M/S. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. v Naveen Mathew Philip & Anr., CA No. 2861 of 2023
The Supreme Court ruled that the high courts should not interfere in commercial matters where an effective and efficient alternative forum, such as the Debt Recovery Tribunals, has been set up. The court was hearing an appeal filed by South Indian Bank Ltd. against Naveen Mathew, wherein the latter’s account had been declared a non-performing asset. The bank had issued notices under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, to the borrowers. The Supreme Court ruled that a borrower cannot approach the high court to consider their offer to the bank and should approach the tribunal.
Sri Mahavir Agency v. The State of West Bengal, Crl Appeal No. 982 of 2023
The Division Bench of comprising of justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, allowed the appeal of a vendor by setting aside a conviction order passed by the Calcutta High Court. The vendor was accused of selling adulterated pan masala to consumers and sentenced to six months of rigorous imprisonment. The Court held that the vendor has protection under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, as he had purchased the pan masala from the manufacturer in sealed packaged condition with a written warranty in prescribed form as required by the Act. The Court noted that the convict had purchased the product only after ensuring that the required warranty was provided by the manufacturer.
Yedala Subba Rao & Anr. v. Union of India, Crl Appeal NO. 1153 OF 2023
The Supreme Court granted bail to two accused persons belonging to the CPI (Maoist) in the murder case of two leaders of the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) in 2018. The court observed that the accused had been in custody for more than four years and that charges had not yet been framed. The materials placed on record did not state reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the appellants of commission of offence under the UAPA were prima facie true. The division bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal further noted that the charge had not been framed and the prosecution proposed to examine more than 140 witnesses, so there was no possibility of the trial commencing in the near future.
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Santosh Karnani, Criminal Appeal No. 1148 of 2023
The Division Bench comprising of justices Surya Kant and J.K. Maheshwari, set aside an order of the Gujarat High Court that allowed an anticipatory bail for offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court held that the High Court failed to consider the gravity of the alleged offence and the need for a fair investigation. The case involved an Indian Revenue Service Officer who allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 30 lakhs from a businessman. The court noted that the evidence against the officer cannot be brushed aside lightly and that a well-organised syndicate comprising officials of the Income Tax Department, businessmen and hawala traders need to be unearthed through an unimpaired investigation. The court said that the High Court ought to have refrained from extending protection against arrest to the respondent.
State of Gujarat and Anr v. M/s Saw Pipes Ltd., CA No. 3481 of 2022
The Supreme Court ruled that the penalty and interest leviable under Sections 45(6) and 47(4A) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, are statutory and mandatory, and there is no discretion vested in the Commissioner/Assessing Officer to levy or not to levy the penalty and interest other than as prescribed. The court quashed the judgment of the Gujarat High Court, which had set aside the levy of penalty and interest on the ground that the enhanced tax imposed by the assessing officer had already been paid by the assessee and that the assessee was under a bona fide belief that it was liable to pay the tax at the rate of 2% and not 12%. The apex court held that none of the said grounds would justify deletion of the penalty and interest leviable/payable under Section 45(6) and Section 47(4A) of the Act.
Siju Kurian v. State of Karnataka, Cri Appeal No. 64 of 2021
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a murder accused whose confession statement was translated from Malayalam to Tamil and then typed out by the police in Kannada. The court held that the translation process did not render the statement involuntary or improperly recorded, and that the part of the confession which led to the recovery of the victim’s body was admissible. The appellant had argued that the statement was not reliable since it was recorded in a language not known to him, and that the unusual recording process made it inadmissible. The court rejected these arguments and found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Jhabbar Singh (Deceased) Through Legal Heirs & Ors. v Jagtar Singh S/o Darshan Singh, CA No. 1497 of 2008
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that an instrument of partition is a “consequential action” that does not determine whether the joint status of parties has been severed after a partition order has been passed under Section 118 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. The court held that the procedure to be followed in the event of a partition order is similar to the procedure laid out in Order XX, Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Code for partition decrees. The case related to a dispute over the right of pre-emption between two parties claiming to be co-sharers in land. The plaintiff argued that they had the right to pre-empt the sale of the land by the owner, but the court found that they had not established their superior right of pre-emption throughout the trial.
Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. Etc vs Vijay D. Kasbe & Ors. Etc., CA No. 2911 of 2023
The Supreme Court ruled that government employees are not entitled to double overtime allowance under the Factories Act, if service rules do not provide for it. The ruling came after the court overturned a judgment of the Bombay High Court, which had ruled that employees working as supervisors at the Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India were entitled to overtime benefits. The Supreme Court held that persons holding civil posts or in the civil services of the State enjoy certain privileges and, therefore, the claim made by the respondents ought to have been tested by the Tribunal and the High Court to see whether it was an attempt to get the best of both worlds.
