KIRAN DEVI V. BIHAR STATE SUNNI WAKF BOARD
CITATION:
AIR 2021 SC 280
BENCH:
JUSTICES ASHOK BHUSHAN, SA NAZEER AND HEMANT GUPTA
DATE OF
JUDGMENT: 05 April 2021
PROCEDURAL
LAW
ISSUE: What
happens to a petition filed under the wrong nomenclature?
JUDGMENT: The Supreme Court
explained that when a petition is filed against an order of the Wakf Tribunal
before the High Court, the High Court exercises the jurisdiction under Article
227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it being immaterial that the
petition was titled a writ petition. In fact, in some High Courts, the petition
is tiled as a writ petition under Article 227 and in some High Courts as
revision petition and in others as a miscellaneous petition. The Court
reiterated that the nomenclature under which the petition is filed is not quite
relevant and it does not debar the court from exercising its jurisdiction which
otherwise it possesses.
Read full Judgment, Click Here.
KIRAN DEVI V. BIHAR STATE SUNNI WAKF BOARD
CITATION:
AIR 2021 SC 314
BENCH: JUSTICES
ASHOK BHUSHAN, SA NAZEER AND HEMANT GUPTA
DATE OF
JUDGMENT: 05 April 2021
FAMILY LAW
ISSUE: Can
there be a presumption of Hindu joint family property if a business activity is
carried out by Karta in a tenanted premise?
JUDGMENT: The
Supreme Court held that there can be a presumption of Hindu joint family
property if the property has been acquired by the male member or if the same
has been treated as a joint Hindu family. But such presumption is not attached to a business activity carried
out by an individual in a tenanted premise.
Read full Judgment, Click Here.
SANJIV PRAKASH V. SEEMA KUKREJA
CITATION:
AIR 2021 SC 282
BENCH: JUSTICES
RF NARIMAN, BR GAVAI, AND HRISHIKESH ROY
DATE OF
JUDGMENT: 06 April 2021
ARBITRATION
LAW
ISSUE: Question
pertaining to novation of contract is to be excluded from the purview of Sec 11
of Arbitration Act
JUDGMENT: The
Supreme Court held that such “complex” questions cannot possibly be decided in
the exercise of a limited prima facie review as to whether an arbitration
agreement exists between the parties. It was further held that a Section 11
court under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot decide the
questions of fact and the law relating to novation of a contract containing an
arbitration clause and must refer them to an arbitral tribunal.
Read full Judgment, Click Here.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. PEPSI FOODS LTD.
CITATION:
AIR 2021 SC 283
BENCH: JUSTICES
RF NARIMAN, BR GAVAI, AND HRISHIKESH ROY
DATE OF
JUDGMENT: 06 April 2021
TAXATION LAW
ISSUE: No
automatic vacation of stay under Section 254(2A) Proviso 3 of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 if the assessee is not responsible for the delay
JUDGMENT: Dealing
with an important question as to the constitutional validity of the third
proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Supreme Court has
held that any order of stay shall stand vacated after the expiry of the period
or periods mentioned in the Section only if the delay in disposing of the
appeal is attributable to the assessee.
The Court, hence, concluded:
The third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, which provides for the automatic vacation of a stay granted after 365 days, whether or not the assessee is responsible for the delay in hearing the appeal, was found to be discriminatory and thus liable to be struck down as violating Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
Furthermore, even if the Appellate Tribunal could not take up the appeal in time due to no fault of the assessee, the aforementioned proviso would result in the automatic vacation of a stay following the expiration of 365 days.
In addition, even if the revenue is to blame for the delay in hearing the appeal, the revenue would benefit from the vacation of stay. In this respect, the aforementioned proviso is likewise obviously arbitrary, since it is a provision that is capricious, irrational, and disproportionate in the eyes of the assessee.
Hence,
Supreme Court held while partially upholding the validity of the third proviso
to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, that the same will now be read without the word “even” and the
words “is not” after the words “delay in disposing of the appeal”.
As a result, any order of stay will be dismissed after the expiration of the
time or periods specified in the Section only if the assessee is responsible
for the delay in disposing of the appeal.
Read full Judgment, Click Here.
MOHAMMAD SALIMULLAH V. UNION OF INDIA
CITATION:
AIR 2021 SC 296
BENCH: JUSTICES
SA BOBDE, CJ AND AS BOPANNA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
DATE OF
JUDGMENT: 08 April 2021
INTERNATIONAL
LAW
ISSUE: Rohingya
Refugees are not to be deported unless the procedure prescribed for such
deportation is followed.
