RECENT JUDGEMENTS

PCS-J & CLAT PG 2020

https://t.me/Pcsjlaw

Accused X vs The State Of Maharashtra

Topic : Post Conviction Mental Illness is A Mitigating Factor To Commute Death

Sentence

Overview : 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.

Aliyathammuda Beethathebiyyappura Pookoya vs. Pattakal Cheriyakoya

Topic : Compromise Decree In Representative Suit Void If Obtained Without Leave Of

Court And Notice To Interested Parties

Overview : The Supreme Court has observed that a compromise decree in a

representative suit obtained without the leave of the court and without issuing notice to
the parties interested would be void.

Amir Hamza Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra

Topic : Victim Has Right To Assist The Court In A Trial Before The Magistrate

Overview : The Supreme Court observed that, though the Magistrate is not bound to
grant permission to a victim to conduct prosecution at the mere asking but the victim
has a right to assist the Court in a trial before the Magistrate. The bench comprising of
Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta observed that if the magistrate is
satisfied that the victim is in a position to assist the Court and the trial does not involve
such complexities which cannot be handled by the victim, he/she would be within its
jurisdiction to grant of permission to the victim to take over the inquiry of the
pendency before the Magistrate.

Anokhilal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Topic : Only Lawyers With Minimum 10 Yrs Practice Shall Be Considered For
Representing Accused In Trial Of Offences Punishable With Death Or Life Term
Overview : The Supreme Court issued guidelines in the matter of appointment of
amicus curiae to defend the accused in serious criminal cases. (i) In all cases where
there is a possibility of life sentence or death sentence, learned Advocates who have put
in minimum of 10 years practice at the Bar alone be considered to be appointed as
Amicus Curiae or through legal services to represent an accused. (ii) In all matters dealt
with by the High Court concerning confirmation of death sentence, Senior Advocates of
the Court must first be considered to be appointed as Amicus Curiae. (iii) Whenever
any learned counsel is appointed as Amicus Curiae, some reasonable time may be
provided to enable the counsel to prepare the matter. There cannot be any hard and
fast rule in that behalf. However, a minimum of seven days' time may normally be
considered to be appropriate and adequate. (iv) Any learned counsel, who is appointed
as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the accused must normally be granted to have meetings
and discussion with the concerned accused.

Arshnoor Singh v Harpal Kaur and others

Topic : Mitakshara Law - Property Inherited By A Male Will Remain As Coparcenary

Property For Descendants Upto Three Degrees Below Him

Overview : The Supreme Court has held that the rule under Mitakshara law that
whenever a male ancestor inherits any property from any of his paternal ancestors upto
three degrees above him, then his male legal heirs upto three degrees below him would
get an equal right as coparceners in that property will apply in cases of succession
which opened before Hindu Succession Act 1956. Applying this rule, the bench of
Justices Justices U U Lalit and Indu Malhotra allowed an appeal filed by one Arshnoor
Singh, to set aside the sale deeds executed by his father Dharam Singh in 1999. As per
the impugned sale deeds, Dharam Singh alienated joint family property to the
respondent Harpal Kaur, whom he subsequently married as second wife.

Asgar v Mohan Verma

Topic : Liberty Granted By Court To Pursue Appropriate Remedy Does Not Bar
Application Of Constructive Res Judicata

Overview : The Supreme Court has observed that liberty granted by court to avail
'appropriate remedies' to a party does not bar application of principle of constructive
res judicata when he/she invokes such a remedy.

Ashok Kumar Kalra v Wing Cdr Surendra Agnihotri and others

Topic : Order VIII Rule 6A CPC - No Embargo On Filing Counter-Claim After Filing
Written Statement
Overview : The Supreme Court has held that a Court can exercise its discretion and
permit the filing of a counter-claim after the written statement, till the stage of framing
of the issues of the trial. The three judge bench headed by Justice NV Ramana held that
Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC does not pose an embargo on filing the counter-claim
after filing the written statement.

B K Pavitra and others v Union of India

Topic : Karnataka law on reservation of SC/STs in promotions upheld

Overview : 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. The bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Dhananjaya Y
Chandrachud observed that this law has cured the deficiency noted in the earlier BK
Pavitra judgment in respect of the 2002 law, and it does not amount to a usurpation of
judicial power by the state legislature. The Reservation Act 2018 is a valid exercise of
the enabling power conferred by Article 16 (4A) of the Constitution, the bench added.

Balkrishna Dattatraya Galande v Balkrishna Rambharose Gupta and

another

Topic : Section 38 Specific Relief Act - Plaintiff Has To Prove His Actual Possession
On The Date Of Filing The Suit

Overview : The Supreme Court has observed that in a suit filed under Section 38 of
the Specific Relief Act, permanent injunction can be granted only to a person who is in
actual possession of the property on the date of suit.

Bansidhar Sharma(Since Deceased) Vs The State Of Rajasthan

Topic : Section 144 CPC [Restitution] Not Attracted When There Is No Variation Or
Reversal Of A Decree Or Order

Overview : The Supreme Court has observed that the provisions of Section 144 of the
Code of Civil Procedure will not be attracted when there is no variation or reversal of a
decree or order. "The principle of doctrine of restitution is that on the reversal of a
decree, the law imposes an obligation on the party to the suit who received the benefit
of the decree to make restitution to the other party for what he has lost", observed the
bench.

Bikram Chatterji and others v Union of India and others

Topic : Cancellation of Amrapali's RERA Registration

Overview : In a major relief to thousands of homebuyers, the Supreme Court

cancelled the registration of Amrapali group under Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act 2016, and directed the National Building Construction Corporation
take over its pending construction projects in Greater Noida and Noida. The bench of
Justices Arun Mishra and U U Lalit found that Amrapali group had siphoned off
homebuyers money with the connivance of Greater Noida and Noida authorities. The
Court has directed the Enforcement Directorate to initiate action under Prevention of
Money Laundering Act and Foreign Exchange Management Act against Amrapali
directors and authorities, and update the Court with progress of probe with periodic
reports.

Birla Institute of Technology v State of Jharkhand

Topic : Teachers entitled to gratuity; SC recalls initial order

Overview : Correcting its earlier erroneous judgment, the Supreme Court has held
that the teachers are entitled to invoke Payment of Gratuity Act for claiming gratuity
from his/her employer. On January 7, 2019 the Supreme Court bench comprising of
Justice AM Sapre and Justice Indu Malhotra held that, a teacher, irrespective of the
type of educational institute he/she is working, is not an 'employee' under Section 2(e)
of the Payment of Gratuity Act and, therefore, has no right to invoke the Act for
claiming gratuity from his/her employer. On January 8, Live Law published an article
on why this judgment denying gratuity to teachers is 'Per Incuriam'. It had quoted the
2009 amendment and 1997 notification and some high court judgments post 2009
amendment. On January 9, the bench headed by Justice Sapre suo motu listed the
appeal and passed order observing that it finds prima facie error in this judgment. It
then stayed the operation of the judgment and directed the registry to post the appeal
for rehearing.

CBI vs Mohd. Parvez Abdul Kayyum

Topic : Restoration of convictions in Haren Pandya murder case

Overview : A bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Vineet Saran restored the
convictions in murder case of former Gujarat Home Minister Haren Pandya. The
Gujarat High Court had acquitted all the 12 convicts after observing that CBI had
"botched up" the investigation. The bench also dismissed with costs of Rs 50,000 a PIL
filed by NGO 'Centre for Public Interest Litigation' (CPIL) which has sought court-
monitored fresh investigation into the killing.

Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court v Subash Chandra

Agarwal
Topic : RTI applicable to the office of CJI

Overview : In a historic judgment, the Supreme Court held that the office of Chief
Justice of India is a public authority under the Right to Information Act. The
Constitution Bench comprising the then CJI Ranjan Googi, Justices Ramana,
Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna upheld the the 2010 judgment of
Delhi HC which had held that RTI Act was applicable to CJI's office. The Court has
however underlined the importance of maintaining confidentiality in some aspects of
judicial administration, and has qualified the right to information on the grounds of
public interest. Penning his separate but concurring opinion while dismissing the
appeal against Delhi HC judgment that held office of CJI is under purview of RTI Act,
Justice DY Chandrachud observed that the basis for the selection and appointment of
judges to the higher judiciary must be defined and placed in the public realm.

Colonel Shrawan Kumar Jaipuriyar @ Sarwan Kumar Jaipuriyar v

Krishna Nandan Singh and another

Topic : Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Plaint Can Be Rejected When It Does Not Disclose
Clear Right To Sue

Overview : The Supreme Court has observed that a plaint can be rejected Order VII
Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when it is manifestly vexatious, meritless and
groundless, in the sense that it does not disclose a clear right to sue. The bench
comprising of Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Sanjiv Khanna also
observed that a mere contemplation or possibility that a right may be infringed without
any legitimate basis for that right, would not be sufficient to hold that the plaint
discloses a cause of action

Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd V. Satish Kumar Gupta &
Ors.

Topic : Essar Insolvency - SC Sets Aside NCLAT Order; Upholds Resolution Plan Of
Arcelor Mittal

Overview : In a landmark decision having wide impact on the IBC regime, the
Supreme Court allowed the appeal by Committee of Creditors in Essar Steel insolvency
to set aside the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. The judgment
pronounced by Justice R F Nariman held that there was no equality between financial
creditors and operational creditors. The Adjudicating Authority cannot substitute the
commercial wisdom of the CoC. The Court has also held that the time limit of 330 days
for resolution to be not mandatory. It is open to the NCLT to extend the timeline if
required.

D.A.V. College Trust And Management Society vs. Director Of Public

Instructions
Topic : NGOs 'Substantially Financed' by Government amenable to RTI Act

Overview : In an important judgment delivered today, the Supreme Court has held
that non-governmental organisations [NGO] substantially financed, whether directly or
indirectly, by the appropriate government fall within the ambit of 'public authority'
under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The bench comprising
Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose held so, while considering appeals
filed by colleges or associations running the colleges and/or schools.

Dharam Singh v Prem Singh

Topic : Revenue Record Entries Can Be Challenged On The Ground That It Was Made
Fraudulently Or Surreptitiously

Overview : The Supreme Court has reiterated that the entries in the revenue records
can be challenged on the ground that it was made fraudulently or surreptitiously.

Dodamuniyappa through LRs vs Muniswamy and others

Topic : Hindu Succession - Property Inherited From Father By Sons Becomes Joint
Family Property In The Hands Of Sons

Overview : The Supreme Court has ruled that property inherited from father by sons
becomes joint family property in the hands of sons. The bench of Justices A M
Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi rendered the decision.

Dr H K Sharma v Shri Ram Lal

Topic : Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate
Landlord-Tenant Relationship

Overview : The Supreme Court observed that mere agreement to sell the property of
the landlord to the tenant would not result in termination of landlord-tenant
relationship between the parties unless there is a stipulation in the agreement itself to
that effect.

Dr. Swapan Kumar Banerjee vs. State of WB

Topic : Wife Divorced By Husband On Ground Of Desertion Entitled To Maintenance

Overview : The Supreme Court observed that a wife, who has been divorced by the
husband, on the ground that the wife has deserted him, is entitled to claim
maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bench
comprising Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose, refusing the plea to
refer this issue to a larger bench, observed that this view has been consistently taken by
the Supreme Court and is in line with both the letter and spirit of the Criminal
Procedure Code.

Ebha Arjun Jadeja vs. State Of Gujarat

Topic : TADA Offences- FIR Cannot Be Registered Without Sanction Of Competent

Authority

Overview : The Supreme Court held that an FIR with respect to commission of an
offence under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act cannot be recorded
by the police under Section 154 CrPC without sanction of the competent authority. The
bar under Section 20-A(1) of TADA Act applies to information recorded under Section
154 of CrPC, the bench comprising Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose
held while discharging an accused.

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

India

Topic : SC Upholds Constitutionality Of Section 23 Of PCPNDT Act, Complete

Contents Of Form 'F' Mandatory

Overview : 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.

G J Raja vs. Tejraj Surana

Topic : Section 143A NI Act On Interim Compensation Has No Retrospective

Application

Overview : Settling a confusion in prosecution of cheque bounce cases, the Supreme

Court held that Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act on payment of interim
compensation to the complainant during the pendency of the case has no retrospective
application.
G.Ratna Raj by LRs vs Sri Muthukumaraswamy Permanent Fund Ltd

Topic : Decree Passed On Plaintiff's Evidence Without Defendant's Appearance At

Trial Is Ex-Parte Decree

Overview : The Supreme Court has held that a decree passed after taking plaintiff's
evidence, without the appearance of defendant at the trial stage, is an ex-parte decree,
which could be set aside under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The
bench of Justice A M Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari passed the order in the case ,
which was an appeal against a High Court judgment, which set aside a preliminary
decree under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.

Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave v Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd

and others

Topic : Article 137 Limitation Act applies to IBC

Overview : The Supreme Court has held that Article 62 of the Limitation Act would
only apply to suits and not to "an application" which is filed under Section 7 of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which would fall only within the residuary Article
137. The bench of Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice R. Subhash Reddy and
Justice Surya Kant was considering an appeal against the NCLT order [upheld by
NCLAT] that admitted a Section 7 application on the ground that, as per article 62, the
limitation period was 12 years from the date on which the money sued has become due.

Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel and ors v Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai

Topic : Father's Self Acquired Property Given To Son By Will/Gift Retains Character
Of Self Acquired Property Unless The Deed Intends Otherwise

Overview : The Supreme Court has held that as per Mitakshara Law of Succession,
father's self-acquired property given to son by way of Will/gift will retain the character
of self acquired property and will not become ancestral property, unless a contrary
intention is expressed in the testament. The bench comprising Justices L Nageswara
Rao and Hemant Gupta was dealing with an appeal from the High Court of Gujarat.

Gurmit Singh Bhatia v Kiran Kant Robinson and others

Topic : Plaintiff Cannot Be Forced To Add Parties Against Whom He Does Not Want
To Fight

Overview : The Supreme Court has reiterated that, in a suit, the plaintiff is the
dominus litis and cannot be forced to add parties against whom he does not want to
fight unless there is a compulsion of the rule of law.

Hardev Singh vs Harpreet Kaur

Topic : A Male Between The Age of 18 And 21 Yrs Cannot Be Punished For Marrying A
Female Adult

Overview : The Supreme Court held that a male aged between 18 and 21 years, who
contracts into a marriage with a female adult, cannot be punished under Section 9 of
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

Hindustan Construction Company Ltd v Union of India

Topic : SC Strikes Down Section 87 Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act Inserted By 2019
Amendment

Overview : In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court struck down Section 87 of

the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, which was inserted through the 2019
amendment Act passed by the Parliament last monsoon session. The judgment was
delivered in the case which was heard by a bench comprising Justices R F Nariman,
Surya Kant and V Ramasubramanian. The bench held the provision, which brought
back the automatic stay provision, to be "manifestly arbitrary" and violative of Article
14 of the Constitution of India.

