Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: September 25 – September 29, 2023
1) No infirmity in immunity granted by IT Settlement Commission from prosecution & penalty u/s. 245h when additional income was offered to tax by appellant
While setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in the case of ING Vysya Bank (later merged with Kotak Mahindra Bank) whereby the remand to Income-tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) on immunity from prosecution and penalty by the Single Judge Bench was upheld, the Court restored the ITSC order and remarked that the High Courts should avoid frequent interference with the orders of ITSC.
The Court also observed that the larger picture behind settlement should be kept in mind and the High Courts should not scrutinize the orders of ITSC as an appellate court because unsettling settlement orders would erode the confidence of bona fide taxpayers and lead to multiplicity of litigation.
Cause Title- Kotak Mahindra Bank v. CIT, Bangalore
Date of Judgment- September 25, 2023
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
2) When nature & character of possession constitutes primary dispute, court is excluded by law from examining unregistered deed
The Court held that when the nature and character of possession constitutes primary dispute, the court is excluded by law from examining unregistered deed.
The Court was deciding a civil appeal in which the main point to be addressed was as to what extent the court can take cognizance of a clause relating to purpose for which a lease is granted contained in an unregistered deed of lease for immovable property stipulating its duration for a period of five years.
Cause Title- M/s. Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited v. Amit Chandra Mitra & Anr.
Date of Judgment- September 25, 2023
Coram- Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Vikram Nath
3) RPF constables recognized as 'workmen' under 1923 Employee Compensation Act despite armed forces status
The Court held that a Constable of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) can indeed be considered a "Workman" under Section 2(1)(n) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, despite being categorized as a member of the Armed Forces of the Union due to an amendment in Section 3 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957.
The appeal challenged a High Court judgment involving a dispute over compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. The appellant contested the order of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner in favour of the claimants.
Cause Title- Commanding Officer v. Bhavnaben Dinshbhai Bhabhor & Ors.
Date of Judgment- September 26, 2023
Coram- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Manoj Misra
4) Judgment does not throw any light on who caused injuries: SC says High Court failed in its duty as appellate court while reversing acquittal in culpable homicide case
The Court held that the Karnataka High Court had not fulfilled its duty as an Appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal and observed that the High Court had failed to provide reasons and findings regarding the individual and collective roles of the appellants, as well as the applicability of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
The appeal was filed by the accused challenging their conviction by Karnataka High Court. The appellants were initially acquitted by the Sessions Court but were later convicted for offenses under Section 304 and Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.
Cause Title- H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka
Date of Judgment- September 26, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol
5) Dignity, honour & compassion were completely lacking: SC grants compensation of ₹1.5 cr to IAF personnel due to medical negligence of authorities
The Court granted compensation of Rs. 1,54,73,000/- to an IAF (Indian Air Force) personnel on account of medical negligence by the authorities. It said that the dignity, honour, and compassion towards the said IAF man were completely lacking in behaviour by the employer.
The appellant i.e., the aforesaid IAF personnel had filed a civil appeal against the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) whereby it dismissed his application for compensation.
Cause Title- CPL Ashish Kumar Chauhan (Retd.) v. Commanding Officer & Ors.
Date of Judgment- September 26, 2023
Coram- Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta
6) Where an appealable decree is passed in suit, no revision should be entertained u/s. 115 CPC against order rejecting review on merits
The Court held that where an appealable decree is passed in a suit, no revision should be entertained under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) against an order rejecting a review on merits.
The Court was deciding a civil appeal against the order of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench whereby the revision of the respondent (plaintiff) was allowed and the order passed by the Court of First Additional Sub Court was set aside.
Cause Title- Rahimal Bathu & Others v. Ashiyal Beevi
Date of Judgment- September 26, 2023
Coram- Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra
7) Not enough material to warrant a deviation from established course of action: Supreme Court rejects Haryana's bid to alter judicial officer recruitment process
The Court rejected State of Haryana’s request to change the process of recruiting judicial officers and upheld the established procedure, emphasizing the need for a committee involving High Court representatives, the state government, and the Public Service Commission to fill the vacancies promptly.
The main issues in the case pertained to the filling of 175 vacancies for Junior Civil Judges and the procedure for conducting these recruitments.
Cause Title- Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr. v. U P Public Service Commission & Ors.
Date of Judgment- September 26, 2023
Coram- Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
8) Dying declaration cannot be reason for the conviction of accused when it resulted in acquittal of another co-accused
The Court held that the same dying declaration, which was disregarded in the case of the co-accused, cannot be the sole basis for the conviction of the Accused.
The Court overturned the Appellant's (husband's) conviction order and judgment which was based on the dying declaration of the Wife. It highlighted that the claims of harassment due to non-payment of dowry against the Appellant were not sufficiently proved as the prosecution’s evidence was vague.
Cause Title- Phulel Singh v State of Haryana
Date of Judgment- September 27, 2023
Coram- Justice B.R Gavai, Justice P.S Narasimha, and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
