The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar referred to larger bench the following questions.

• Whether the trial court has the power under Section 319 of CrPC for summoning additional accused when the trial with respect to other co-accused has ended and the judgment of conviction rendered on the same date before pronouncing the summoning order?

• Whether the trial court has the power under Section 319 of the CrPC for summoning additional accused when the trial in respect of certain other absconding accused (whose presence is subsequently secured) is ongoing/pending, having been bifurcated from the main trial?

• What are the guidelines that the competent court must follow while exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C?

In Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. State of Punjab, while the trial was going on against ten accused in an NDPS case, the prosecution filed an application for summoning additional five accused on the basis of statement made by some prosecution witnesses. The Sessions Court first pronounced the judgment convicting the nine other accused put on trial and thereafter allowed the prosecution application under Section 319 CrPC. The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the challenge against this summoning order.

Before the Apex Court, the judgment was assailed on ground that this summoning order passed after the order of conviction is in clear breach of the principles laid down in the Hardeep Singh Case. It was contended that the moment the trial is concluded and the matter is reserved for judgment, then the stage for exercising power under Section 319 CrPC, ends and the court becomes functus officio.

The bench noted that the two judge bench in Hardeep Singh had referred this question to larger bench: When the power under sub-section (1) of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 of addition of the accused can be exercised by a court? Whether application under Section 319 of the Code is not maintainable unless the cross-examination of the witness is complete? But the questions were reformulated by the larger Bench to this: What is the stage at which power Under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be exercised?. The bench said:

"We note that the difference of formulation in the reference questions and the final order of the Constitution Bench with respect to the Question no. 1, makes a difference with regard to the present case. It is precisely the gap, between the restricted reformulation of the 'Question no. 1' by the Constitution Bench and the 'Question no. 1' in the reference order of the Hardeep Singh Case, which these unique facts fit into. The earlier 'Question no.1' in the reference Order was broader in comparison to the 'Reformulated Question no. 1' by the Constitution Bench. It is this marginal area which is a sub¬silentio, that needs to be referred to a larger Bench again"

While referring the above questions to larger bench, the court said:

"However, we are of the considered opinion that, power under Section 319, Cr.P.C being extraordinary in nature, the trial courts should be cautious while summoning accused to avoid complexities and to ensure fair trial. We must remind ourselves that, timely disposal of the matters furthers the interest of justice."

Read Judgment

The bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Navin Sinha, however, suspended the sentence of imprisonment of 6 months awarded by the High Court to Advocate Rakesh Tripathi for further period of 3 years subject to his maintaining good and proper conduct with a condition that he shall not enter the premises of the District Judgeship, Allahabad for a further period of three years in addition to what he has undergone already.

Sentence of imprisonment may be activated by this Court in case it is found that there is breach of any condition made by the concerned advocate during the period of three years, the bench said. The court observed that though suspension of a lawyer is not permissible to be ordered but when he is convicted under the contempt of court, it is possible for the Supreme Court or the High Court to prevent the advocate to appear in the court.

The allegation against the lawyer in the contempt case was that he, on 21st December, 2012 during lunch hour without taking permission from C.J.M., Allahabad entered into his chamber along with 2-3 colleagues and at the said point of time he started hurling filthy abuses to the CJM and the matter did not end there, as he also raised his hand to beat the Chief Judicial Magistrate and also threatened him of dire consequences.

The Allahabad High Court convicted him for criminal contempt and sentenced him to simple imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs.2000. He was also directed not to enter the premises of the District Judgeship, Allahabad for a period of six months.

In his appeal, the bench observed that his act is not only improper but requires gross condemnation. It also noted that the concerned advocate did not apologise and has maligned and scandalized the subordinate court. Justice Mishra, in the judgment authored by him, has made some observations regarding the duty of lawyers towards the court. The judgment reads:

No licence to any member of the Bar to indulge in such undignified conduct

"An advocate is duty bound to act as per the higher status conferred upon him as an officer of the court. He plays a vital role in preservation of society and justice delivery system. Advocate has no business to threaten a Judge or hurl abuses for judicial order which he has passed. In case of complaint of the Judge, it was open to the advocate to approach concerned higher authorities but there is no licence to any member of the Bar to indulge in such undignified conduct to lower down the dignity of the Court. Such attempts deserve to be nipped at the earliest as there is no room to such attack by a member of noble profession."

Advocates are held in high esteem in the society, the expectations from him are accordingly higher

The role of a lawyer is indispensable in the justice delivery system. He has to follow the professional ethics and also to maintain high standards. He has to assist the court and also defend the interest of his client. He has to give due regard to his opponent and also to his counsel. What may be proper to others in the society, may be improper for him to do as he belongs to an intellectual class of the society and as a member of the noble profession, the expectations from him are accordingly higher. Advocates are held in high esteem in the society. The dignity of court is in fact dignity of the system of which an advocate being officer of the court.

Judges are not fearful saints, they have to be fearless preachers

The judiciary is one of the main pillars of democracy and is essential to peaceful and orderly development of society. The Judge has to deliver justice in a fearless and impartial manner. He cannot be intimidated in any manner or insulted by hurling abuses. Judges are not fearful saints. They have to be fearless preachers so as to preserve the independence of the judiciary which is absolutely necessary for survival of democracy.

Read Judgment

The bench comprising Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran set aside a Delhi High Court judgment that held that a lawyer has the right to represent his client before such in-house committees.

But the bench modified the revised RBI circular, and held that the First Committee must give its order to the borrower as soon as it is made so that the borrower can then represent against such order within a period of 15 days to the Review Committee.

In-House Committee Procedure

As per revised RBI circular, a committee of Executive Director and two other senior officers should examine evidence of wilful default on the part of the borrower. If this Committee finds that an event of wilful default has occurred, it should first issue a show cause notice to the concerned borrower and call for his submissions, and after considering his submissions, issue an order recording the fact of wilful default and reasons for the same; a personal hearing can be given only if the Committee feels that such hearing is necessary. Thereafter, the order of the Committee is to be reviewed by another Committee headed by the Chairman/Chairman and Managing Director or CEO, in addition to two independent directors/non-executive directors of the bank and the order will become final only after it is confirmed by the said Review Committee. Review Committee consisting of the higher officials and independent directors is completely in-house. As per the revised circular, neither does the order of the First Committee have to be given to the borrower, nor is any representation required against the aforesaid order, nor is there any personal hearing before the Review Committee.

In-house committees are not vested with any judicial power at all

The court noted that these in-house committees are not vested with any judicial power at all, their powers being administrative powers given to in-house committees to gather facts and then arrive at a result. The bench said:

"It cannot be said that the Circulars in any manner vests the State's judicial power in such in-house committees. On this ground, therefore, the view of Delhi High Court is not correct, and no lawyer has any right under Section 30 of the Advocates Act to appear before the in-house committees so mentioned. Further, the said committees are also not persons legally authorised to take evidence by statute or subordinate legislation, and on this score also, no lawyer would have any right under Section 30 of the Advocates Act to appear before the same."

First Committee Must Give Its Order To Borrower

The court, however, observed that the Committee comprising of the Executive Director and two other senior officials, being the First Committee, must give its order to the borrower as soon as it is made.

"The borrower can then represent against such order within a period of 15 days to the Review Committee. Such written representation can be a full representation on facts and law (if any). The Review Committee must then pass a reasoned order on such representation which must then be served on the borrower"

The bench made this modification of the revised circular of RBI noticing that moment a person is declared to be a wilful defaulter; the impact on its fundamental right to carry on business is direct and immediate.

"This is for the reason that no additional facilities can be granted by any bank/financial institutions, and entrepreneurs/promoters would be barred from institutional finance for five years. Banks/financial institutions can even change the management of the wilful defaulter, and a promoter/director of a wilful defaulter cannot be made promoter or director of any other borrower company. Equally, under Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, a wilful defaulter cannot even apply to be a resolution applicant. Given these drastic consequences, it is clear that the Revised Circular, being in public interest, must be construed reasonable"

Read Judgment

Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. V. Govindan Raghavan

The Supreme Court held that the incorporation of one-sided clauses in a builder-buyer agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice as per Section 2 (r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The bench comprising Justice UU Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra also observed that a builder could not seek to bind a flat buyer with one-sided contractual terms.

Employee Not Entitled To Full Back Wages On Acquittal, Unless His Prosecution Was Found Malicious

Raj Narain V. Union of India

The Supreme Court held that the employer cannot be mulcted with full back wages on the acquittal of an employee by a criminal Court, unless it is found that the prosecution is malicious.

SC Strikes Down RBI Circular Asking Banks To Take Defaulting Companies To Insolvency

Dharani Sugars &Chemicals Ltd. V. Union of India

The Supreme Court struck down the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India on February 12, 2018 directing banks to initiate insolvency proceedings against companies having bad debts of Rs 2000 crores or above.

Authorization From Central Govt Necessary For RBI To Direct Insolvency Process Against Stressed Assets

The Supreme Court observed that after the insertion of Section 35AA in 2017 with a specific condition of authorization from central government, recourse cannot be made to general powers under Section 35A for issuing directions to take insolvency action in respect of bad debts.

SC Sets Aside Bail Granted To J&K Businessman In Terror Funding Case

National Investigation Agency V. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali

The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court order which granted bail to Jammu and Kashmir based influential businessman Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali in Terror funding case. Allowing the appeal filed by the National Investigating Agency, the bench comprising Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice Ajay Rastogi observed that the Designated NIA Court had rightly rejected the bail application after adverting to the relevant material/evidence indicative of the fact that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the respondent is prima facie true.