Illoh Valappil Ambunhi (D) through LRs v Kunhambu Karnavan

Topic : Mere Error In Framing Substantial Question Of Law Would Not Render A
Judgment In Second Appeal To Be Set Aside

Overview : The Supreme Court has observed that mere error in framing a question of
law would not render a judgment in Second Appeal liable to be set aside, if it is found
that a substantial question of law existed and such question has in fact been answered
by the High Court.

In re matter of great public importance touching upon the independence of

judiciary - mentioned by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, SMW(c)

Topic : CJI Sexual harassment conspiracy - Probe ordered

Overview : In an unusual suo moto proceeding, the Supreme Court bench of Justices
Arun Misra, R F Nariman and Deepak Gupta held that former SC judge Justice A K
Patnaik will hold enquiry regarding alleged conspiracy by fixers and disgruntled
employees against CJI Ranjan Gogoi. The allegations were raised by Advocate Utsav
Bains, after an ex-SC staff alleged in media that the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi had sexually
harassed her. A panel comprising three SC judges constituted by the top court to probe
the sexual harassment allegations later gave a clean chit to the CJI. The complainant
had stayed away from the probe citing likelihood of bias. The report of the panel was
not made public.The enquiry proceedings were widely criticized by several lawyer
bodies as opaque and unfair.

Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association (AHAR) v State of Maharashtra,

WP(c)

Topic : Blanket ban on Maharashtra dance bars overturned

Overview : A two judges bench of Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan held that
there cannot be a total prohibition of dance bars in Maharashtra. The Bench also
relaxed the stringent conditions imposed by the Government for getting license for
dance bars. The Court however upheld several provisions of the Maharashtra
Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of
Dignity of Women (Working therein) Act, 2016. The Court approved the definition of
'obscenity' in the Act as not vague, and also the ban on throwing currency notes and
money on the performers. The complete prohibition on serving alcohol in the dance
bars was quashed as disproportionate.

Indibily Creative Pvt. Ltd. vs Govt. Of West Bengal

Topic : Free speech cannot be gagged by fear of mob violence - West Bengal cinema
ban overturned

Overview : The Supreme Court ordered Rs 20 lakhs compensation to the makers of

the Bengali film ""Bhobhishyoter Bhoot", which had suffered an 'unofficial' ban from
the West Bengal government. The police authorities had coerced the movie screens to
withdraw the film citing law and order issues. The makers of the film complained that
the movie was targeted for being critical against the government. A bench of Justices D
Y Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta held that free speech cannot be gagged by fear of
mob violence. "The police are not in a free society the self-appointed guardians of
public morality. The uniformed authority of their force is subject to the rule of law.
They cannot arrogate to themselves the authority to be willing allies in the suppression
of dissent and obstruction of speech and expression", the Court added.

Indore Development Authority and others v Manohar Lal and others

Topic : Justice Arun Mishra's non-recusal from Indore Development Authority case

Overview : In a controversial order, Justice Arun Mishra stated that he will not recuse
from heading the Constitution Bench which was formed to decide the correctness of the
interpretation give to Section 24(2) of the new Land Acquisition Act by the 2018 Indore
Development Authority case. The petitioners in the case sought his recusal contending
that there was apprehension of bias as Justice Mishra had authored the 2018
judgment, which was under reference. Justice Mishra said that it was for the judge to
decide whether to recuse or not and that it will not be in the interests of justice to
recuse.

Jose Paulo Coutinho v Maria Luiza Valentai Pereira and another

Topic : Succession And Inheritance Of Goan Domicile Shall Be Governed By

Portuguese Civil Code

Overview : The Supreme Court has held that the rights of succession and inheritance
of a Goan domicile shall be governed by the Portuguese Civil Code, 1867 as applicable
in the State of Goa. Rights of succession and inheritance even in respect of properties of
a Goan domicile situated outside Goa, anywhere in India, will also be governed by the
Code, the bench comprising Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose has
held. "The Portuguese law which may have had foreign origin became a part of the
Indian laws, and, in sum and substance, is an Indian law", observed the bench.

Kantaru Rajeevaru V. Indian Young Lawyers Association

Topic : SC Keeps Sabarimala Review Pending Till Larger Bench Decides Issues Of
Essential Religious Practices

Overview : The Supreme Court by 3 2 majority, decided to keep the review petitions
in Sabarimala matter pending until a larger bench determines questions related to
essential religious practices. The majority of CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Khanwilkar and
Indu Malhotra expressed that the issue whether Court can interfere in essential
practises of religion needed examination by larger bench. Justices Chandrachud and
Nariman dissented. Let every person remember that the "holy book" is the Constitution
of India, remarked Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, also speaking for Justice
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, in his dissent against the majority decision to refer the
issues to larger bench. The judges opined that most of the arguments raised in the
review petitions were already argued during the hearing of the writ petitions and were
dealt with in the judgment of 28th September 2018. The judge still dealt with the
arguments that was made by various parties during the hearing of review petitions.

Karnataka State Pollution Control Board vs. B. Heera Naik

Topic : Body Corporates Like City Municipal Council/Corporation Can Be Prosecuted

U/s 47 Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act

Overview : The Supreme Court observed that Body Corporate like City Municipal
Council and Corporation can be prosecuted under Sec 47 of the Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. In this case, the Karnataka High Court had quashed the
complaint filed by Karnataka State Pollution Control Board on the ground that
Commissioner of Municipal Council, Chief Officer or Council cannot be termed as Head
of the Department and they cannot be prosecuted under Sec 48 of the Act, 1974.

Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority vs State of Kerala and others

Topic : Maradu flats demolition order

Overview : The Supreme Court ordered the razing down of four high rise apartments
in Maradu, Kochi on finding that they were built in violation of CRZ norms. A bench of
Justices Arun Mishra and Navin Sinha noted that when the construction has been
raised by the builders , the area was within CRZ-III as per the 1991 CRZ notification.
The Court did not accept the builders' plea that the area has been subsequently notified
as CRZ-II (where such constructions are arguably permissible), when the CZMP as per
2011 notification was finalized. The bench later ordered the Government to pay an
interim compensation of Rs 25 lakhs to the flat owners, and constituted a committee
headed by former Kerala HC judge Justice K Balakrishnan Nair to ascertain the liability
of builders.

M Siddiq (d) through Lrs v Mahant Suresh Das and others

Topic : Ayodhya-Babri Masjid dispute

Overview : In an unanimous verdict, the Supreme Court held that the entire disputed
land of 2.77 acres in Ayodhya must be handed over for the construction of Ram
Mandir. At the same time, the Court held that an alternate plot of 5 acres must be
allotted to the Sunni Waqf Board for construction of mosque. This direction was passed
invoking powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. The Court observed that the
destruction of Babri mosque in 1992 was a violation of law. The act of placing idols
beneath the central dome of the mosque in 1949 was an act of "desecration", observed
the Court. Later, the SC dismissed a string of review petitions filed against the verdict.