JUDGMENT: Supreme
Court took note of the serious allegations made by the Union of India relating
to (i) the threat to the internal security of the country; and (ii) Due to the
porous nature of the landed borders, agents and touts provide a secure way into
India for illegal immigrants. It also took into account the fact that the Court
had previously denied an appeal for similar relief in the case of those
imprisoned in Assam. As a result, the prayed-for interim relief was denied. The
Apex Court also gave directions that the Rohingyas in Jammu, on whose behalf
the present application is filed, shall not be deported unless the procedure
prescribed for such deportation is followed.
Read full Judgment, Click Here.
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. V. PEARL BEVERAGES
CITATION:
AIR 2021 SC 309
BENCH: JUSTICES
UU LALIT, INDIRA BANERJEE, AND KM JOSEPH
DATE OF
JUDGMENT: 12 April 2021
INSURANCE
LAW
ISSUE: Right
to establish the case of insured in case of no test for drunkenness.
JUDGMENT: The
Supreme Court held Merely because there is no test performed, the Insurer would
not be deprived of its right to establish a case that is well within its rights
under the contract. It was directed by the Supreme Court case where there is a
blood test or breath test, which indicates that there is no consumption at all,
undoubtedly, it would not be open to the insurer to set up the case of
exclusion, however, the absence of test may not disable the insurer from
establishing a case for exclusion from liability on the ground of drunk
driving.
Read full Judgment, Click Here.
STATE OF RAJSTHAN V. ASHOK KUMAR KASHYAP
CITATION:
AIR 2021 SC 314
BENCH: JUSTICES
ASHOK BHUSHAN, SA NAZEER AND HEMANT GUPTA
DATE OF
JUDGMENT: 13 April 2021
PROCEDURAL
LAW
ISSUE: Mini
Trial not permissible at the stage of framing of charge.
JUDGMENT: The
Supreme Court held in an interesting case that evaluation of evidence on merits
is not permissible at the stage of considering the application for discharge
and the same is beyond the scope of revisional jurisdiction of the High Courts.
The Bench explained, “At the stage of framing of the charge and/or considering
the discharge application, the mini-trial is not permissible.”
Read full Judgment, Click Here.
BOOTA SINGH V. STATE OF HARYANA
CITATION: AIR 2021 SC 1913
BENCH: JUSTICES
UU LALIT & KM JOSEPH
DATE OF
JUDGMENT: 16 APRIL 2021
NARCOTICS
AND CRIMINAL
ISSUE: Whether
the case of Accused falls under Section 42 or 43 NDPS Act as they were arrested
while being on road sitting in the jeep and thus a public place?
JUDGMENT: Supreme
Court allowed the appeal and set aside the view of the High Court and acquits
the appellants of the charge leveled against them under Section 43 of the NDPS
Act. The court stated that the vehicle in the present case belongs to accused
Gurdeep Singh and the vehicle was not a public conveyance. The Registration Certificate
of the vehicle makes it clear that it is not a Public Transport Vehicle. The
explanation given under Section 43 shows that a private vehicle would not come
under the expression public place. So the present case falls under Section 42
of the NDPS Act.
Read full Judgment, Click Here.
IN RE: EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT 1881
CITATION: 2021 SCC ONLINE SC 325
BENCH: FORMER
CJI S.A. BOBDE AND JUSTICES L. NAGESWARA RAO, B.R. GAVAI, A.S. BOPANNA, AND S.
RAVINDRA BHAT
DATE OF
JUDGMENT: 16 APRIL 2021
CRIMINAL AND
NI ACT
ISSUE:
What guidelines could be resorted to ensure expeditious trial in the cases of
Section 138 of the NI Act?
JUDGMENT: Supreme Court in the suo moto case laid the following direction to ensure expeditious trial:
Magistrates have to record sufficient reasons and due care shall be exercised before converting complaints under Section 138 from summary trial to summons trial and conversion should not be in a mechanical manner.
When the accused reside beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court, Magistrate shall conduct enquired as per Section 202 of CrPC to arrive at sufficient ground to proceed against the accused.
While inquiry under Section 202 CrPC the evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant shall be permitted to be taken on affidavit.
Trial courts are directed to treat service of summons in one complaint as deemed service in respect of all the complaints filed before the same court relating to dishonor of cheques which forms the part of the same transactions.