Employees Of 'Local Bodies' Entitled To Gratuity Under Payment Of Gratuity Act

Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam, Kanpur V. Sri. Mujib Ullah Khan

The Supreme Court held that the employees of the local bodies like Municipalities are entitled for gratuity under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The bench comprising Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Hemant Gupta upheld Allahabad High Court judgments while upholding appeals filed by Kanpur and Gorakhpur Municipalities.

Sanction Under Sec.197 CrPC Required Only If Offence Has Nexus With Duties Of Public Servant

Devendra Prasad Singh V. State of Bihar

In order to attract the rigor of section 197 Cr.P.C. the offence alleged against a Government Officer must have some nexus with the discharge of his official duties as Government Officer, held the Supreme Court.

No Prohibition In Granting Interim Mandatory Injunctions In Appropriate Cases

Hammad Ahmed V. Abdul Majeed

The Supreme Court observed that grant of interim mandatory injunction is not prohibited, and it can granted in 'appropriate' cases. The bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Hemant Gupta observed that an ad interim mandatory injunction, is to be granted not at the asking but on strong circumstance so that to protect the rights and interest of the parties so as not to frustrate their rights regarding mandatory injunction.

#Rafale- Official Secrets Act Does Not Empower Executive To Restrain Publication Of Documents Marked As Secret

Yashwant Sinha V. Central Bureau Investigation

The Supreme Court dismissed Centre's preliminary objection against using privileged documents for considering the review petitions in the Rafale case. While dismissing the Centre's preliminary objections, the CJI observed that there is no provision in the Official Secrets Act by which Parliament has vested any power in the executive arm of the government either to restrain publication of documents marked as secret or from placing such documents before a Court of Law which may have been called upon to adjudicate a legal issue concerning the parties. No such provision in any other statute has been brought to our notice, the CJI said.

SC Dismisses Centre's Preliminary Objections Against Relying On "Privileged" Documents; Review To Be Heard On Merits

Yashwant Sinha V. Central Bureau Investigation

The Supreme Court dismissed the preliminary objections raised by the Centre against using privileged documents for considering the review petitions in the Rafale case. The Court said that the review petitions will be heard on merits and a date will be fixed for that.

Res Judicata Principle Also Applicable To Labour/Industrial Proceedings Chairman & MD, Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. Vs. Gen. Secretary, FACT Employees Association

The Supreme Court reiterated that principle of Res Judicata defined in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure also applies to the labour/industrial proceedings. The bench comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Indu Malhotra referred to three old judgments of the Apex Court to hold that principle of res judicata applies to the labour proceedings or not, remains no more res integra.

Examination Of Witnesses In The Absence Of Accused Is A Curable Irregularity

Atma Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan

Absence of the accused while taking evidence of prosecution witnesses, by itself, would not vitiate the trial, unless great prejudice has caused to the accused, the Supreme Court held, while upholding a High Court judgment which ordered fresh trial in a murder case. The bench comprising of Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra was considering an appeal against High court judgment which ordered fresh trial/de-novo by directing the trial court to lawfully re-record statements of the witnesses whose evidence was recorded in the first round without ensuring presence of the accused in the court.

498A Case Can Be Filed At A Place Where A Woman Driven Out Of Matrimonial Home Takes Shelter

Rupali Devi V. State of Uttar Pradesh

Answering a reference pending for about seven years, the Supreme Court held that the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would, dependent on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code

Corroborative Evidence Required If It Is Doubtful Whether Deceased Was In Fit State Of Mind While Making Dying Declaration

Sampat Babso Kale V. State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court observed that, though conviction can solely be based on dying declaration, corroborative evidence may be required when there is doubt as to whether the victim was in a fit state of mind to make the statement. The bench comprising Justice SA Bobde and Justice Deepak Gupta acquitted Sampat Babso Kale and his sister who were convicted by the Bombay High Court for murder of his wife by pouring Kerosene.

Deceased Bachelor's Age To Be Considered For Calculating 'Multiplier' In Motor Accident Claim Cases

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd vs. Mandala Yadagari Goud

A three judge bench of the Supreme Court held that, in the case of a motor accident where there is death of a person, who is a bachelor, it is the age of the deceased which should be taken into account for calculating the multiplier, not that of dependents. The bench comprising Justice SA Bobde, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar was considering a submission in an appeal against High Court judgment that it is the age of the dependents which has to be taken into account and thus the High Court has fallen into an error by taking the multiplier on the basis of the age of the deceased.

Section 138 NI Act: Complainant Bound To Explain His Financial Capacity When It Is Questioned By The Accused

Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa

The Supreme Court observed that a complainant in a cheque bounce case is bound to explain his financial capacity, when the same is questioned by the accused, by leading evidence to that effect. In this case.

Court Can't Appoint Arbitrator When The Contract Containing Arbitration Clause Is Insufficiently Stamped

Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. Vs. Coastal Marine Constructions &Engineering Ltd.

The Supreme Court held that it would be necessary for the Court before considering and passing final orders on an application under Section 11(6) of the Act to await the adjudication by the stamp authorities, in a case where the document objected to, is not adequately stamped. The bench comprising Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran observed that the law laid down in SMS Tea Estates (P) Ltd. v. Chandmari Tea Co. (P) Ltd. still applies, even after introduction of Section 11(6A), by way of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015.

Mere Financial Assistance To Buy Property Cannot Be Termed Benami Transaction

P. Leelavathi vs. Shankarnarayana Rao

The Supreme Court observed that mere financial assistance to buy a property cannot be the sole determinative factor/circumstance to hold the transaction as benami in nature. The issue before the bench comprising of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice MR Shah in an appeal arising out of a suit filed by a lady against her brothers was whether the transactions can be said to be benami in nature merely because some financial assistance has been given by the father to the sons (defendants) to purchase the properties, subject matter of the suit (filed by his daughter, claiming share in these properties)

Almost Every Tender Being Challenged In Writ Proceedings Almost As A Matter Of Routine

Caretel InfoTech Ltd. Vs. HPCL

In a judgment delivered, the Supreme Court expressed its concern about the trend of challenging almost every tender in writ proceedings 'almost as a matter of routine', The bench comprising Justice SA Bobde and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul observed that it affects the efficacy of commercial activities of the public sectors, which may be in competition with the private sector.

Practice Of Summoning Officers To Court Is Not Proper

Shri N. K. Janu V. Lakshmi Chandra

The Supreme Court observed that practice of summoning officers to court is not proper and does not serve the purpose of administration of justice in view of the separation of powers of the Executive and the Judiciary. The bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Hemant Gupta observed thus in an appeal, while noticing that numerous orders were passed by the High Court from time to time seeking personal presence of the officers of the State.

SC Dismisses Man's Plea Challenging His Father's Detention under COFEPOSA During Emergency

Narender Kumar V. Union of India

The Supreme Court dismissed a man's plea challenging detention order passed against his father under COFEPOSA in the year 1974. The bench observed that the Competent Authority and the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the provisions of SAFEMA had, after issuance of due notice and granting every opportunity to the noticees, arrived at findings that the properties mentioned in the schedules to the notices were illegally acquired and that they stood forfeited to the Central Government free from all encumbrances.

Domestic Inquiry During Pending Criminal Trial Not Contempt: SC Upholds Termination Of Teacher Accused Of Sexually Harassing Girl Students

The Secretary, Lucy Sequeira Trust V. Kailash Ramesh Tandel

While upholding termination of a teacher accused of harassing girl students in a Private school, the Supreme Court observed that pendency of criminal trial does not have any bearing on the domestic inquiry against the teacher. The bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Indira Banerjee observed that the initiation of the process in a departmental proceeding, in matters like these, cannot be said to be amounting to contempt of court even if the criminal proceedings were pending.

Sex After Obtaining Consent By False Promise To Marry Is Rape

Anurag Soni vs. State of Chhattisgarh

The Supreme Court reiterated that the consent for sexual intercourse obtained by a person by giving false promise of marriage would not excuse him from rape charges. The bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice MR Shah, in a criminal appeal referred to many judgments on the subject and restated the legal position.

Contemporary Events Reveal That There Is A Growing Intolerance Which Unaccept the Rights Of Others To Freely Espouse Their Views

Indibility Creative Pvt Ltd. Vs. Govt. of West Bengal

The Supreme Court came down heavily on the unofficial ban imposed by West Bengal Government on the film "Bhobhishyoter Bhoot" by using police pressure to coerce exhibitors to stop its screening. The Court ordered that the film producer has to be compensated by the State Government by paying Rs. 20 lakhs.

'No Useful Purpose Will Be Served', SC Closes 22 Year Old Enron-Dabhol Bribery Case Citing Long Delay

Center for Indian Trade Unions Vs. State of Maharashtra

Observing "no useful purpose will be served" after long delay, the Supreme Court closed a Special Leave Petition filed by Centre of Indian Trade Union(CITU) in 1997 seeking probe into the alleged Enron-Dabhol corruption case.

SC Upholds Madras HC's Direction Appointing Retired Police Officer To Head SIT Probing Idol Theft Cases

State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Elephant G. Rajendran

The Supreme Court upheld the Madras High Court's appointment of A.G. Ponn Manickavel as the head of Special Investigation Team to probe Idol Theft cases in Tamil Nadu. The State of Tamil Nadu had approached the Apex Court challenging the High Court order contending that Ponn Manickavel after superannuation could not have exercised any power of police officer as entrusted on a police officer under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Tenants Can Be Evicted Only By Following Procedure Laid Down In Applicable Rent Control Laws

Dr. RS Grewal Vs. Chander Parkash Soni

The Supreme Court observed that the protection offered to a statutory tenant by Rent Control Laws can only be overcome by following the procedure laid out in such laws. The bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta observed that such a statutory tenant can be evicted only by following the procedure laid down in applicable rent control laws and not by filing suit for possession against him/her.