M. Revanna vs. Anjanamma

Topic : Is Amendment Of Pleadings Allowed After Commencement Of Trial? SC

Explains

Overview : The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered on Thursday, explained when

and on what considerations an application for amendment of pleadings filed after
commencement of Trial, can be allowed. The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana
and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar observed that, while dealing with such an
application, the courts have to consider whether it is bona fide or mala fide and
whether it causes such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated
adequately in terms of money.

M/s Alkem Laboratories Ltd. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Topic : Right To Get Sample Tested Also Available To Vendor Of Misbranded Food
Article When Its Testing Is Integral To Prove The Offence.

Overview : The Supreme Court observed that, where examination of the

contents/ingredients of the food article is integral to proving the offence 'misbranding',
the procedure prescribed under Sections 11-13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act has to be complied with, regardless of whether 'adulteration' is alleged or not.

M/s Exel Careers and another vs Frankfinn Aviation Services

Topic : Should Proceedings In New Court Where 'Returned' Plaint Is Filed Be Started
De Novo? SC Refers To Larger Bench

Overview : Whether after a plaint is returned in terms of Order VII Rule 10 and Rule
10A, Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), should the trial in the Court where the plaint is
now filed start de novo or from such stage at which the plaint was ordered to be
returned? The Supreme Court has referred this issue to larger bench. In M/S EXL
Careers vs. Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd, the bench comprising Justice Deepak
Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose made this reference after it noticed apparent
conflict between the judgment in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.v. Modern
Construction and Joginder Tuli vs. S. L. Bhatia.

Manoharan v State

Topic : Rape-death of minor girl. Death penalty upheld with 2 : 1 majority

Overview : The Supreme Court (21) upheld the death sentence awarded to a man
involved in gang rape of a ten year old girl and thereafter murdering her and her
brother.The appeal filed by Manoharan against the High Court judgment was heard by
a three judge bench comprising of Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice Surya Kant
and Justice Sanjeev Khanna. However, Justice Sanjiv Khanna dissented with the
confirmation of death sentence and opined that the case does not fall under the
category of 'rarest of rare' case, but would fall within the special category of cases,
where the appellant should be directed to suffer sentence for life i.e. till his natural
death, without remission/commutation.

Mukesh Singh v State, SLP(Crl)

Topic : Will NDPS trial be vitiated if complainant and Investigating Officer are the
same? SC doubts earlier decision.

Overview : A two judge bench of Supreme Court expressed its disagreement with the
view taken by a three-judge bench in Mohan Lal vs. State of Punjab where it held that
that the accused is entitled to acquittal if informant and the investigator in NDPS cases
is the same person. The bench comprising Justice UU Lalit and Justice MR Shah made
this observation while hearing an SLP (Mukesh Singh vs. State) filed against conviction
in an NDPS matter. The counsel for the accused placed reliance on MohanLal vs. State
of Punjab to contend that since the investigation in the present case was conducted by
the Police Officer who himself was the complainant, the trial was vitiated and as such
the petitioner-accused is entitled to acquittal. The matter was therefore referred to
larger Constitution Bench.

Murugan and others vs Kesava Gounder (D) through LRs

Topic : Sale Of Minor's Property By Guardian Can Be Avoided Only By Filing Suit To
Set Aside Deed Within Period Under Art.60 Limitation Act

Overview : The Supreme Court has held that a sale of minor's property by guardian
can be avoided only by filing a suit to set aside the deed within the period of limitation
prescribed under Article 60 of the Limitation Act, which is three years from the date of
attaining majority by the minor. In case the minor has died before attaining majority,
as it happened in the case before the SC, the legal representatives of the minor should
bring the suit within 3 years from the date on which the minor would have attained
majority. The bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and K M Joseph was dealing with an
appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of title and possession of immovable
property. Notably, the plaintiffs omitted to seek the prayer for setting aside the sale
deeds, which turned fatal to the case.

National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and others vs

Union of India, WP(c)

Topic : When contempt is in the face of the court - Advocate Mathews Nedumpara's
case

Overview : A bench of Justices R F Nariman and Vineet Saran held Advocate

Mathews Nedumpara guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to three months
imprisonment and barred him from practicing in SC for one year. It was held that the
sentence will remain suspended so long as he abides by his undertaking that he will not
attempt to browbeat any judge of High Court or Supreme Court. The Court's action was
triggered by Nedumpara's reference to Senior Advocate Fali S Nariman while alleging
that only relatives of judges were being designated as senior advocates. Despite the
cautioning by the court, he repeated the reference. When questioned about it, he
denied having done so. When the others present in the Court confirmed his action, he
attempted to justify his references. The Court's finding was not based on his solitary
action of taking the name of Senior Advocate Fali S Nariman. Rather, the Court took
into account several past orders passed by the Supreme Court and the Bombay High
Court deprecating the rough conduct of Nedumpara in Court. The Supreme Court
followed the dictum that when contempt is in the face of court, summary procedure can
be followed to inflict punishment "then and there".

Nevada Properties Private Limited V. State Of Maharashtra And Anr

Topic : Police Cannot Attach Immovable Property Under Sec.102 CrPC During
Investigation

Overview : The Supreme Court held that police does not have the power to attach
immovable property during investigation under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The judgment was delivered by the bench comprising CJI Ranjan Gogoi,
Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna. However, police does have authority to
freeze moveable properties of the accused, clarified the bench. The Supreme Court held
that the expression 'any property' appearing in Section 102 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure would not include 'immovable property'. The bench comprising Chief
Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Sanjiv Khanna observed thus
while holding that a power of a police officer under Section 102 of the Criminal
Procedure Code to seize any property, which may be found under circumstances that
create suspicion of the commission of any offence, would not include the power to
attach, seize and seal an immovable property.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Krishna Kumar Pandey

Topic : Section 362 CrPC Does Not Bar Inherent Power Of High Court To Recall An
Order

Overview : The Supreme Court has observed that the High Court has inherent power
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to recall an order and the
provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C. would not bar it from exercise of such powers.

Nivedita Jha v State of Bihar and others, SLP(c)

Topic : CBI Addl.Director Nageswara Rao held guilty of Contempt of Court

Overview : The Supreme Court bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi held CBI
Additional Director M Nageswara Rao guilty of contempt of court for transferring the
investigating officer heading the probe in Muzaffarpur shelter home case in violation of
the orders of the Court. The Court sentenced him till the rising of the Court and
imposed a fine of Rs. one lakh, after noting that the transfer orders were passed by him
despite knowing that the SC had ordered that the investigation team should not be
changed.
Nusli Neville Wadia vs Ivory Properties and others

Topic : Section 9A CPC (Maharashtra)- Question Of Limitation Cannot Be Decided As

A Preliminary Issue

Overview : The Supreme Court has observed that, under Section 9A of the Code of
Civil Procedure applicable in the state of Maharashtra, question of limitation cannot be
decided as a preliminary issue. The bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra, Justice MR
Shah and Justice BR Gavai observed that under the provisions of Section 9A and Order
XIV Rule 2, it is open to decide preliminary issues if it is purely a question of law and
not a mixed question of law and fact by recording evidence.

P Chidambaram v CBI

Topic : Bail granted to P Chidambaram in CBI case in INX Media scam

Overview : On October 22, the Supreme Court granted bail to Senior Advocate, Rajya
Sabha MP and former Union Minister P Chidambaram in the case registered by CBI in
connection with INX media case. The bench of Justices R Banumathi and A S Bopanna
allowed the appeal against Delhi High Court judgment holding that he was not a "flight
risk" and that there was no possibilities of tampering of evidence or intimidation of
witnesses by him, as the investigation had progressed. The Court had earlier denied
him bail.

