October 2021 - Supreme Court of India Judgements

April 27, 2024 11:33 pm

ESI – HELD interest demanded from the appellant is in terms of Regulation 31-A of the said Regulations. In the writ petition filed by the appellant before the Gujarat High Court, in Letters Patent Appeal and in this appeal, the appellant has not challenged the validity of the Regulation 31-A. It must be noted here that the Judgment and Order dated 10th July 2006 of the Gujarat High Court affirming the liability of the appellant to pay contribution from 30th March 1975 onwards has attained finality and therefore, the liability of the appellant to pay contribution as demanded cannot be questioned.

Oct 31, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE TRANSPORT CORPN. OF INDIA LIMITED THROUGH SANTNU PATRA MANAGER – LEGAL — Appellant Vs. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPN. AND OTHERS — Respondent (…

Bail Declined

Murder – Cancellation of bail – There is a specific allegation that the second respondent has actively aided the commission of the crime by furnishing information about the movements of the deceased to the killers – High Court has failed to notice relevant circumstances bearing on the seriousness and gravity of the crime and the role attributed to the second respondent – Bail cancelled – Appeal allowed.

Oct 31, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHOOPENDRA SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…

I P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC)- Section 482 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 306 – Abetment of suicide – Suicide note – Investigation stayed and Proceedings quashed – Appeal against – Alleged suicide is of a person who was working as a driver of a Special Land Acquisition Officer, who is a public servant and against whom serious and grave allegations of amassing wealth disproportionate to the known sources of income were made by the deceased. The suicide note contains a detailed account of the role of the accused in the events which led to the deceased committing suicide – order of High Court set aside – Appeal allowed.

Oct 31, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHENDRA K C — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…

Service

Service Law – Termination – HELD the respondent-University is directed to reinstate the appellant as Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science and also grant him the benefit of continuity of services only for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits, if any. The appellant will not, however, be entitled to any disbursement of salary for the period from 31st March, 2007, till the date of reinstatement as he has not worked for the said period on the principle of “no work, no pay”.

Oct 31, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DR. SUSHIL KUMAR TRIPATHI — Appellant Vs. JAGADGURU RAM BHADRACHARYA HANDICAPPED UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Vikram…

Acquittal

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – Section (16)(1)(a)(i)(ii)- HELD High Court has recorded a finding of refusal on the part of the appellant to accept the report. The said finding is obvious erroneous as the endorsements on the postal envelope were not proved by examining the Postman. Moreover, the High Court has glossed over the mandatory requirement under subsection (2) of Section 13 of serving a copy of the report on the accused. Evidence adduced by the prosecution was of mere dispatch of the report. Hence, the mandatory requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 13 was not complied with. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot be sustained.

Oct 31, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NARAYANA PRASAD SAHU — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. )…

G S T

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – Sections 37, 38 and 39(9) – Rectification and Returns – Matching and correction process happens on its own as per the mechanism specified in Sections 37 and 38, after which Form GSTR3 is generated for the purposes of submission of returns; and once it is submitted, any changes thereto may have cascading effect – HELD assessee cannot be permitted to unilaterally carry out rectification of his returns submitted electronically in Form GSTR3B, which inevitably would affect the obligations and liabilities of other stakeholders, because of the cascading effect in their electronic records.

Oct 31, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil…

Bail Granted

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 20, 38, 39 and 43D(5) – Bail – Association with terrorist organisation – – The proviso imposes embargo on grant of bail to the accused against whom any of the offences under Chapter IV and VI have been alleged. The embargo will apply when after perusing charge sheet, the Court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true. Thus, if after perusing the charge sheet, if the Court is unable to draw such a prima facie conclusion, the embargo created by the proviso will not apply.

Oct 31, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THWAHA FASAL — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Will & Succession

Succession Act, 1925 – Section 70 – Revocation of unprivileged Will – In view of Section 70, revocation can be made only by following modes: (a) By Execution of another Will or codicil. (b) A writing executed by the testator declaring an intention to revoke the Will and executed in the manner in which an unprivileged Will is required to be executed. (c) By burning, tearing or otherwise destroying the same by the testator or by some person in his presence and by his direction with the intention of revoking the same.