Magistrate Cannot Suo Motu Direct Further Investigation After Discharging The Accused

Bikash Ranjan Rout Vs. State

The Supreme Court observed that a Magistrate has no jurisdiction to suo moto pass an order for further investigation/reinvestigation after he discharges the accused. The court said that the power to order further investigation which may be available to the Magistrate at the pre-cognizance stage may not be available to the Magistrate at the post-cognizance stage, more particularly, when the accused is discharged by him.

Magistrate Cannot Direct Police To File Chargesheet On Receipt Of Closure Report

Ramswaroop Soni vs. State of M

The Supreme Court reiterated that a magistrate, upon receipt of a closure/refer report, cannot direct the police to file charge sheet. Such a direction is wholly unsustainable, said the bench comprising of Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra, in the appeal filed by accused. It observed that the judicial discretion to be used by the Magistrate at such stage shall fall in either of the the three categories.

If Terms On Exclusion Of Policy Are Not Communicated To Insured, Insurer Cannot Rely On Them To Repudiate Claim

Bharath Watch Company Vs. National insurance Co. Ltd

Setting aside the judgment of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission(NCDRC), the Supreme Court held that if the terms of exclusion of policy are not communicated to the insured, the insurer cannot rely on them to repudiate a claim.

SC Acquits Murder Accused After 20 Years, Finding That He Was Juvenile At The Time Of Incident

Ashok Kumar Mehra & Anr v. State of Punjab

Supreme Court acquitted a murder accused after 20 years of commission of alleged murder on the crucial finding that the he was a minor at the time of commission of the offence.

HC Has No Jurisdiction To Appreciate Evidence While Hearing A Petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Md. Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar

The Supreme Court held that the High Court has no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under section 482 Cr.P.C. The division bench of the Supreme Court Comprising of Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari held so while allowing an appeal in a case against the order of the High Court of Judicature of Patna, quashing the order of Magistrate wherein cognizance of complaint was taken for commission of offence under sections 323 and 379 r/w section 34 of IPC.

Regularization Obtained By Misrepresenting Facts Cannot Be Sustained; SC Upholds Termination Of A 'Chowkidar'

Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority Vs. Karamjit Singh

Holding that the appointment of a Chowkidar on regular basis was invalid, the Supreme Court observed an order of regularization obtained by misrepresenting facts, or by playing a fraud upon the competent authority, cannot be sustained.

Person Ineligible To Be Arbitrator Under Sec.12(5) Of Arbitration Act Cannot Appoint Another Arbitrator

Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. Vs. United Telecoms Limited

The Supreme Court held that the appointment of arbitrator by a person who himself is ineligible to be an arbitrator as per Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 is void ab initio.

Pre-Sentence Hearing On A Separate Date Not Mandatory

Accused X Vs. State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court observed that there is no bar on the pre-sentencing hearing taking place on the same day after passing the judgment of conviction, if the accused and the prosecution are ready to submit their arguments. The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Indira Banerjee observed that the object of Section 235 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to provide an opportunity for accused to adduce mitigating circumstances, but it does not mean that the Trial Court can fulfil the requirements of Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C. only by adjourning the matter for one or two days to hear the parties on sentence.

Post Conviction Mental Illness Is A Mitigating Factor To Commute Death Sentence

The Supreme Court held that post conviction mental illness will be a mitigating factor while considering appeals of death convicts. The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Indira Banerjee commuted death penalty of a person convicted of rape and murder of two minor girls.

SC Allows Plea To Record Evidence Of A Nigerian Doctor Through Video Conferencing

Manju Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan

The Supreme Court allowed a plea to record evidence of a Nigerian doctor who conducted post mortem of the deceased via video conferencing. Allowing the application under Section 311 CrPC, the bench directed the Trial Court to take all the necessary measures for ensuring the examination of the witness concerned by issuing commission and/or recording his statement through video-conferencing.

Sentence Can Be Enhanced In Convict's Appeal Only By Giving Him Notice Of Enhancement

Kumar Ghimirey V. The State of Sikkim

The Supreme Court reiterated that the power of a High Court to enhance sentence awarded to a convict, while considering his appeal, can only be exercised after giving him the notice of enhancement. Kumar Ghimirey was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment by the Trial Court finding him guilty of sexually assaulting a seven year old girl. The Sikkim High Court, in his appeal against conviction, enhanced it to ten years.

Adverse Possession Plea Can Be Sustained Only When Possession Is In Denial Of True Owners' Title

Mallikarjunaiah vs. Nanjaiah

The Supreme Court reiterated the principles of acquisition of title by adverse possession. The bench comprising of Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari observed that mere continuous possession howsoever long it may have been qua its true owner is not enough to sustain the plea of adverse possession unless it is further proved that such possession was open, hostile, exclusive and with the assertion of ownership right over the property to the knowledge of its true owner.

Witness Can Be Called 'Interested' Only When He/She Derives Some Benefit Seeing An Accused Person Punished

Sadayappan @ Ganesan vs. State

The witness may be called "interested" only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished, the Supreme Court observed while rejecting a defence contention in a criminal appeal.

Suppression Of Facts Made In Proposal Form Will Render Insurance Policy Voidable By The Insurer

Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Rekhaben Nareshbai Rathod

The Supreme Court, observed that failure of the insured to disclose the policy of insurance obtained earlier in the proposal form entitled the insurer to repudiate the claim under the policy. The bench comprising Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta said that any suppression, untruth or inaccuracy in the statement in the proposal form will be considered as a breach of the duty of good faith and will render the policy voidable by the insurer.

States Can Impose Restrictions To Consider Remission Claims: SC Upholds Rajasthan Rule

State of Rajasthan vs. Mukesh Sharma

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006. The bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Navin Sinha observed that there is no requirement for laying of the Rules before the Legislature prior to promulgation and no time limit has been prescribed for laying has been provided. The use of words "as soon as" coupled with the absence of any consequence for not laying makes the provision directory and not mandatory, said the bench.

'Attack' Cannot Be Said To Be Made At 'Spur Of The Moment Without Premeditation' When There Are Multiple Wounds

Nagji Odhavji Kumbhar & Anr v. State of Gujarat

It cannot be said that the attack was made at the spur of the moment without pre-meditation when there are multiple wounds, observed the Supreme Court while deciding a criminal appeal. The appeal in the case Nagji Odhavji Kumbhar & Anr v. State of Gujarat arose against the order of the High Court of Gujarat upholding the conviction of the appellants for the offences under sections 302 and 324 of IPC.

Strong Suspicion Based On Materials Which Can Be Translated Into Evidence Required While Framing Charge Against Accused

Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel V. State of Gujarat

The Supreme Court observed that a strong suspicion would suffice at the stage of framing charge against the accused. The bench was hearing an appeal filed by Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel who had challenged the orders of the Trial Court and the High Court refusing to discharge him of the offences under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

'Admission' Made By Accused To Police Officer Before Investigation Commences May Be Admissible

Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel V. State of Gujarat

The Supreme Court observed that a statement made by the accused to a police officer before the investigation commences, is admissible in evidence, if it contains only an admission [and not a confession]. The bench comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph observed that the bar under Section 162 CrPC operates in regard to the statement made to a Police Officer in between two points of time, viz., from the beginning of the investigation till the termination of the same.

Fee For RTI Application Shall Be Sought As Per RTI Rules Only

Institute Of Companies Secretaries Of India V. Paras Jain

The Supreme Court held that if a person seeks information under the provisions of the Right to Information, then payment has to be sought under the Right to Information (Regulation of Fees and Cost) Rules, 2005 only. The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer was considering an appeal by Institute Of Companies Secretaries Of India against Delhi High Court judgment which had quashed the Guideline framed by it prescribing fee of Rs.500 per answer sheet payable for supply of certified copy(ies) of answer book(s) and Rs.450 per answer book.

Sec 498A & 306 IPC: Incidents Which Happened Much Before Wife's Death Can't Be Treated As Conduct Which Drove Her To Suicide

Jagdishraj Khatta V. State of Himachal Pradesh

The Supreme Court observed that the incidents which had taken place between husband and wife much before latter's death by suicide could not be treated as the conduct which drove her to commit suicide. Setting aside the High Court judgment, the bench restored the Trial Court order of acquittal.

Release Under Probation Does Not Entitle An Employee To Claim A Right To Continue In Service

The State Bank of India & Others v. P. Soupramaniane

Supreme Court held in that the release under probation does not entitle an employee to claim a right to continue in service. It said that the employer is under an obligation to discontinue the services of an employee convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude.

All Cases Of Assault Or Simple Hurt Cannot Be Categorized As Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude

The State Bank of India & Others v. P. Soupramaniane

All cases of assault or simple hurt cannot be categorized as crimes involving moral turpitude, the Supreme Court observed while granting relief to a SBI Employee who was discharged from service for being convicted under Section 324 IPC.0

Any Person Aggrieved With Violation Of General Directions Issued In A Judgment Can File Contempt Petition

Girish Mittal V. Parvati V. Sundaram

The Supreme Court observed that when the directions issued in a judgment are general in nature, any aggrieved party (not just the party to the judgment), can file a Contempt petition when there is violation of such directions. The Bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice MR Shah, while considering a contempt petition, directed the Reserve Bank of India to withdraw the disclosure policy insofar as it contains exemptions which are contrary to the directions issued in Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry Judgment.

