa @ J.T. Parameshwarappa @ Talalkena Gowdra Parameshwarappa v. The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Date of Judgment – November 18, 2022
Coram – Justice BR Gavai & Justice BV Nagarathna
14) Contractual terms cannot be interpreted in isolation, must be understood as intended by parties: The Court declined to adopt a textual interpretation of the contractual term "charges" and held that the expression "charges" cannot always be interpreted to include demurrages.
The Court held that the contractual terms cannot be interpreted in isolation and must be interpreted as intended by the parties to the contract.
Cause Title – Food Corporation of India v. Abhijit Paul
Date of Judgment – November 18, 2022
Coram – Justice AS Bopanna & Justice PS Narasimha