Narsi Creation Pvt Ltd and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., SLP (Civil) Nos. 15142-15143 of 2012
The Supreme Court reiterated that it normally should not interfere with arbitral proceedings until an award is passed, and discouraged the practice of filing applications in disposed of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) to sidestep the arbitration process. The bench of Justices Krishna Murari and Sanjay Karol dismissed an application filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh seeking to vacate the status quo granted by the Arbitral Tribunal in arbitration proceedings between the parties over a disputed project. The court noted that the reliefs sought were already pending adjudication before the tribunal and no arbitral award had been passed, and directed the parties to appear before the tribunal to resume arbitration proceedings while maintaining the status quo.
Gaddipati Divija & Anr v Pathuri Samrajyam & Ors., CA No. 4206-4207 of 2011
The Supreme Court ruled that the question of time being the essence of a contract does not arise when specific performance of the terms of the contract has not been done. The case in question was related to an agreement of sale in which the purchaser’s obligation to pay the balance consideration amount was dependent on the fulfilment of the vendor’s obligation to get the land measured and demarcated within three months. The court noted that it would be impossible for the purchaser to get a sale deed executed unless the vendor got the land measured and demarcated within three months. The decision distinguishes from the earlier Katta Sujatha Reddy v. Siddamsetty Infra Projects (P) Ltd. & Ors, where it was observed that the performance in a reasonable time may be inferred if the conditions are evident from the express terms of the contract, from the nature of the property, and from the surrounding circumstances.
Akhil Gogoi v. The State (National Investigation Agency) & Ors., SLP (Cri) Appeal No. 2504 of 2023
The Supreme Court upheld the Gauhati High Court’s decision to overturn a trial court’s order discharging activist-turned-politician Akhil Gogoi in connection with offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. However, the bench of Justices V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal granted bail to Gogoi during the trial, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the special court. Gogoi was arrested in December 2019 during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act and subsequently won a seat in the assembly elections in 2021 while incarcerated. Gogoi has criticized the BJP-led government for misusing the National Investigation Agency and the anti-terror statute to muzzle dissent.
Gwalior Development Authority and Another v. Bhanu Pratap Singh, CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8549 OF 2014
The Supreme Court held that a lease deed registered compulsorily under Section 17 of the Registration Act 1908 cannot be altered or amended by the High Court by exercising its power under Article 226. Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela Trivedi stated that if a lease deed was already executed without issue, and the transaction also stood concluded, it shall not be under the jurisdiction of the High Court’s powers under Article 226 to alter or amend such a lease deed. The ruling came after an appeal challenged the verdict of Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had ordered the appellants to execute the lease deed in favor of the respondent, even though the lease deed was already executed.
GMR Warora Energy Limited vs Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) & Ors., CA No. 11095 of 2018
The Supreme Court has criticized Distribution Companies (DISCOMS) and power generating companies for engaging in endless litigation challenging concurrent findings of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL). The Apex Court urged the Union of India, through the Ministry of Power (MoP), to develop a mechanism to ensure timely payment by DISCOMS to the power generating companies under the Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs), which will avoid carrying cost to end consumers. It also proposed a mechanism to avoid unnecessary litigation. The Court also held that all such additional charges payable after the cut-off date specified in the PPAs will be considered as ‘Change in Law’ events.
SAP Labs India Private Limited vs Income Tax Officer, Circle 6, Bangalore, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8463 OF 2022
The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court can scrutinize the arm’s length price determined by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court dismissed the idea that in every case, where the Tribunal determines the arm’s length price, it attains finality. The Court stated that while determining the arm’s length price, the Tribunal has to follow the guidelines stipulated under Chapter X of the Income Tax Act and the relevant Rules contained in the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Court thus held that the High Court could examine in each case, within the parameters of Section 260A of the Act, whether while determining the arm’s length price, the guidelines laid down under the Act and the Rules are followed or not.
Vikas Chaudhary vs The State of Delhi, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 2276 OF 2022
In a notable judgment, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution must present all relevant mitigating circumstances to assess when imposing a death sentence in cases where the crime is so heinous that the sentence is required, even if it is eventually not imposed. The decision clarifies the imperative to evaluate mitigating circumstances at the trial stage and present materials for independent evaluation in cases where the death sentence is proposed. The Court also reiterated that trial courts have no jurisdiction to sentence the accused to life imprisonment without the possibility of remission for a fixed term.
About the author