Mere Abuse In A Filthy Language Does Not Attract Offence Of Criminal Intimidation U/s 506 IPC

Vikram Johar V. State of Uttar Pradesh

The Supreme Court observed that mere act of abusing a person in filthy language does not satisfy the ingredients of the offence of Criminal Intimidation (Section 506 IPC). The bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph was concerned with an appeal filed by one Vikram Johar against the High Court and the Trial Court orders refusing to discharge him from a criminal case.

Non Disclosure Of Pre-Existing Illness In MediClaim Proposal Form A Valid Ground For Repudiation

Life Insurance Corporation of India V. Manish Gupta

The Supreme Court recently allowed an appeal filed by Life Insurance Corporation of India holding that the failure of the insured to disclose the past history of cardiovascular disease was a valid ground for repudiation.

'Judgment On Admissions' Can Be Ordered Only When Admissions Are Categorical And Unconditional

Hari Steel and General Industries Ltd.v. Daljit Singh

The Supreme Court observed that 'Judgment on Admissions' can be ordered only when there are categorical and unconditional admissions made in the pleadings. In appeal filed by the defendant company-., the Apex Court bench comprising of Justice R. Banumathi and Justice R. Subhash Reddy observed that, there are no categorical and unconditional admissions made by the defendant as claimed by the Plaintiffs. The court said

SC Asks TN Govt To Decide Premature Release Plea Of A 'SriLankan Refugee' Who Spent 3 Decades In Jail

Rajan V. Home Dept. of Tamil Nadu

The Supreme Court directed the Tamil Nadu Government to decide the representation submitted by a 'Sri Lankan Refugee' who spent 30 years in jail seeking remission of life sentence and for premature release.

A Dying Declaration Is Not Invalid Merely Because It Was Not Certified By A Doctor

Poonam Bai V. State of Chhatisgarh

The Supreme Court acquitted a convict by setting aside the judgment of the High Court of Chattisgarh which had convicted her for murder, after finding lacunae in the dying declarations. Considering the appeal, the bench of Supreme Court comprising of Justice N.V.Ramana, Justice Mohan.M.Shantanagoudar and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer observed that the dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction only when it is "trustworthy, voluntary, blemishless and reliable".

Section 498A IPC: Complaint Need Not Be Filed By The Woman Subjected To Cruelty Herself

Rashmi Chopra vs. State of UP

The Supreme Court held that the Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code does not contemplate that complaint for offence under Section 498A should be filed only by women, who is subjected to cruelty by husband or his relative.

Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)

Rajbir Surajbhan Singh V. Chairman, IBPS Mumbai

The Supreme Court held that the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) is not a 'State' and thus not amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court or the Supreme Court. Upholding the Bombay High Court judgment, the bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice MR Shah observed that conducting recruitment tests for appointment in banking and other financial institutions, is not a public duty.

Limitation Act Applicable To Suits, Appeals, Application Filed In Courts, Not Before Statutory Authorities

Ganesan V. The commissioner, TN Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board

The Supreme Court observed that the suits, appeals and applications referred to in the Limitation Act, 1963 are suits, appeals and applications which are to be filed in a Court, and not before a statutory authority. The bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph held that the 'Commissioner' under Hindu Religious Endowment Charitable Act, 1959 while hearing the appeal under Section 69 of Act, is not a 'Court' within the meaning of the Limitation Act.

Mere Summary Disposal Of SLP Does Not Conclude The Issue On Merits

State of J&K vs. Farid Ahmed Tak

Mere summary disposal of a Special Leave Petition does not conclude the issue on merits, the Supreme Court observed while setting aside a Jammu and Kashmir High Court judgment. The bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra made this observation in response to the contention raised by respondent in an appeal filed against the High Court judgment.

Minimum Wages Act: Categorization Of Unskilled Employees As Semi-Skilled And Semi-Skilled As Skilled On The Basis Of Their Experience Is Ultra Vires

Hindustan Sanitaryware and Industries Ltd. V. The State of Haryana

The Supreme Court held that the categorization of unskilled employees as semiskilled and semi-skilled as skilled on the basis of their experience in the notification issued for fixing/revising the minimum rates of wages is beyond jurisdiction of Government.

'No Public Interest'-SC Sets Aside The First Forced Merger Of Two Companies Ordered By Central Govt

63 Moons Technologies Ltd. V. Union of India

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court set aside the forced merger of two companies ordered by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, which was the first ever instance of invocation of Section 396 of the Companies Act 1956.

Manager Of A Nationalized Bank Though A Public Servant Can't Claim Protection U/S 197 CrPC

S. K. Miglant V. State NCT of Delhi

The Supreme Court observed that a public servant working in a nationalized bank cannot claim benefit of Sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. To hold thus, the bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph relied on a 1987 judgment of the Supreme Court in K.CH. Prasad Vs. J. Vanalatha Devi.

Legal Principles Governing Suspension Of Conviction Cannot Be Applied To Suspend The Sentence

N. Ramamurthy V. State

The Supreme Court set aside a High Court judgment which applied principles governing suspension of conviction to reject a plea seeking suspension of execution of sentence. The Apex Court bench comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari observed that the High Court erred in observing that sentence comes to 45 years of imprisonment. It noted that the sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the Trial Court and hence, the maximum period of imprisonment is 7 years apart from certain default stipulations, which would come in operation only if the fine is not paid.

Solitary Confinement Of Death Convict Prior To Rejection Of Mercy Petition Palpably Illegal

Union of India V. Dharam Pal

The Supreme Court observed that solitary confinement of a person sentenced to death prior to the rejection of mercy petition is palpably illegal. The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer upheld the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that had commuted death sentence awarded to a murder accused whose mercy petition was rejected by the President of India in 2013.

SC Upholds Constitutionality Of Section 23 Of PCPNDT Act, Complete Contents Of Form 'F' Mandatory

Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecological Societies of India V. Union of India

The Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional Validity of Sections 23(1) and 23(2) of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 . Dismissing a writ petition filed by Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecological Societies of India (FOGSI), the bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Vineet Saran observed that dilution of the provisions of the Act or the Rules would only defeat the purpose of the Act to prevent female foeticide, and relegate the right to life of the girl child under Article 21 of the Constitution, to a mere formality.

Giving Preference To Male Child Is Against Constitutional Duty To Renounce Practices Derogatory To Women's Dignity

Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecological Societies of India V. Union of India

The Supreme Court observed that giving preference to male child is violative of Article 39A of the constitution and against mandate of Article 51A (e) which casts a Constitutional duty on citizens to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women. While upholding the constitutional validity of Section 23 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, the bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Vineet Saran observed that that female foeticide is most inhumane,immoral and anti-social act.

Registered Trade Union Can File Insolvency Petition As Operational Creditor On Behalf Of Its Members

JK Jute Mill Mazdoor Morcha V. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Co. Ltd.

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court held that a registered trade union can maintain a petition as an operational creditor on behalf of its members. The bench comprising Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran allowed the appeal against the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) order which held that a trade union would not be an operational creditor as no services are rendered by the trade union to the corporate debtor.

SC Relief To Man Who Killed His Daughter Amidst Quarrel Over Placing A Bulb

Govind Singh V. State of Chhattisgarh

The Supreme Court modified the conviction of a man who was accused of killing his daughter to 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder'. Govind Singh was awarded life imprisonment by the Trial Court holding him guilty of murdering his daughter Lalita.

Mother Can't Give Up Maintenance Rights Of Daughter During Mutual Consent Divorce

Ganesh V. Sudhirkumar Shrivastava

The Supreme Court observed that a mother cannot give up the rights which vest in the daughter insofar as maintenance and other issues are concerned, during divorce by mutual consent. While considering an appeal, the bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra noticed one of the terms agreed between the parties which read thus: The applicant has released the right of monthly maintenance to the daughter with the non-applicant.

A Case Of No Evidence: SC Acquits 7 Accused In 1984 Anti Sikh Riots

Ganeshan V. State

The Supreme Court recently acquitted 7 persons accused of their involvement in 1984 Anti Sikh Riots who were convicted by the Delhi High Court, in November last year. Referring to their deposition, the Apex Court bench comprising the Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Sanjiv Khanna observed that none of them have deposed that these accused were part of the unlawful assembly or they were involved in any acts.

No Relief For Those Who Slept Over Their Rights: SC Upsets Employee's Attempt To Correct DoB In Service Records

Factory Manager, Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. V. Laxman

No relief for those who slept over their rights, the Supreme Court made it clear while upsetting orders of the Labour court and the High Court which had allowed an employee to change his date of birth in service records.

