When the Statute does not provide the Limitation Period, the suit must be filed within reasonable period: Supreme Court
Case title: Union of India v. Citi Bank NA, Civil Appeal No. 9337/2010
The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Citi Bank NA observed that even in cases where the statue does not provide a limitation period, the suit must be filed within a reasonable period. The case concerned proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 against Citi Bank of America and Standard Chartered Bank wherein the show cause notice was issued in the year 2002 after almost a decade from the date of alleged transaction in 1992-1993. The bench consisting of Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha observed that in this case, the proceedings are liable to be set aside.
Inherent power cannot override statutory prohibitions or create remedies which are not contemplated under the Code: Supreme Court
Case Title: My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative Society v. B. Mahesh, Civil Appeal No. 5784/2022
The Supreme Court in a recent judgment noted that any party who is affected by a judgment but is not a party to the suit can prefer an appeal under Section 96 to 100 of CPC (leave of the court). Further, the court also noted that Section 151 of the CPC can only be applicable if there is no alternate remedy available in accordance with the existing provisions of law and such inherent power cannot override statutory prohibitions or create remedies which are not contemplated under the Code. In this case, the aggrieved party approached the Hight Court under Section 151 to get a decree impugned by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the HC. The court observed that:
“Sections 96 to 100 of CPC deals with the procedure for filing appeals from original decrees. A perusal of the above provision makes it clear that the provisions are silent about the category of persons who can prefer an appeal. But it is well settled legal position that a person who is affected by a judgment but is not a party to the suit, can prefer an appeal with the leave of the Court…In the light of the above, it can be safely concluded any aggrieved party can prefer an appeal with the leave of the Court.”
Benami Transactions law cannot be applied retrospectively: Supreme Court
Case Title: Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd, Civil Appeal No. 5783/2022
The Supreme Court in UOI v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., held that the 2016 amendment to Benami Transactions law cannot be applied retrospectively. The amendment brought transactions like cash transfers, property deals, and share issuances under its ambit and was been used by the taxman where the income Tax Act was powerless. The bench led by Chief Justice NV Ramana stated that the amendment to the 28-year-old law will now be applicable only on transactions that took place after the changes were introduced and further terming Section 3(2) of the amendment act “unconstitutional” on the ground of being “manifestly arbitrary,” The changes in the law were made as part of the government’s assault on black money and was one of the harshest steps taken by it along with the demonetisation of high-value bank notes with this intent. Subsequent to the 2016 amendment, the income tax department has issued hundreds of notices to companies, other firms and individuals and initiated criminal prosecution and confiscation proceedings against them by invoking the retrospective nature of the new provisions. These actions will now be invalid, giving relief to the parties concerned.
Woman cannot be denied maternity leave under the Central Services (leaves Rules), 1972 on the grounds that her spouse has two children from his earlier marriage: Supreme Court.
Case Title: Deepika Singh v. CAT, SLP (C) No 7772 of 2021
The Supreme Court in Deepika Singh v. CAT held that a woman cannot be denied maternity leave under the Central Services (leaves Rules), 1972 on the grounds that her spouse has two children from his earlier marriage, provided the maternity leave is for biological child. Rule 43 of the 1972 Rules provides that only a female employee with less than two surviving children can seek maternity leave. In this case, the woman’s husband had two children from his previous marriage and she had previously availed child care leave for her non-biological child. When a child was born to her in the marriage, the authorities denied her maternity leave, citing the bar under Rule 43.
Shedding light on the importance of mediation in resolving disputes: Supreme Court
Case Title: Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineer, SLP (C)No. 14697/2021
The Indian judiciary lately has been shedding light on the importance of mediation in resolving disputes. In furtherance of this, in a recent judgment, the SC noted the importance of trained mediators. The court highlighted the importance of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 which provides for pre-institution mediation and settlement. While answering the question whether 12A is mandatory, the court answered in affirmative and noted that a suit which does not contemplate ay urgent interim relief under this Act, shall not be instituted unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedy of pre institution mediation.
First be establish that a recovery of Contraband was made from the accused and the burden shifts on the accused to explain possession: Supreme Court
Case Title: Sanjeet Kumar Singh @ Munna Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No. 871/2021
The Supreme Court observed that to raise a presumption under Section 54 of NDPS Act, it must first be established that a recovery was made from the accused. The Court noted that although it is true that Section 54 of the Act raises a presumption and the burden shifts on the accused to explain as to how he came into possession of the contraband, to raise the presumption it must first be established that a recovery was made from the accused. The Court observed that the moment a doubt is cast upon the most fundamental aspect, namely the search and seizure, the appellant, in will also be entitled to the same benefit as given by the Special Court to the coaccused.
Central Government would be bound by Section 413 of the Companies Act, 2013, which prescribes the tenure of the members of NCLT to be 5 years: Supreme Court
Case title: National Company Law Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India, Writ petition (Civil) No. 180/2022
The NCLT Bar association filed a plea seeking modification of the tensure of members of NCLT appointed pursuant to the notification dated 20.09.2019 issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, from 3 years to 5 years. The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Sudhanshu Dhulia while turning town the plea observed that the issue of tenure of members of NCLT is not something that its Bar Association should be interested in and the Bar Association should focus on filling up the vacancies as soon as possible. However, the Court clarified that while making appointments in future the Central Government would be bound by Section 413 of the Companies Act, 2013, which prescribes the tenure of the members of NCLT to be 5 years.