P Chidambaram v Directorate of Enforcement

Topic : Denial of bail on findings based on sealed cover documents presented by

prosecution is against fair trial - Chidambaram Bail In INX Media case

Overview : In the judgment granting bail to P Chidambaram in the INX Media case
after 105 days of custody, the Supreme Court made certain pertinent observations
regarding the practice of courts relying on sealed cover documents produced by
prosecution during bail hearings. The SC observed that recording of findings based on
the sealed cover documents submitted by the prosecution as if the offence has been
committed, and using of such findings to deny bail would be against the concept of fair
trial. "It would be against the concept of fair trial if in every case the prosecution
presents documents in sealed cover and the findings on the same are recorded as if the
offence is committed and the same is treated as having a bearing for denial or grant of
bail", said a bench comprising Justices R Banumathi, A S Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy.

P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep vs. State of Kerala.

Topic : Contents Of Memory Card Will Be 'Document' And Not 'Material Object'
Overview : The Supreme Court observed that a Magistrate cannot withhold any
"document" submitted by the investigating officer along with the police report except
when it is voluminous. Further, in case of voluminous documents, the accused can be
permitted to take inspection of the concerned document either personally or through
his pleader in Court, the bench of Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice Dinesh
Maheshwari. The contents of a memory card in relation to a crime amount to a
'document' and not a 'material object', held the Supreme Court while deciding Kerala
actor Dileep's plea for handing over copy of the visuals of the alleged sexual crime
committed on a Kerala actress in February 2017. The SC bench comprising Justices A
M Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheswari overturned the view taken by the High Court of
Kerala that the memory card was a material object, and hence it will not come under
the ambit of Section 207 CrPC. In cases involving issues of privacy and identity of the
complainant or witnesses, such as sexual offences, the Court said that a balanced
approach needs to be taken. The right to fair trial of the accused and the right to
privacy of the victim should be balanced.

Pattu Rajan and others v State of Tamil Nadu

Topic : Saravana Bhavan's founder held guilty in murder case

Overview : The Supreme Court upheld the life sentence awarded to P Rajagopal - the
founder of famous South Indian restaurant chain Saravana Bhavan - and five of his
aides for murder of Santhakumar in 2001. The bench of Justices N V Ramana, Mohan
M Shantanagoudar and Indira Banerjee dismissed the batch of appeals filed by accused
against the 2009 judgment of Madras High Court. The crime was committed with the
motive of Rajagopal to take Jeevajothi, the wife of deceased Santhakumar, as his third
wife. Rajagopal had got an advise from his astrologer that his business will flourish if
he married Jeevajothi. Rajagopal was given time till July to surrender to serve the
sentence. Before that, the 72 year old died due to cardiac arrest on July 18.

Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd and another v Union of India

Topic : Treating homebuyers as financial creditors under IBC not unconstitutional

Overview : Dismissing a bunch of petitions filed by nearly 200 realtors, the Supreme
Court upheld the amendments made to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code in 2018 to
treat homebuyers as financial creditors. A bench of Justices R F Nariman, Sanjiv
Khanna and Surya Kant held that the amendments do not violate Article 14 and
19(1)(g) of the Constitution and rejected the argument that they are 'arbitrary,
unreasonable, excessive and disproportionate'.

Pramod Kumar and Anr vs Zalak Singh and others

Topic : SC explains the test for relinquishment of claim under Order II Rule 2 CPC
Overview : The correct test in cases falling under Order II Rule 2, is "whether the
claim in the new suit is in fact founded upon a cause of action distinct from that which
was the foundation for the former suit", explained the Supreme Court.

Pratap Gouda Patil and others v State of Karnataka and others

Topic : Karnataka Assembly case

Overview : In the first round of Karnataka assembly imborglio, the Supreme Court
passed an interim order holding that the fifteen rebel MLAs cannot be compelled to
attend assembly proceedings, and that they were at liberty to skip attending house. The
bench of CJI Gogoi, Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose also refused to fix a
time frame for the Speaker to decide on the resignations submitted by the MLAs. The
MLAs had approached the Court contending that the Speaker had not acted on their
resignations. Speaker maintained that their resignations were a method to circumvent
the consequences of their defection. The SC bench comprising the then CJI Googi,
Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose held that the interim order was passed to
maintain 'constitutional balance'.

R Dhanasundari @ R Rajeswari v A N Umakanth and others

Topic : When Can Transposition Of Defendants As Plaintiffs Be Permitted? SC

Answers

Overview : The Supreme Court has examined the scope of Rule 1A of Order XXIII
CPC which deals with power of a court to permit transposition of defendants as
plaintiff. The bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Dinesh
Maheshwari observed that, if the plaintiff is seeking to withdraw or to abandon his
claim under Rule 1 of Order XXIII and the defendant seeking transposition is having an
interest in the subject-matter of the suit and thereby, a substantial question to be
adjudicated against the other defendant, then the defendants can be transposed as
plaintiffs.

Radhamma and others v Muddukrishna and others

Topic : Undivided Share In Joint Family Can Be Disposed By Will As Per Sec.30
Hindu Succession Act

Overview : The undivided interest of a Hindu in a joint family property can be

disposed of by Will as per Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, held the
Supreme Court while dismissing appeals from a partition suit. "Section 30 of the Act,
permits the disposition by way of Will of a male Hindu in a Mitakshara coparcenary
property", observed the bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi in the case
Raghwendra Sharan Singh v Ram Prasanna Sight (D) through Lrs

Topic : Plaint Can Be Rejected If Suit Is Clearly Barred By Limitation

Overview : The Supreme Court has observed that a plaint can be rejected under Order
7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, if by considering the averments, it is found
that the suit is clearly barred by law of limitation. "Considering the averments in the
plaint if it is found that the suit is clearly barred by law of limitation, the same can be
rejected in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC", observed the
Court.

Raj Kumar vs. State of UP

Topic : Accused Charged With Food Adulteration Cannot Be Acquitted Merely

Because Deficiency Was Marginal

Overview : The Supreme Court observed that if the standards prescribed under
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, are not complied with, the accused charged with
adulteration cannot be acquitted only on the ground that the deficiency is marginal.

Rajendra Diwan v Pradeep Kumar Ranibala

Topic : State Legislature Cannot Enact Law Which Affects Jurisdiction Of Supreme
Court - SC Constitution Bench

Overview : The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held that Section 13(2)
of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, is unconstitutional as the State Legislature
lacked legislative competence to enact a provision providing direct appeal to Supreme
Court of India. The Bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet
Saran, M R Shah and Ravindra Bhat was considering the reference made to it in
Rajendra Diwan vs. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala. It approved the view taken in HS Yadav
vs. Shakuntala Devi Parakh, by the bench comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and
Aniruddha Bose.