Other important orders and proceedings

• Cancelled the bail it had granted to former Jharkhand Minister Yogendra Sao. Yogendra Sao and his wife Nirmala Devi, are accused in a rioting case of 2016. They were granted bail by the Apex Court in December 2017 and had imposed a condition that they shall stay in Bhopal and not enter Jharkhand except for attending the court proceedings.
• Refused to accord urgent hearing to Congress leader Hardik Patel's plea challenging the Gujarat High Court order rejecting stay on his conviction in the 2015 Vispur rioting case.
• Dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed against a Kerala High Court Judgment setting aside Employee's Pension (Amendment) Scheme, 2014 that capped maximum pensionable salary to Rs.15, 000 per month.
• Held that the High Court registry cannot decide maintainability of petitions which requires judicial application of mind. The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar was considering a special leave petition (P. Surendran vs. State) challenging the action of Madras High Court Registry which had refused numbering of a Anticipatory Bail petition and dismissed it on the issue of the maintainability in view of Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
• Stayed the Delhi High Court's eviction order against Associated Journal's Limited (AJL) - the publisher of Congress mouthpiece National Herald - from ITO premises in New Delhi.
• Refused to hear pleas challenging the constitutional validity of recent Aadhaar ordinance brought by the Centre and asked the petitioners to approach the high court with their grievances.
• Refused urgent listing of a plea seeking a stay on the release of the biopic on Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
• Agreed to hear on April 10 a string of petitions challenging the electoral bond scheme. The has also agreed to consider the prayer for staying the scheme
• Sought the response of Congress President Rahul Gandhi in a contempt petition filed by BJP leader Meenakshi Lekhi over his remarks after Rafale verdict.
• The CJI-led bench directed the Election Commission of India to watch the biopic on Prime Minister Narendra Modi and report back to Court in sealed cover by this Friday as to whether its screening can be allowed during election time.
• Directed the Madras High Court to consider the objections against the ex-parte ban imposed on popular video app 'Tik Tok' The Court was considering an SLP filed by of Bytedance Technology Pvt Ltd, the Indian operators of the app, against the ex-parte ban imposed by the High Court in an interim order passed in a PIL.
• Expressing satisfaction of the action taken by Election Commission of India against UP CM Yogi Adityanath, BSP Chief Mayawati, BJP leader Maneka Gandhi and SP leader Azam Khan yesterday, the Supreme Court adjourned the hearing of a PIL seeking action against hate speeches during election campaign.
• Issued notice on a Writ Petition seeking to declare the practices of prohibition of entry of Muslim Women in Mosque in India as illegal, unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 14, 15, 21, 25 and 29 of the Constitution.
• Sought responses from Congress leader P Chidambaram's wife Nalini and son Karti on an appeal of the Income Tax department against the Madras High Court order quashing criminal prosecution against them in an alleged blackmoney case.
• Issued notice in a special leave petition which raises the issue whether Section 143-A in the Negotiable Instruments Act, has retrospective application or not?
• When a PIL for prisoners' right to vote came up for admission in Supreme Court, the CJI-led bench posed queries regarding the petitioner, his interest in the subject and reason for choosing the particular cause.
• Observed that a demand notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, claiming 'loan amount', does not become invalid, if it is same as the amount covered under the dishonoured cheque(s).
• In a major boost to conservation of wildlife in this UNESCO world heritage site, the Supreme Court banned mining and related activities along the Kaziranga National Park & Tiger Reserve (KNP) and in the catchment area of the rivers/streams and rivulets which originate in the Karbi Anglong Hill ranges and flow into the park.
• Directed the Gujarat Government to pay Rs 50 lakh compensation and to provide government job to a woman who was gang raped during Gujarat riots of 2002. The bench of CJI Gogoi, Justices Deepak Gupta and Justice Sanjiv Khanna also directed the Government to provide her accommodation at a a place of her choice, after noting that she had been living a nomadic life since 2002.

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/breaking-sc-directs-gujarat-govt-to-pay-rs-50-lakh- Taking note of the fact that the Madras H

Bench of Chief Justice Rajan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna was hearing the matter of foreigners kept in detention centers in Assam in the case of Supreme Court Legal Services Committee v. Union of India & Anr..

Court laid down the following conditions for the release of detenues who have completed more than three years of detention:

• Execution of a bond with two sureties of Rs 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh only) each of Indian citizens;
• Specification of a verifiable address of stay after release;
• Biometric of his/her iris (if possible) and all ten fingerprints and photos shall be captured and stored in a secured database before release from the detention centres. He or she shall report once every week to the Police Station specified by the Foreigners Tribunal;
• He or she shall notify any change of his or her address to the specified Police Station on the same day, and

· A quarterly report to be submitted by the Superintendent of Police (Border) to the Foreigners Tribunal regarding appearance of such released declared foreigner to concerned Police Station and in case of violation of condition, the DFN will be apprehended and produced before Foreigners Tribunal.

Court has further asked the State of Assam to place on record a detailed scheme, in consultation with the Gauhati High Court (on the administrative side), with regard to the constitution of Foreigners Tribunals including appointment of Members, staff etc. It has also asked for record of such details as soon as possible while giving the State liberty to make a mention of the matter before the Vacation Bench.

Matter is to be listed in the month of July unless mentioned otherwise by the counsel for the State.

This is the same petition which was filed by social activist Harsh Mander first, highlighting the miserable plight of detenues in detention centers of Assam while employing services of Prashant Bhushan as counsel.

Court on May 2^nd had dropped Mander's name as the litigant to the petition after he had sought the recusal of CJI Ranjan Gogoi from the case. Mander's name was substituted by Supreme Court Legal Services Authority and Prashant Bhushan was made amicus curiae.

Earlier Apex court had directed Assam's Chief Secretary Alok Kumar to file an affidavit regarding intentions of the State to take measures for the release of detenues. Court had noted that foreigners cannot be kept in detention for "indefinite period" and had asked Assam government to apprise court of methods it is considering for their release.

Read the Order Here

[Swaraj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 1291 of 2019 Decided on 29.01.2019)]

The Hon'ble Supreme Court maintained the exclusivity of Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act (RDB Act) for recovery of debts and reaffirmed that the winding up process is not an alternate remedy for realization of debts due to a creditor, further it held that a secured creditor can file a winding up petition against the borrower even after obtaining a decree from the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT).

WHETHER RBI HAS POWER TO ISSUE DIRECTION UNDER SECTION 35AAOF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT TO BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS?

[Dharani Sugars & Chemical Ltd Vs. Union of India Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1399 of 2018 Decided on 02.04.2019]

The Hon'ble Supreme Court analyzed the scope of power of RBI under Section 35 AA of the Banking Regulation Act and held that RBI can direct banking and financial institutions to move under the IBC, if two conditions precedent are specified: (i) the Central Government should authorize RBI to issue direction; and (ii) it should be in respect of specific default. Hence, only Central Government has the power to authorize RBI to issue direction to banking and financial intuitions when it comes to initiate proceeding under IBC in respect of specific defaulters. Therefore, without authorization of the Central Government, the RBI cannot issue such directions. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court struck down the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India on February 12, 2018 directing banks to initiate insolvency proceedings against companies having bad debts of Rs 2000 crores or above. The court also held that authorization from Central Government is necessary for RBI to direct insolvency process against stressed assets.

WHETHER THE CIRP UNDER THE IBC CAN CONTINUE WHEN WINDING UP PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING IN THE HIGH COURT?

[Forech India Ltd vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co.Ltd, Civil Appeal No. 818 of 2018 Decided on 22.01.2019]

The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) can continue independent of any pending winding up process against the corporate debtor pending in the High Court under the Companies Act, the bench concluded that CIRP was an independent process. The bench also noted that Section 434 was amended, adding a proviso to enable a party to seek transfer of winding up petition pending in HC to the NCLT. The Court however granted liberty to the appellant to seek transfer of the application in HC to NCLT under Section 434.

WHETHER THE WINDING UP PROCEEEDINGS OF A COMPANY UNDER SECTION 20 OF SICA ACT 1985 WILL CONTINUE IN THE HIGH COURT OR THE NCLT?

[Jaipur Metal and Electricals Employees Organization vs Jaipur Metal and Electricals Ltd, Civil Appeal No. 12023 OF 2018 Decided on 12.12.2018]

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that winding up proceedings under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 will continue in the High Court and not the National Company Law Tribunal, until an application for transfer to NCLT is filed by a party under Section 434(1)(c) of the Companies Act 2013.Further it was held that "under the scheme of Section 434 (as amended) and Rule 5 of the 2016 Transfer Rules, all proceedings under Section 20 of the SIC Act pending before the High Court are to continue as such until a party files an application before the High Court for transfer of such proceedings post 17.08.2018(under Section 434(1)(c) of the Companies Act)" The SC however found fault with the portion of the HC order which set aside the NCLT order of admission of application under Section 7 IBC.

WHETHER THE COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 9(3)(C) OF THE IBC,2016 WAS MANDATORY IN NATURE?

[Macquaire Bank Limited v. Shilpi Cable Technology (2018) 2 SCC 674 Decided on 15.12.2017]

The court held that Section 9(1) contains the conditions precedent for triggering the 2016 code in so far as the operational creditor is concerned. The requisite elements are occurrence of a default and delivery of a demand notice of an unpaid operational debt or invoice demanding payment of the amount involved. The bench concluded that a procedural provision is the handmaid of justice and cannot be mandatory where there is a serious general inconvenience.

WHAT IS THE TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF THE INSOLVENCY RESOLUTION PROCESS?

[Arcelormittal India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Satish Kumar Gupta &Ors. Civil Appeal no. 9582 of 2018 Decided on 04.10.2018]

The Hon'ble Supreme Court, interpreting Section 29A(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, has observed the stage of ineligibility attaches when the resolution plan is submitted by a resolution applicant and not at any anterior stage. The bench further held that the time limit for completion of the insolvency resolution process as laid down under Section 12 IBC is mandatory and it cannot be extended beyond 270 days.

WHETHER THE RESOLUTION PLANS SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE SUSPENDED MEMBERS OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CORPORATE DEBTOR TO ATTEND COC MEETINGS?

[Vijay Kumar Jain vs Standard Chartered Bank and others Civil Appeal No.8430 OF 2018 Decided on 31.01.2019]

The Hon'ble Supreme Court recognized the right of members of the suspended Board of Directors of a corporate debtor to receive insolvency resolution plans submitted before the Resolution Professional, in order to effectively participate in the meetings of Committee of Creditors (CoC).

WHETHER THE PERIOD OF CIRP SHOULD BE EXTENDED IN THE INTEREST OF THE STAKE HOLDERS/HOME BUYERS?