Oct 31, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BADRILAL — Appellant Vs. SURESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 6524…

Cheque Dishonour

Security Cheque – Dishonour – A cheque issued as security pursuant to a financial transaction cannot be considered as a worthless piece of paper under every circumstance. ‘Security’ in its true sense is the state of being safe and the security given for a loan is something given as a pledge of payment. HELD the cheque which is issued as security would mature for presentation and the drawee of the cheque would be entitled to present the same. On such presentation, if the same is dishonoured, the consequences contemplated under Section 138 and the other provisions of N.I. Act would flow.

Oct 31, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRIPATI SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS SON GAURAV SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R.…

Constitution

ADVOCATE SENIOR GOWN – Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 32 and 142 – Making allegations of impropriety against the Institution of the High Court – Withdrawal of Senior Gown – Contempt of Court – This Court views of the High Court but still endeavour to give one more and last chance to the petitioner – In a way this can really be done by recourse to Article 142 of the Constitution of India as there is merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the High Court that there is no real infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioner – Ends of justice would be served by seeking to temporarily restore the designation of the petitioner for a period of two years from 1.1.2022.

Oct 31, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YATIN NARENDRA OZA — Appellant Vs. HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. )…

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 394 read with Section 397 – Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery – The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 394 and 397 of the IPC, sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine, based on the recovery of stolen items and identification by the complainant – The appeal challenges the High Court’s dismissal of the appellant’s appeal against the trial court’s conviction and sentence – The appellant contested the identification of the stolen items and the legality of the disclosure statement used to convict him – The State supported the trial court’s findings, emphasizing the recovery of stolen items and the identification process – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant, and ordered release, citing insufficient evidence to affirm guilt – The Court’s reasoning focused on the improper proof of the disclosure memo and the questionable identification of the stolen items by the complainant – The conclusion was that the prosecution failed to connect the appellant with the crime conclusively.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw

State Laws

M.P. Excise Act, 1915 – The case involves the applicability of a rule for imposing penalties related to the liquor license period of 2009-10 and whether the old or substituted rule should apply – The main issue is whether the penalty should be based on the rule in place during the violation (2009-10) or the substituted rule from 2011, which reduced the penalty – The appellant argues for the application of the substituted rule, which imposes a lower penalty, as the old rule was repealed – The State contends that the old rule should apply to transactions from 2009-10, despite the substitution – The Supreme Court accepted the appellant’s contention, applying the substituted rule to pending proceedings – The Court reasoned that the purpose of the amendment was to balance the offence and penalty, and not applying the substituted rule would not serve public interest – The Court distinguished between the effects of repeal and substitution of rules, emphasizing that the substituted rule should apply from the date of substitution – The appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court’s judgment, and the penalty was determined based on the substituted rule from 2011.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 236 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 190, 193 and 200 – The appeal challenges a High Court judgment regarding a complaint filed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India against the Ex-Directors of M/s. SBM Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. for offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The primary issue is whether the Special Court established under Chapter XXVIII of the Companies Act, 2013 has jurisdiction to try offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India argued that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings and that offences under the Code should be tried by the Special Court – The respondents contended that the High Court’s judgment was correct and that the Special Court did not have jurisdiction to try the complaint – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Special Court presided by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to try the complaint under the Code – The Court reasoned that the reference to the Special Court in Section 236(1) of the Code is a ‘legislation by incorporation’ and not a ‘legislation by reference’, meaning subsequent amendments to the Companies Act do not affect the Code – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine that the case is one of ‘legislation by incorporation’ – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration on merits. The judicial opinion emphasizes the importance of legislative intent and the distinction between ‘legislation by incorporation’ and ‘legislation by reference’ in determining jurisdiction.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 143, 147, 148, 506(2) and 302 read with Section 149 – The appellants were convicted for the murder and sentenced to life imprisonment by the High Court, reversing their earlier acquittal by the trial court – The main issue was the reliability of eyewitness testimonies and the admissibility of evidence, such as the FIR and recovery of weapons – The appellants argued that the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal, contending that the eyewitnesses were unreliable and the FIR was a post-investigation document – The State contended that the eyewitness testimonies were credible and the FIR was lodged promptly without undue delay – The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision, acquitted the appellants, and discharged their bail bonds – The Court found inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts and issues with the FIR and recovery of weapons – The Court applied principles regarding the appellate court’s power in appeals against acquittal, emphasizing the need for the High Court to find perversity or illegality in the trial court’s judgment to reverse an acquittal – The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s judgment was flawed and restored the trial court’s acquittal of the appellants.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw

Month: October 2021

You missed