Ram Lal and others v Salig Ram and others

Topic : Irregularity In Local Commissioner's Report Not A Ground To Dismiss The

Suit

Overview : The Supreme Court has observed that a civil suit could not be dismissed
merely for some irregularity in the report of the Local Commissioner appointed for
local investigation. The issue before the Apex Court in the appeal filed by plaintiff (Ram
Lal vs. Salig Ram) was whether was justified in setting aside the decree of First
Appellate Court on the ground that the Local Commissioner had not carried out
demarcation in accordance with the applicable instructions? The bench comprising
Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari noted that the Local
Commissioner omitted to scrupulously follow the applicable instructions for carrying
out such demarcation and particularly omitted to fix three reference points on different
sides of the land in question. But the court disapproved the dismissal of the suit by the
High Court and observed that where the Court is disssatisfied with the proceedings of
such a Local Commissioner, it could direct such further inquiry to be made as
considered fit.

Ravi Setia vs Madan Lal and others

Topic : Specific Relief- Mere Extension Of Time For Deposit Will Not Absolve Plaintiff
Of Obligation To Prove Readiness & Willingness

Overview : The Supreme Court has held that mere extension of time for deposit of
balance sale consideration will not absolve the plaintiff of obligation to prove readiness
and willingness to perform his part in an agreement for sale. The grant of extension of
time cannot ipso facto be construed as otherwise demonstrating readiness and
willingness on part of the plaintiff, observed the bench comprising Justices Navin
Sinha and Indira Banerjee.

Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others v Manjit Kaur

Topic : Person can maintain suit to claim title by adverse possession

Overview : In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court held that any person who
has perfected title by way of adverse possession, can file a suit for restoration of
possession in case of dispossession. The bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra, Justice
S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice MR Shah observed that plea of acquisition of title by
adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and
there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of
infringement of any rights of a plaintiff.

Rekha Murarka vs. State of West Bengal

Topic : Private Counsel Engaged By Victim To Assist Public Prosecutor Cannot Make
Oral Argument/Cross Examine Witnesses

Overview : The Supreme Court observed that, though a victim can engage a private
counsel to assist the prosecution, such counsel could not be given the right to make oral
arguments or examine and cross-examine witnesses. The bench of Justice Mohan M.
Shanthanagoudar and Justice Deepak Gupta observed thus while upholding the
Calcutta High Court judgment dismissing the application made by a victim in a
criminal case seeking permission for her counsel to cross-examine witnesses after the
Public Prosecutor.

Reliance Communication Ltd and Others v State Bank of India and others,
WP(c)

Topic : Anil Ambani held for contempt in Reliance - Ericsson case

Overview : A bench of Justices R F Nariman and Vineet Saran held Anil Ambani,
Chairman of Reliance Communications, guilty of contempt of court for defaulting
payments to Ericsson as per the undertaking given to the Court. The three Reliance
Companies - RCom, Reliance Telecom and Reliance InfraTel- were also held guilty of
contempt, and fine of Rs One Crore each was imposed on them. The Court granted an
opportunity to Reliance companies to purge contempt by paying Rs.453 crores to
Ericsson within 4 weeks. Later, Ambani avoided prison by clearing the
dues.Meanwhile, another controversy had occurred, when the order issued by Court on
January 7 requiring personal presence of Ambani and other officers was found to be
tampered with. Though the bench had specifically made it clear that personal
appearance is not dispensed with, the copy of the order uploaded in the official website
of the top court stated personal appearance is dispensed with. This led to an internal
enquiry, resulting in the summary dismissal of summarily dismissed two court masters,
Manav Sharma and Tapan Kumar Chakraborty.

Ritesh Sinha v State of U.P.

Topic : Magistrate Has Power To Direct An Accused To Give Voice Samples During
Investigation Without His Consent

Overview : In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court held that a judicial magistrate
can direct an accused to provide his voice samples for investigation even without his
consent. The three-judges bench led by the CJI thus settled the confusion which arose
out of the split verdict in the 2012 verdict by a two judges bench.

Rojer Mathew v South Indian Bank Ltd

Topic : Strikes Down Rules Framed By Centre Under Section 184 Finance Act 2017
For Tribunals; Aadhar-Money Bill question referred.

Overview : Upheld the constitutional validity of Section 184 of the Finance Act 2017,
which empowers the Central Government to frame rules relating to appointment and
service conditions of members of various tribunals. At the same time, the five judges
bench struck down the Rules already framed by the Central Government under Section
184, and directed the formulation of new rules. The Constitution Bench also doubted
the correctness of 2018 decision which treated Aadhaar Act as 'money bill' and referred
the point to larger bench.
S. Bhaskaran vs. Sebastian (Dead) through LRs

Topic : Executing Court Cannot Travel Beyond The Order Or Decree Under Execution

Overview : The Supreme Court has reiterated a settled proposition that an executing
court cannot travel beyond the order or decree under execution.

Satvinder Singh alias Satvinder Singh Saluja and others v State of Bihar

Topic : Liability for consuming liquor in a private vehicle

Overview : The Supreme Court has held that a private vehicle is not exempted from
the definition of 'public place' under the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act 2016. This
means that consumption of liquor within a private vehicle in a public place will be an
offence under the prohibition laws in Bihar. "as per Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act,
2016 even a person consumes liquor outside the State of Bihar and enter into the
territory of Bihar and is found drunk or in a state of drunkenness, he can be charged
with offences under Section 37(b)", the Court said.

Shaukathussain Mohammed Patel v Khatunben Mohmmedbhai Polara

Topic : Entirety Of Plaint Averments Have To Be Taken Into Account While

Considering A Plea Seeking Rejection Of Plaint

Overview : The entirety of the averments in the plaint have to be taken into account
while considering a plea seeking rejection of plaint, the Supreme Court has reiterated.

Shiv Sena and others v Union of India and others

Topic : Maharashtra Assembly - Urgent Floor Test Ordered To Curtail Horse Trading,
To Protect Democratic Values

Overview : The Supreme Court ordered urgent floor test in Maharashtra Assembly for
proving the majority of Devendra Fadnavis-led government. The Court observed that
urgent floor test was necessary to curtail unlawful practices such as horse trading and
also to avoid uncertainty and to effectuate smooth running of democracy by ensuring a
stable Government. "In a situation wherein, if the floor test is delayed, there is a
possibility of horse trading, it becomes incumbent upon the Court to act to protect
democratic values. An immediate floor test, in such a case, might be the most effective
mechanism to do so, the bench of Justices NV Ramana, Ashok Bhushan and Sanjiv
Khanna said in the order.

Shivnarayan (D) by LRs v Maniklal (D) by LRs

Topic : Suit In Respect To Properties Situated In Jurisdiction Of Different Courts Can
Be Instituted In One Of Those Courts

Overview : The Supreme Court has observed that, a suit in respect to immovable
property or properties situate in jurisdiction of different courts may be instituted in any
court within whose local limits of jurisdiction, any portion of the property or one or
more properties may be situated. The bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and
Justice KM Joseph observed that interpretation of word "portion of the property" in
Section 17 CPC cannot only be understood in a limited and restrictive sense of being
portion of one property situated in jurisdiction of two courts.

Shri Badru (since deceased) through L R Hari Ram etc vs NTPC

Topic : Cross Objection Should Be Disposed On Merits Notwithstanding Dismissal Of

Appeal

Overview : The Supreme Court has observed that cross has to be disposed of on its
merits by assigning reasons notwithstanding the dismissal of the appeal. "Rejection of
cross objection without any discussion and reason cannot be countenanced", observed
the bench.

Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil V.Hon'ble Speaker, Karnataka Legislative

Assembly

Topic : SC Upholds Disqualification Of 17 Karnataka MLAs; Resignation Not To Affect

Impact Of Defection

Overview : The Supreme Court upheld the decision of former Karnataka Speaker's
decision to disqualify 17 rebel MLAs on the ground of defection. However, in partial
relief to the MLAs, the apex court held that the duration of disqualification cannot be
till the end of the term of the house. This means that they can re-contest in the
upcoming by polls scheduled to take place in December. A significant point in the
Supreme Court's judgment in the Karnataka MLAs disqualification case is the
discussion on the interplay between resignation and disqualification of a legislator. The
apex court held that resignation of a legislator will not efface the effect of
disqualification if defection has taken place before the date of resignation.

Sir Sobha Singh and Sons Pvt Ltd v Shashi Mohan Kapur (D) through LRs

Topic : Execution Petition Filed Without Certified Copy Of Decree Maintainable

Overview : In an appeal filed before the Supreme Court, the bench comprising Justice
Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice and Dinesh Maheshwari observed that it is not
necessary to file a copy of the decree along with execution application unless the Court
directs the decree holder to file a certified copy of the decree.
Sitaram Yechury vs Union of India

Topic : Kashmir habeas orders

Overview : In the habeas corpus petition filed by CPI(M) Secretary Sitaram Yechury
challenging the detention of former J&K MLA M Y Tarigami, the Supreme Court
passed an order 'allowing' Yechury to travel to Srinagar to meet the detenu. The bench
consisting of the then CJI Gogoi, Justices Abdul Nazeer and S A Bobde, did not ask the
Centre about the grounds under which Tarigami was placed under detention.

Sreedevi & Ors v Sarojam & Ors

Topic : Second Appeal - Obligatory For HC To Frame Substantial Question Of Law

Even If Lower Courts' Findings Are Perverse Per Se

Overview : The Supreme Court has observed that it is obligatory for a High Court,
while considering a Second Appeal, to frame substantial question of law in second
appeal even if lower courts' findings are perverse per se. The bench comprising Justice
AM Khanwilkar and Justice Ajay Rastogi set aside a Kerala High Court order, on the
ground that it decided the Second Appeal without formulating any substantial question
of law.

Sri Prabodh Ch.Das and Anr vs Mahamaya Das and another

Topic : Second Appeal Cannot Be Dismissed On Merits When Appellant Is

Unrepresented On The Day Fixed For Hearing

Overview : The Supreme Court has observed that a High Court cannot dismiss a
second appeal on merits where the appellant is unrepresented on the date fixed for
hearing. If the appellant does not appear, the Court may if it deems fit dismiss the
appeal for default of appearance but it does not have the power to dismiss the appeal
on merits, the bench observed.

State of Andhra Pradesh and others v B Ranga Reddy (D) through LRs

Topic : Filing Of Cross Objections By Defendants Not Necessary To Dispute Adverse

Findings In The Dismissed Suit

Overview : The Supreme Court has observed that it is not necessary that defendants
should file cross objections to the appeal against dismissal of a suit to dispute certain
findings adverse to them in the judgment appealed against.

State Of Punjab vs. Baljinder Singh

Topic : NDPS - Non-Compliance Of Section 50 During 'Personal Search' Cannot
Invalidate Recovery From Vehicle

Overview : The Supreme Court observed that merely because there was non-
compliance of Section 50 of the Narcotic and Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act
as far as "personal search" of the accused was concerned, no benefit can be extended so
as to invalidate the effect of recovery from the search of the vehicle. The bench
comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Krishna
Murari observed that the mandate of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is confined to
"personal search" and not to search of a vehicle or a container or premises.

State of Rajasthan vs. Shiv Dayal

Topic : Second Appeal Not To Be Dismissed Merely On The Ground Of 'Concurrent

Findings'

Overview : The Supreme Court has observed that a High Court cannot dismiss a
second appeal merely on the ground that that there is a concurrent finding of two
Courts (whether of dismissal or decreeing of the suit), and thus such finding becomes
unassailable.

State of Telangana vs. Sri Managipet @ Mangipet Sarveshwar Reddy

Topic : Preliminary Inquiry Not Required To Be Mandatorily Conducted In All

Corruption Cases

Overview : The Supreme Court observed that a preliminary inquiry before

registration of First Information Report (FIR) is not required to be mandatorily
conducted in all corruption cases. It said that the judgment in Lalita Kumari does not
state that proceedings cannot be initiated against an accused without conducting a
preliminary inquiry

State of West Bengal v Calcutta Club Ltd and Chief Commissioner of

Central Excise & Service and others v Ranchi Club Ltd

Topic : Levy of sales tax/service tax on supply of food and drinks by incorporated
clubs

Overview : The Supreme Court held that there is no levy of sales tax on the supply of
food and beverages by members' clubs, whether incorporated and unincorporated, to
its members. Answering a reference in the case State of West Bengal v Calcutta Club
Ltd, a three judges bench comprising Justices R F Nariman, Surya Kant and Rama
Subramanian held that the "doctrine of mutuality" , as propounded in the case CTO v.
Young Men's Indian Assn., (1970) 1 SCC 462, continued to operate even after the 46th
amendment to the Constitution which inserted Article 366(29-A). The Court also held
that services given by an incorporated club to its members are exempted from service
tax.

Surinder Pal Soni v Sohan Lal (D) through LRs

Topic : Specific Performance Decree Not To Be Rescinded Merely Because Plaintiff

Deposited Balance Sale Consideration After Appeal

Overview : The Supreme Court has found fault with the judgment of a Punjab and
Haryana High Court which had held that a decree for specific performance to be
inexecutable as the balance sale consideration was deposited by the plaintiff after the
appeal, beyond the period fixed by the trial court. The SC bench of Justices D Y
Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee held that the trial court's decree had merged with
the appeal court's decree. Hence, there was no delay on the part of plaintiff in
depositing the balance sale consideration.

Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal vs. Virender Gandhi

Topic : Section 148 Of Negotiable Instruments Act Has Retrospective Effect

Overview : In an important judgment, the Supreme Court held that Section 148 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act as amended, shall be applicable in respect of the appeals
against the order of conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the
N.I. Act, even in a case where the criminal complaints for the offence under Section 138
of the N.I. Act were filed prior to 2018 amendment Act i.e., prior to 01.09.2018.

Swiss Ribbons Pvt Ltd & Anr v Union of India, WP(c)

Topic : Constitutionality of IBC upheld

Overview : A two judges bench comprising Justices R F Nariman and Navin Sinha
rejected a bunch of petitions which challenged the constitutional validity of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016. The Court held that distinction between
operational creditors and financial creditors were based on intelligible differentia. The
Court also upheld the validity of Sections 12A (prescribing threshold for CoC approval
for withdrawal of resolution application) and 29A (on bar of 'related persons' in
participating in resolution bids).
Tanu Ram Bora v Promod Ch.Das (D) through LRs and others
Topic : Sec.43 TP Act - Transfer By Erroneous Representation Of Title Will Hold Good
If Transferor Acquires Title Later

Overview : Applying the principle of "feeding the grant by estoppel" under Section 43
of the Transfer of Property Act, the Supreme Court granted relief to a party, who was
misled to purchase a property by erroneous representation of title by the vendor.

Tek Singh v Shashi Verma and anr

Topic : Section 115 CPC - Revision Petition Not Maintainable Against Interlocutory
Orders

Overview : The Supreme Court has reiterated that revision petitions filed under
Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not maintainable against interlocutory
orders. We are constrained to observe that every legal canon has been thrown to the
winds, this is how the bench comprising Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice
Vineet Saran described the impugned judgment in the appeal which allowed a revision
petition against an interlocutory order.