[Chitra Sharma &Ors. v. Union of India and OrsW.P. (C) 744 of 2017. Decided on 09.08.2018]

The Hon'ble Supreme Court used its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India which is a power very sparingly exercised and gave the direcion: "In the exercise of the power vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, we direct that the initial period of 180 days for the conclusion of the CRIP in respect of JIL shall commence from the date of this order. If it becomes necessary to apply for a further extension of 90 days, we permit the NCLT to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions of the IBC."

WHETHER THE INSOLVENCY & BANKRUPTCY CODE WILL OVERRIDE THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER ENACTMENT?

[Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd. 2018 SCC Online 984 Decided on 10.08.2018]

The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld Section 238 IBC, 2016. Further it was held that the Code will override anything inconsistent contained in any other enactment, including the Income-tax Act. Further the court held that Income-tax dues, being in the nature of Crown debts, do not take precedence even over secured creditors, who are private persons.

DUTY OF DETERMINATION OF AN INSTRUMENT OR A PARTICULAR DOCUMENT OF SPECIFIC NATURE?

[Black Pearl Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Planet M. Retail Ltd. (Supreme Court), Civil Appeal 2973-2974 of 2017 Decided on 17.02.2017]

The Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that the duty of determination of an instrument or, to explicate, to determine when there is a contest to a particular document to be of specific nature, the adjudication has to be done by the judge after hearing the counsel for the parties. It is a part of judicial function and hence, the same cannot be delegated.

WHETHER MERE RECEIPT OF A LOAN CAN BE TREATED TO BE AN OPERATIONAL/ FINANCIAL OR UNSECURED/SECURED DEBT?

[Aditya Enterprises v. Rajratan Exim Pvt. Ltd. [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 335 of 2018] Decided on 06.07.2018]

The NCLAT observed that in absence of any record to show that the loan was borrowed by the "Corporate Debtor" for its business, we cannot consider the amount as financial debt by stating that he had already paid back the dues. In case there being a dispute about debt, the question of default does not arise. There is no evidence placed on record to suggest that any financial debt is due to the appellant.

WHETHER ANY AMOUNT DEPOSITED BY ANY PERSON IN THE ACCOUNT OF CORPORATE DEBTOR AFTER ORDER OF MORATORIUM CAN BE APPROPRIATED BY BANK (FC) TOWARDS ITS OWN DUES DURING THE PERIOD OF MORATORIUM?

[State Bank of India v. Debashish Nanda [Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) NO.49 of 2018] Decided on 27.04.2018]

The NCLAT held that any amount which is deposited by any person in the account of CoCs after the date of order of Moratorium cannot be appropriated by bank towards its own dues during the period of Moratorium. Further, the Appellate Tribunal chose not to interfere with the order of AA but set aside the order whereunder cost of Rs. 25000/- was imposed on the appellant(FC). The Appellate Tribunal further stated that their interim order would continue during the period of moratorium.

WHETHER THE COC ARE LIABLE TO BEAR THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE IRP OR NOT?

[State Bank of India v. SKC Retails Ltd. Through IRP &Anr. [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) NO. 08 & 43 of 2018] Decided on 06.03.2018]

The NCLAT held that firstly there was a reference made to Regulation 33 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulation, 2016 which is related to "cost of the interim resolution professional" where it was stated that the applicant generally proposes the name of the IRP. Such applicant negotiates the fee to be charged and paid to the IRP. The Adjudicating Authority is required to fix the expenses. In such case, the applicant, who has filled the application u/s 7 or 9 of the IBC, is required to bear the expenses which are to be reimbursed by the CoC to the extent the CoC ratifies the same. Secondly in this case, the application was filed by the Respondent u/s 7 of IBC, the names of resolution professional were suggested by the applicant. Therefore, the applicant is liable to incur the expenses of resolution professional and thereafter, the applicant will get the amount reimbursed by the CoC to the extent the amount as is ratified by the Committee.

WHETHER AN APPLICATION U/S 7 OF THE IBC IS MAINTAINABLE WHEN WINDING UP PROCEEDING AGAINST THE CORPORATE DEBTOR HAS ALREADY BEEN INITIATED BY HIGH COURT?

[Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. v. Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 252 of 2018] Decided on 30.05.2018)]

The NCLAT made a reference to order of this Appellate Tribunal in Innoventive Industries Limited vs. Kumar Motors Private Limited from which it was derived that the word "winding up" mentioned in the Companies Act, 2013 is synonymous to the word "Liquidation" in mentioned in the IBC. It was held that as Bombay High Court had already ordered for "winding up", which is the second stage of the proceeding, initiation of 'CIRP" against the same 'Corporate Debtor' does not arise. Hence the appeal was dismissed.

WHETHER AFTER THE INITIATION OF WINDING UP PROCEEDINGS, ANOTHER APPLICATION U/S 7 OR U/S 9 AGAINST THE SAME CORPORATE DEBTOR IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

[RajitMehra v. Punjab National Bank &Anr. [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.83 of 2018] Decided on 22.03.2018)]

The Appellate Tribunal referred to "Innoventive Industries Limited vs. Kumar Motors Pvt. Ltd." where it was held by this Appellate Tribunal that- '…. the High Court has already admitted the winding up proceedings and ordered for winding-up of the Respondent Corporate Debtor, we hold that the question of initiation of CIRP against same Corporate Debtor does not arise." The Appellate Tribunal chose not to interfere with the order of the AA.

WHETHER THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963 APPLY TO THE APPLICATION FOR CIRP UNDER THE IBC?

[Sriram Compounds Pvt. Ltd. v. Shiva Drums Pvt. Lts. &Ors. [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 46 of 2018] Decided on 05.03.2018]

The Appellate Tribunal had already held that the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the application for CIRP under the IBC, further, even then if the period as claimed is excluded for the purpose of condonation of delay, this appeal was not allowed since, as per Rule 5, the Appellant was required to serve notice u/s 8(1) of the IBC and to submit all information in terms of Form 5(AAA), but none was done by the Appellant. Thus, the Appellate Tribunal chose not to interfere with the order of the AA.

WHETHER STATUTORY DUES OF INCOME TAX, VALUE ADDED TAX ETC. ARE 'OPERATIONAL DEBTS' UNDER THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016?

[Pr. Director General of Income Tax (Admn. & TPS) Vs. M/s. Synergies Dooray Automotive Ltd. &Ors. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 205 of 2017 Decided on 20.03.2019]

The NCLAT held that statutory dues of income tax, value added tax etc. are 'operational debts' under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016. Consequently, it held that Income Tax Department, Sales Tax Department of states etc., who are entitled to such dues, are 'operational creditors'.

WHETHER THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY CAN APPROVE THE AMENDED RESOLUTION PLAN, IF IT IS IN CONSONANCE WITH SECTION 30(2) OF IBC & IS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY COC?

[Tomorrows Sales Agency Pvt. (Successful Resolution Application) v. Rajiv Khurana (Resolution Professional for Power Himalayas Ltd. &Ors.) [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.162 of 2018 Decided on 05.07.2018]

The NCLAT held that the original application was wrongly rejected & that the Adjudicating Authority should have amended Resolution Plan. The impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority was set aside, and the amended Resolution Plan was approved.

WHETHER IN TERMS OF SEC.24(3)(C) OF IBC, THE RP IS REQUIRED TO GIVE NOTICE TO OC'S OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND THE MEETING OF COC?

[M/s ANG Industries Ltd. v. I. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd. [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) no.109 of 2018 Decided on 24.05.2018]

The NCLAT directed the RP to act in accordance with decision of the Appellate Tribunal in Rajputana Properties Pvt. Ltd V/s Ultra Tech cement Ltd. &Ors. The Appellate Tribunal did not to interfere with the NCLT Order.

WHETHER IN ABSENCE OF GROUND MENTIONED IN SECTION 34, CAN THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY REPLACE THE APPELLANT (RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL) BY ANOTHER LIQUIDATOR?

[M/s Devendra Padamchand Jain (RP of VNR Infrastructures Ltd- Corporate Debtor) v. State Bank of India&Ors [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 177 of 2017] Decided on 31.01.2018)]

The NCLAT held that the AA has jurisdiction to remove the RP if it is not satisfied to remove the functioning of the RP, which amounts to non-compliance of Section 30(2) of IBC.

WHAT CONSTITUTES "EXISTENCE OF A DISPUTE" IN THE CONTEXT OF APPLICATIONS FILED BY OPERATIONAL CREDITORS FOR INITIATION OF CORPORATE INSOLVENCY RESOLUTION PROCESS (CIRP) OF CORPORATE DEBTORS UNDER THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016 (IBC).

[Mobilox Innovations Private Limited v Kirusa Software Private Limited. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9405 OF 2017 Decided on 21.09.2017]

Upon review of the entire scheme relating to CIRP applications filed by operational creditors the Supreme Court held that what is important is that the existence of the dispute and/or the suit or arbitration proceeding must be "pre-existing" i.e. it must exist before the receipt of the Demand Notice. Further, the court held that the word "and" occurring in Section 8(2)(a) of the IBC must be read as "or". Also, court clarified what questions the adjudicating authority must decide while examining an application under Section 9.

WHETHER THE LEGAL CLAIMS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CATEGORY OF OPERATIONAL DEBT UNDER SECTION 8(1) OF THE IBC CODE?

[Mitcon Consultancy & Services Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Vitthal Corporations Ltd. [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.101 of 2018 Decided on 05.07.2018]

The Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the NCLT on wrongly rejecting the legal claim. Further it ruled to remit the case to the Adjudicating Authority and pass order of Moratorium and Interim Resolution professional.

WHETHER ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY CAN REPLACE A PROPOSED RP, IF NAMED AND APPROVED BY THE CREDITOR IN THEIR PETITION IN THE ABSENCE OF PENDENCY OF ANY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS?