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co Ltd v Smt Mousumi

Bhattacharjee and others

Topic : Ambit of 'Accidental Insurance' defined

Overview : Explaining the ambit of 'accidental insurance', the Supreme Court

observed that where a disease is caused or transmitted by insect bite/virus in the
natural course of events, it would not be covered by the definition of an accident. But,
in a given case or circumstance, the affliction or bodily condition may be regarded as an
accident where its cause or course of transmission is unexpected and unforeseen, the
bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta observed while
dealing with what it called an 'interesting question of law'.

The State Of Arunachal Pradesh Vs. Ramchandra Rabidas @ Ratan

Rabidas & Anr

Topic : Road Traffic Offences Can Be Prosecuted Under Both IPC & Motor Vehicles
Act

Overview : The Supreme Court observed that road traffic offences can be prosecuted
under Motor Vehicles Act as well as Indian Penal Code. The bench comprising Justice
Indu Malhotra and Justice Khanna observed thus while setting aside the direction
issued by the Gauhati High Court to States of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur,
Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh that road traffic offences shall be dealt with
only under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and not under the provisions of
Indian Penal Code.
Union of India & ors v. Tarsem Singh and ors

Topic : Sec 3J Of National Highways Act, to the extent it excludes solatium & interest
as per Land Acquisition Act, unconstitutional

Overview : The Supreme Court has declared Section 3J of the National Highways Act
1956, to the extent it excludes solatium and interest as per Land Acquisition Act 1894
to acquisitions done under the NH Act to be unconstitutional. "We, therefore, declare
that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act relating to solatium and interest
contained in Section 23(1A) and (2) and interest payable in terms of section 28 proviso
will apply to acquisitions made under the National Highways Act. Consequently, the
provision of Section 3J is, to this extent, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India and, therefore, declared to be unconstitutional", held the bench consisting of
Justices Rohinton Nariman and Surya Kant.

Union of India v Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India

Topic : SC Allows Centre's Plea To Recover Adjusted Gross Revenue Of Rs 92k cr

From Telecom Companies

Overview : In a setback to telecom service providers, the Supreme Court on Thursday

allowed the Centre's plea to recover adjusted gross revenue (AGR) of about Rs 92,000
crore from them. A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Arun Mishra, upheld the
definition of adjusted gross revenue formulated by the Department of Telecom (DoT).

Union of India v State of Maharashtra and others

Topic : Centre's review against dilution of SC/ST Act allowed

Overview : A three judge bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices Arun
Mishra, M R Shah and B R Gavai allowed Centre's petition seeking review of its March
20, 2018 judgement which had virtually diluted provisions of arrest under the SC/ST
Act. The Court observed that powers under Article 142 of the Constitution could not
have been exercised to pass directions against the statute. The two-judges bench should
not have framed guidelines as it is within legislature's domain to do so, the Court said.
It observed that the protective nature of the Act was necessary in view of the abuses to
which people from marginalized communities are being subjected to.

Union of India v Vivekanand Tiwari, SLP(c)

Topic : Reservation in teaching posts to be applied subject-wise in Universities

Overview : The Supreme Court rejected Centre's challenge against a 2017 judgment of
Allahabad High Court which had held that reservations in teaching posts in
Universities are to be applied by taking subject/discipline as the unit, instead of
university. A bench of Justices U U Lalit and Indira Banerjee refused leave to appeal to
Ministry of Human Resources Department to challenge the High Court judgment
delivered in the case Vivekanand Tiwari v Union of India on April 7, 2017. On February
27, the same bench dismissed Centre's review against the decision. In the Monsoon
Session, Parliament passed a bill -"The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation
in Teachers' Cadre) Bill, 2019"- to treat 'University/ College' as the unit of reservation
roster for teaching posts instead of 'Department/ Subject', to overturn the effect of this
decision.

Union of India vs. Ankit Ashok Jalan

Topic : COFEPOSA - Detention Order Can Be Passed Even If A Person Is In Judicial

Custody

Overview : The Supreme Court observed that even if a person is in judicial custody,
he can be detained Detention Laws like COFEPOSA. The Court further noted that the
detenus were granted bail by the Court on the very date the orders of detention were
quashed by the High Court. Therefore, the apprehension in the mind of the Detaining
Authority that the detenus are likely to be released on bail was well founded and
fortified, said the bench while setting aside the High Court order.

Varinder Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Topic : Acquittal If IO & Informant Same Person - Benefit Of 'Mohan Lal' Judgment
Not Available To Cases Prior To It

Overview : In an important judgment, the Supreme Court observed that all pending
criminal prosecutions, trials and appeals prior to the law laid down in the judgment in
Mohan Lal vs. State of Punjab (acquittal if investigator-informant is the same person),
shall continue to be governed by the individual facts of the case. Later, a two judge
bench expressed its disagreement with the view taken by a three-judge bench in Mohan
Lal vs. State of Punjab where it held that that the accused is entitled to acquittal if
informant and the investigator in NDPS cases is the same person. The matter was
therefore referred to larger bench. A Constitution Bench headed by Justice Arun
Mishra is considering the matter at present.

Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and others v The State of Gujarat

Topic : Magistrate can invoke power under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure even at post-cognizance stage

Overview : A three judge bench of the Supreme Court virtually overruled a 43 year old
precedent and held that Magistrate can invoke power under section 156(3) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure even at post-cognizance stage. The bench headed by Justice RF
Nariman held that this judgment was rendered without adverting to the definition of
"investigation" in Section 2(h) of the CrPC. It was observed that the finding in law in
the said that the judgment that the power under Section 156(3) CrPC can only be
exercised at the pre-cognizance stage is erroneous.

Wildlife First and others v MoEF and others, WP(c)

Topic : Forest Rights Act - Eviction of over 1 million forest dwellers ordered; later
stayed

Overview : In this case, the Supreme Court is assessing the constitutional validity of
the Forest Rights Act 2006. A bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Navin Sinha and Indira
Banerjee directed states to ensure the eviction of all those persons from forestland
whose claims under the Forest Rights Act have been rejected. The order would have
impacted over 1 million forest dwelling tribals. The order led to a lot of controversy and
confusion, as most states were yet to streamline the claims and appeals processes
under the Forest Rights Act. Later, on an application by the Central Government, the
same bench stayed the eviction order. The matter is at present pending, and the Court
has sought for data from states regarding claims under FRA.

Yashwant Sinha & Ors. V. Central Bureau Of Investigation

Topic : SC Dismisses Rafale Review Petitions

Overview : The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions filed against the
December 14, 2018 judgment which declined to order probe into the corruption
allegations regarding the deal to procure 36 Rafale jets by Indian Government form
French company Dassault Aviation. The bench comprising CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justices
S K Kaul and K M Joseph observed that the review petitions filed by Advocate Prashant
Bhushan, former Union Ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie lacked merits.
Justice K M Joseph observed in his separate judgment in the Rafale review that the
main verdict will not stand in the way of CBI taking lawful action on the complaint
raising corruption allegations on the Rafale deal, subject to getting approval under
Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The same bench also closed the
contempt case against Congress MP Rahul Gandhi for 'chowkidhar chor hain' remarks,
accepting his apology.