[Shravan Kumar Visnoi v. M/s Crown Alba Writing Instrument Pvt. Ltd. [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 253 of 2018 Decided on 28.05.2018]

The NCLAT observed that there was no illegality committed by the IRP or RP & thus the ground shown in this case by AA were not justified. However, it did not interfere with the order RP was appointed and the IBBI had approved his name.

WHETHER NON ISSUANCE OF NOTICE TO THE CORPORATE DEBTOR BY THE AA BEFORE ADMISSION OF THE APPLICATION U/S 7 WAS IN VIOLATION OF RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE?

[Chand Khan [Managing Director of CK Infrastructure Ltd.] v. RCI Industries & Technology Ltd. [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 307 of 2017 Decided on 03.01.2018]

The application preferred by the Respondent u/s 7 was dismissed. The Order passed by the AA and any action taken under such order was set aside.

WHETHER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY WITHOUT ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 8(1) OF THE 'I&B CODE' TO THE CORPORATE DEBTOR IS MAINTAINABLE?

[Kamal Kumar Kandpal sv. Sanghvi Movers Ltd. &Anr. [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 273 of 2018Decided on 31.05.2018]

The NCLAT set aside the order passed by the AA. Corporate Debtor was allowed to function independently through its BOD from immediate effect.

Tariq Khan, is a Senior Associate (Advani & Co.)

An order of the Single Judge of the Patna High Court was assailed before the Division Bench after a delay of 367 days. The Division Bench dismissed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that there was no sufficient cause shown for condonation of delay. After 728 days from the date of the Division bench order, a special leave petition was filed before the Supreme Court.

The reason stated by the State for the delay was that it took time to receive the affidavit and vakalatnama from the concerned department. The bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Indira Banerjee said:

"We are of the view that a clear signal has to sent to the Government Authorities that they cannot approach the Court as and when they please, on account of gross incompetence of their officers and that too without taking any action against the concerned officers. No detail of this delay of 728 days have been given as if there is an inherent right to seek condonation of delay by State Government. The law of limitation apparently does not apply to the State Government according to its conduct. That such condonation of delay is no more admissible on the pretext of Government working lethargy is clear from the judgment of this court in The Chief Post Master General vs. Living Media India Ltd."

The court observed that the objective of filing this SLP is possibly to get a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court. This is complete wastage of judicial time and the petitioners must pay for the same, it added.

Dismissing the SLP, the bench also directed the Chief Secretary of the State of Bihar to look into this matter to ensure better management of the legal cases. It also said that the cost has to be recovered from the officers responsible for this delay.

Read Order

The Supreme Court observed that the right of appeal under Section 96(2) CPC is a statutory right and the defendant cannot be deprived of the statutory right of appeal merely on the ground that the application filed by him under Order IX Rule 13 CPC [to set aside ex-parte decree] has been dismissed.

Writ Of Habeas Corpus Can Be Issued When The Detention Of A Minor Is By A Person Who Is Not Entitled To His Legal Custody [Tejaswini Gaud vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari]

The Supreme Court observed that the writ of habeas corpus is maintainable where it is proved that the detention of a minor child by a parent or others was illegal and without any authority of law. The bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice R. Subhash Reddy affirmed a Bombay High Court judgment that directed the relatives of a deceased mother to hand over the custody of the child to the-father. The contention raised in this case

Specific Performance: Plea Of Hardship Cannot Be Raised If Not Pleaded In Written Statement [Beemaneni Maha Lakshmi vs. Gangumalla Appa Rao]

The Supreme Court observed that a defendant in a specific performance suit should plead in his written statement the hardship that will be caused if the decree of specific performance of the contract is passed against him. Otherwise, such plea cannot be permitted to be raised in a later stage, the bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice MR Shah said while confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 30.12.1985.

Information Contained In A Document Is A 'Corporeal Property' And Can Be Subject Matter Of Theft [Birla Corporation Limited Vs. Adventz Investments And Holdings Limited]

The Supreme Court held that the "document" as defined in Section 29 of the Indian Penal Code is a "moveable property" within the meaning of Section 22 IPC and the information contained thereon in the documents would also fall within the purview of the "corporeal property" and can be the subject matter of the theft.

Lawyer Is Not Just His Client's Mouthpiece; Be Responsible While Making Presentation To The Court [Lal Bahadur Gautam V. State of U.P.]

Everyone has to be responsible and careful in what they present to the Court, said the Supreme Court while reiterating that a lawyer demeans himself if he acts merely as a mouthpiece of his client. This observation was made by a bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Navin Sinha on Wednesday while allowing an appeal filed by a lecturer in a private unaided college affiliated to the Chaudhary Charan Singh University.

Mere Incorrect Statement In Vakalatnama Not Forgery, SC Quashes Criminal Case Against MP Sasikala Pushpa [Sasikala Pushpa V. State of Tamil Nadu]

The Supreme Court quashed a criminal case lodged against expelled AIADMK Leader and Member of Parliament Sasikala Pushpa and her husband with respect to the alleged forgery committed by them in signing the Vakalatnama.

Borrower Has No Right To Be Represented By Lawyer Before In-House Committee Probing 'Wilful Default' [SBI V M/s Jah Developers Pvt. Ltd]

The Supreme Court observed that a borrower has no right to be represented by a lawyer before the In-House Committee of banks constituted for the purpose of determining whether he is a willful defaulter or not. The bench comprising Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran set aside a Delhi High Court judgment that held that a lawyer has the right to represent his client before such in-house committees.

Quantity Of Narcotic Substance A Relevant Factor To Award Punishment Higher Than The Minimum Under NDPS Act [Rafiq Qureshi V. Narcotic Control Bureau Eastern Zonal Unit]

The Supreme Court observed that the decision to impose a punishment higher than the minimum prescribed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is not confined or limited to the factors enumerated in clauses (a) to (f) of Section 32B of the. The bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph observed that the quantity of substance with which an accused is charged is a relevant factor, which can be taken into consideration while fixing quantum of the punishment.

Revision Petition Before NCDRC Not Maintainable Against An Order Passed In Execution Proceedings [Karnataka Housing Board V. K.A. Nagamani]

The Supreme Court held that a Revision Petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [NCDRC] is not maintainable against an order passed by the State Consumer Commission in execution proceedings. The bench comprising Justice UU Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra observed that orders passed for enforcement of the final order in the Consumer dispute, cannot be construed to be orders passed in the 'consumer dispute'.

Sec.34 Arbitration Act- Unilateral Addition To Contract By Arbitral Tribunal Violates Most Basic Notions Of Justice [Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Company Ltd. V. NHAI]

Holding that "a unilateral addition or alteration of a contract can never be foisted upon an unwilling party", the Supreme Court set aside an arbitral award on the grounds of it being in conflict with "most basic notions of justice" and thereby conflicting with "public policy of India" as per Section 34(2)(b)(ii)(iii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.

Constitutional Validity Of 2018 Karnataka Law Granting Reservation In Promotion For SC-ST Staffs Upheld [B K Pavitra V. Union of India]

The Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional validity of the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation (to the Posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act 2018. The said enactment provided for consequential seniority to persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes promoted under the reservation policy of the State of Karnataka.

SC-ST Reservations Are True Fulfillment Of Effective And Substantive Equality [[B K Pavitra V. Union of India]

In its judgment upholding the 2018 Karnataka Law granting reservation in promotion for staffs belonging to Scheduled-Caste and Scheduled-Tribe communities, the Supreme Court observed SC-ST Reservations are the true fulfilment of effective and substantive equality by accounting for the structural conditions into which people are born.

Judges Are Not Fearful Saints: SC Bars Lawyer Convicted For Criminal Contempt From Entering Allahabad District Court For 3 Years [Rakesh Tiwari, Adv V. Alok Pandey, CJM]

Judges are not fearful saints, but have to fearless preachers, said the Supreme Court while upholding the Allahabad High Court order convicting an Advocate for criminal contempt for misbehaving and assaulting a Chief Judicial Magistrate. The bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Navin Sinha, however, suspended the sentence of imprisonment of 6 months awarded by the High Court to Advocate Rakesh Tripathi for further period of 3 years subject to his maintaining good and proper conduct with a condition that he shall not enter the premises of the District Judgeship, Allahabad for a further period of three years in addition to what he has undergone already.

SC Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Share Holders Accused Of 'Stealing' Company Documents To Produce Before Company Law [Birla Corporation Limited vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited]

The Supreme Court judgment in Birla Corporation Limited vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited drew some parallels with its recent order in Rafale Review Petitions. While in Rafale, the issue was about admissibility of documents allegedly 'stolen' from the Ministry, here the issue before the bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice R. Subhash Reddy was whether the act of some shareholders accused of 'stealing' some documents of a company to present it before Company Law Board [CLB] and other judicial forums amounted to 'theft and misappropriation' under Indian Penal Code.

In Limine Dismissal Of SLP At Threshold Neither Constitutes Declaration Of Law Nor A Binding Precedent, Reiterates SC [State of Orissa vs. Dhirendra Sundar Das]

The Supreme Court has reiterated that in-limine dismissal of Special Leave Petition at the threshold without giving any detailed reasons, does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution. In this case

Unregistered Family Settlement Will Operate As A Complete Estoppel Against The Parties To It [Thulasidhara vs. Narayanappa]

The Supreme Court observed that even if the family settlement was not registered, it would operate as a complete estoppel against the original plaintiff who was party to such settlement.

Migrant Scheduled Tribes Can Be Given Benefit Of Reservation In Dadra & Nagar Haveli UT [Director Transport Dept. UT administration of Dadra and Nagar Haveli V. Mr. Abhinav Dipakbhai Patel]

The Supreme Court observed that that a migrant Scheduled Tribe can be given the benefit of reservation in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. The bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice MR Shah rejected the contention of the Union Territory that a person should be a local in the Union Territory and amigrant Scheduled Tribes cannot be given the benefit of reservation.

Successive Bail Applications Should Be Placed Before The Same Judge Who Considered The First One [Gati Limited vs.T. Nagarajan Piramiajee]

The Supreme Court reiterated that successive bail applications filed by an accused should be placed before the same Judge who had refused bail in the first instance, unless that Judge is not available.

Contract [Niyojit] Teachers Are Not Entitled To Salary At Par With Regular Permanent Teachers: SC Sets Aside Patna HC Judgment [State of Bihar V. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee Munger]

In a setback to about 4 Lakh Niyojit Teachers (contract Teachers) in Bihar, the Supreme Court set aside a Patna High Court judgment which had held that they are entitled to a salary at par with regular permanent teachers. Allowing the appeals filed by the State, the bench comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit observed that such a situation could create tremendous imbalance and cause great strain on budgetary resources.

The 'Acid' Undoubtedly A 'Corrosive' Substance Within The Meaning Of S.326 IPC [Omanakuttan v. The State of Kerala]

With acid attack cases seeing a phenomenal increase in country and victims literally "living under the shadows" for the rest of their lives, Bench of Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari, while dismissing appeal of the accused appellant observed that "the acid is undoubtedly a corrosive substance within the meaning of Section 326 IPC.

When Does Death Of A Co-Appellant Result In The Abatement Of Appeal As A Whole? SC Answers

Other important orders and proceedings

• In a major relief to the German automobile major Volkswagen, the Supreme Court while staying the order of National Green Tribunal (NGT) which had imposed a fine of 500 Crore on it said that no coercive action as of now should be taken against it. National Green Tribunal had imposed a fine of Rs. 500 Crore on Volkswagen for damaging the environment through use of "cheat device" in its diesel cars in India.
• filed by former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt against the March 7 judgment of the Gujarat High Court which had dismissed his bail application.
• Dismissed the plea by two private persons to restrain Congress President Rahul Gandhi from contesting the 2019 General Elections until the determination of the 'dual citizenship' issue upon his supposedly procuring British citizenship.
• Dismissed the petition filed by former BSF jawan Tej Bahadur Yadav against the dismissal of his nomination from Varanasi Loksabha constituency. "We don't find any merit to entertain this petition", said the bench headed by Chief Justice Gogoi
• Reiterated that the final NRC for the state of Assam be readied by July 31, regardless of the failure of the objectors to pursue their objections against those whose names have been included in the draft NRC published in July last year.
• In its order dismissing Harsh Mander's plea seeking recusal of the Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi from hearing the Assam Detention Centre cases, the Supreme Court observed that a litigant should not be permitted and allowed to question a Judge on 'perceived bias' during the course of hearing.
• Comply terms of Compromise of Face Contempt of Court, the Supreme Court told a couple who obtained a divorce by mutual consent from it. The husband had approached the Apex Court as the Allahabad High Court upheld the District court order refusing his plea for divorce.
• vacated the stay on declaration of results of the Staff Selection Commission Examination 2017—both Combined Graduate Level Examination and Combined Higher Secondary Level Examination while also constituting a six-member expert committee headed by Justice GS Singhvi, former apex court judge, to decide if the entire examination process was tainted by leakage and precautions to be taken in future examinations.
• Stayed disqualification proceedings against two AIADMK MLAs who were served notice by the Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker for allegedly indulging in "anti-party" activities.
• Modified an order of the Bombay High Court directing the BMC to maintain status quo and stop all reclamation work for the coastal road project in Mumbai for now.
• Refused to review its order of April 8 raising the VVPAT physical verification from 1 to 5 EVMs in each assembly segment of a parliamentary constituency.
• Said that it cannot examine the merits of the orders passed by the Election Commission of India giving clean chits to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and BJP President Amit Shah in the petition filed by Congress MP Sushmita Dev.
• Sought the response of Election Commission of India to the petition filed by Ex-BSF jawan Tej Bahadur Yadav challenging the decision of the Returning Officer to reject his nomination as from Varanasi constituency, from where Prime Minister Narendra Modi is seeking re-election.
• Constitution bench of the Supreme Court extended the time given to the Ayodhya mediation panel to complete the process till August 15. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that the report of the Chairman of the court-appointed mediation committee has been received and the progress made in the process is noted
• While allowing State of Assam further time to indicate the progress made on the diplomatic level as for the larger issue of deportation of "declared foreigners" and setting up of Additional Foreigners' Tribunals in the state of Assam is concerned, the Supreme Court came to rescue of those who have spent long period of detention in the Assam detention centers' and are awaiting their deportation and said that those amongst them who have completed more than three years of detention should be released.
• Government working lethargy is not a pretext to condone the delay, said the Supreme Court while imposing cost of Rs. 20,000 on Bihar Government for its extraordinary delay filing special leave petition.
• Issued notice in the Special Leave Petition filed against the judgment of the Madras High Court that the Lieutenant Governor of Puducherry has no rightto interefere in the daily affairs of the elected government of Puducherry.
• Bench headed by Justice SA Bobde issued notice to the Centre on a PIL challenging mandatory death penalty under section 3(2)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
• Issued a notice in a petition raising an issue whether even disciplinary proceedings initiated and action taken against employees would fall under "personal information" as defined in Clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
• Reserved verdict in the petition seeking review of the December 14 judgment which had declined to order probe into the alleged corruption in the deal to procure 36 Rafale aircraft from French company Dassault aviation.
• Referred to larger bench three questions on the scope and ambit of power under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code which remains unanswered even after the judgment of the Constitution bench in Hardeep Singh.
• Expressing dissatisfaction at the investigation by SIT constituted by Chattisgarh government, the Supreme Court directed Central Bureue of Investigation to take over the probe into Edesmeta massacre of May 2013 where 8 tribal including 4 children were allegedly killed by CRPF.
• Bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna issued notice to Delhi government on a petition against the decision of Delhi Government to install CCTV cameras in the classrooms and also the decision to provide live feed to parents.
• Refused to interfere with the suspension of Dr.Kafeel Ahmed Khan, and dismissed his special leave petition filed against the March 7 judgment of Allahabad High Court.
• Issued notice in a petition seeking framing of guidelines by the government to regulate the functioning of online media streaming platforms like Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Hotstar etc.
• Stayed the Madras HC judgments which had ruled that salaries received by missionaries and nuns of Catholic Church are liable to be subjected to Tax Deduction at Source(TDS) under Section 192 of the Income Tax Act.

A man accused of offences under Section 364 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code had approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking to quash the FIR. During the pendency of this petition, charge sheet was filed.

The High Court dismissed the petition giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the framing of charge under appropriate provisions. Thereafter, the accused filed another petition seeking to review, recall and modify the order, which was allowed by the High Court.

The complainant approached the Apex Court against this order contending that the High Court could not have entertained the subsequent petition under Section 482 for review or, as the case may be, for modification of its earlier order having regard to the specific bar contained in Section 362 of the CrPC.

Section 362 of CrPC provides that, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. Allowing the appeal, the bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta said:

Th"e High Court while dismissing the petition under Section 482 observed that it would be open to the second respondent to pursue his remedies after framing of the charge. In view of the specific bar which is contained in Section 362, we are of the view that the impugned order of the High Court is unsustainable. Such an application for review or modification could not have been entertained."

Read Order

We are affirmatively of the view that orders of this nature detract from the true purpose for which the NCDRC has been established, said the bench comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta while setting aside an order of National Consumer Commission (NCDRC). In this case (Vibha Bakshi Gokhale vs. Gruhashilp Constructions), NCDRC had dismissed the complaint as the complainant failed to file a rejoinder and evidence within stipulated time.

The court said that the purpose which Parliament sought to achieve by setting up the NCDRC is to protect the rights of consumers to seek access to justice under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

"We are affirmatively of the view that orders of this nature detract from the true purpose for which the NCDRC has been established. The NCDRC should have borne this in mind instead of rejecting the complaint on a technicality. Such dismissals only add to the burden of litigation and defeat the purpose of ensuring justice in the consumer fora."

The court further observed that it has been repeatedly observing that marginal delays are not being condoned by the NCDRC on the ground that the Consumer Protection Act 1986 stipulates a period within which a consumer complaint has to be disposed of. It said:

"Though the Act stipulates a period for disposing of a consumer complaint, it is also a sobering reflection that complaints cannot be disposed of due to non-availability of resources and infrastructure. In this background, it is harsh to penalise a bona fide litigant for marginal delays that may occur in the judicial process. The consumer fora should bear this in mind so that the ends of justice are not defeated."

Read Order

An official accused of corruption filed a petition before the Karnataka High Court challenging the Trial Court order refusing to discharge him in a criminal case. Allowing the petition, the High Court held that in the absence of a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, secondary evidence of the electronic record based on the spy camera is inadmissible in evidence. It also observed that the prosecution is precluded from supplying any certification "at this point of time" since that would be an afterthought. It was further held that the case of the prosecution that apart from the electronic evidence, other evidence is available is 'on its face unconvincing'.

The bench comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta, on appeal filed by the state, observed that the High Court erred in concluding that the failure to produce a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act at the stage when the charge-sheet was filed was fatal to the prosecution. It said:

"The need for production of such a certificate would arise when the electronic record is sought to be produced in evidence at the trial. It is at that stage that the necessity of the production of the certificate would arise."

Setting aside the High Court order, the court also reiterated that, at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence.

Read Judgment