The trial court does not have the inherent power to review or recall the issue of summons in the complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act.
Read full Judgment, Click Here.
M.K. RANJITSINH V. UNION OF INDIA
CITATION: 2021 SCC
ONLINE SC 326
BENCH: FORMER
CJI S.A. BOBDE AND JUSTICES A.S. BOPANNA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
DATE OF
JUDGMENT: 19 APRIL 2021
ENVIRONMENT
ISSUE: Court
was dealing with the issue of protection of two species of birds the Great
Indian Bustard and the Lesser Florican that are on the verge of
extinction.
JUDGMENT: Supreme
Court held that sustainable development and striking a balance the protection
of the rare species of birds is essential. And the effort should be made to
save every bird at the same time appropriately allowing transmission of power.
Court also issued a certain direction for the protection of birds such as the
government to convert all overhead cables into underground powerlines in the
priority and potential GIB area. And it should be completed within one year.
Court also directed to constitute a committee as the laying of a high voltage
underground power line would require expertise to assess the feasibility. The
court stated that the priority shall be given to save the nearly extinct.
Areas, where eggs are laid, are to be fenced and protected from invasion by
predators so that the eggs laid in these areas are protected.
Read full Judgment, Click Here.
PLR PROJECTS PVT. LTD V. MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD.
CITATION: 2021 SCC
ONLINE SC 332
BENCH: FORMER
CJI SA BOBE AND JUSTICES SK KAUL AND SURYA KANT
DATE OF
JUDGMENT: 20 APRIL 2021
SERVICE
ISSUE: Appointments
under Articles 217 and 224 of the Constitution of India what emphasis could be
placed on?
JUDGMENT: Supreme Court laid down certain directions to facilitate timely appointment-
The Intelligence Bureau should submit the report to the Central Government within 4 to 6 weeks from the date of recommendation of the High Court Collegium.
The Central Government to forward the recommendations to the Supreme Court within 8 to 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the Intelligence Bureau reports and the views from the State Government.
The government then should proceed to make the appointment immediately on the consideration and if Government has any reservations on the suitability or in the public interest, it should be sent back to the Supreme Court Collegium mentioning the specific reasons for such reservation within the same period.
If the Supreme Court Collegium after considering the reasons inputs still reiterates the recommendation unanimously then an appointment should be processed and made within 3 to 4 weeks.
Read full Judgment, Click Here.
RAMESH BHAVAN RATHOD V. VISHANBHAI HIRABHAI MAKWANA MAKWANA
CITATION: 2021 SCC
ONLINE SC 335
BENCH: JUSTICES
D.Y. CHANDRACHUD AND M. R. SHAH
DATE OF
JUDGMENT: 20 APRIL 2021
CRIMINAL LAW
ISSUE: Whether
High Court erred in granting bail to the accused person?
JUDGMENT: Supreme
Court allowed the appeal and the accused were to surrender forthwith. Court set
aside the order of the High Court stating it being be tainted with perversity.
It is well-settled in law that cancellation of bail after it is granted because
the accused has misconduct or of some supervening circumstances warranting such
cancellation. Grant of bail involves the liberty of the accused, the interest
of the State, and the victims of crime. So while granting bail court cannot do
away with its duty to apply a judicial mind and to record reasons to decide
whether or not to grant bail. Court emphasized the need for reasoned disposal
of bail matters.
Read full Judgment, Click Here.
LOK PRAHARI THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY S.N. SHUKLA IAS (RETD.) V. UNION OF INDIA
CITATION: 2021 LATEST CASELAW 213 SC
BENCH: FORMER
CJI SA BOBE AND JUSTICES SK KAUL AND SURYA KANT
DATE OF
JUDGMENT: 20 APRIL 2021
CONSTITUTION
ISSUE: Whether
Ad-hoc Judges are an alternative to a regular appointment?
JUDGMENT: The
court stated that Ad-hoc Judges are an alternative to regular appointments. It
further laid down the guidelines of appointment of Ad-hoc judges in the High
Court under Article 224A. While observing the Article, the court stated that a
non-obstante clause was present so that any person who has held the office of a
Judge of that Court or of any other High Court can be requested to sit and act
as a judge. Court also stated that the person while sitting and acting as a
judge will be entitled to such allowances as the President may by order
determine. And will have the jurisdiction, powers, and privileges of the High
Court judge and not for any other purpose.
Read full Judgment, Click Here.
IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
CITATION: 2021 SCC ONLINE SC 329
BENCH: FORMER
CJI SA BOBDE AND JUSTICES L. NAGESWARA RAO AND S. RAVINDRA BHATT
DATE OF
JUDGMENT: 20 APRIL 2021
CRIMINAL
ISSUE: Formalization
of Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021 i.e, How the draft rules as appended
with an order to be implemented?
JUDGMENT: Supreme
Court in the suo moto proceeding disposed of by stating immediate step to
incorporate Draft Rules, 2021 as a rule for governing criminal trials and
modify the existing rules, notifications, orders, and practice within 6 months
from the date of judgment. Court also stated if there is a requirement of
approval by the State governments departments, it shall be made within six
months. State and police authorities have to make necessary amendments to the
police manuals and instructions. Counsels appearing for the states and union
territories have to make sure that proper steps are taken to incorporate the
Drat rules.
Read full Judgment, Click Here.
DEVENDRA KUMAR SAXENA V. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)
CITATION: AIR 2021 SC 2006
BENCH: JUSTICE
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
DATE OF
JUDGMENT: 20 APRIL 2021
CRIMINAL
ISSUE: Whether
transfer petition can be granted on health grounds?
JUDGMENT: Supreme
Court dismissed the petition stating that however sympathetic one may be to the
health condition transfer cannot be granted while taking into consideration the
totality of the circumstances. However, Court also stated the Trial Court shall
take note of the health condition of the Petitioner and manage without his
personal appearance, except when necessary. Court also held court can consider
virtually participation of the Petitioner, so that he is not completely in the
dark about what is happening.
Read full Judgment, Click Here.
PASL WIND SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LTD. V. GE POWER CONVERSION INDIA PRIVATE LTD.
CITATION: 2021 LATEST CASELAW 215 SC
BENCH: JUSTICES
R.F. NARIMAN, B.R. GAVAI, AND HRISHIKESH ROY
DATE OF
JUDGMENT: 20 APRIL 2021
ARBITRATION
ISSUE: Whether
an agreement between two Indian parties to arbitrate in a foreign seat was
against the Indian Contract Act 1872?
JUDGMENT: Supreme
Court set aside the order of the High Court where High Court held application
under Section 9 Arbitration Act for interim relief is not maintainable. Supreme
Court held remedies under Section 9 are available even where two Indian parties
adopt a foreign seat. The court stated that Indian parties are free to choose a
seat outside India and there is no bar under the Arbitration Act against
choosing a foreign law as the law of the contract. Court also discussed the
criteria for an award to be considered a foreign award.
Read full Judgment, Click Here.
M/S. ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. V. STATE OF KERALA
CITATION: AIR 2021 SC 2031
BENCH: JUSTICES
SURYA KANT AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE
DATE OF
JUDGMENT: 22 APRIL 2021
ARBITRATION
AND CONTRACT
ISSUE: Whether
the Contractor was entitled to interest for delayed payment when the interest
rate for delayed payment is left blank?
JUDGMENT: Supreme
Court held not to mention if the interest rate does not mean that there is no
payment of interest on delayed payments. Since in the present case when there
is a contract between the parties for the payment of interest on delayed
payment but the rate of interest is left blank and there is not an exclusionary
clause. Then the parties are obligated to pay the same. And the court or
Tribunal will decide the rate of interest.
Read full Judgment, Click Here.
SUDHA SINGH V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
CITATION: 2021 SCC ONLINE SC 342
BENCH: FORMER
CJI SA BOBDE, AND JUSTICES WITH AS BOPANNA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
DATE OF
JUDGMENT: 23 APRIL 2021
CRIMINAL
ISSUE: Whether
Accused considered as a potential threat to witnesses etc. could be granted
bail?
JUDGMENT: Supreme
Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Allahabad High Court
granting bail to a gangster arrested under Section 3 (1) of the U.P. Gangster
and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The court stated that the
high court has overlooked several aspects including the potential threat to
witnesses while granting bail. In these types of cases, the court should not
take into account only the parties before them and the incident in question but
other factors also. Court also stated that liberty is also important even for
the person charged with a crime but it is equally important for the courts to
recognize the potential threat to the life and liberty of victims and
witnesses.
Read full Judgment, Click Here.
KALABHAI HAMIRBHAI KACHHOT V. STATE OF GUJARAT
CITATION: AIR 2021 SC 2327
BENCH: JUSTICES
ASHOK BHUSHAN AND R. SUBHASH REDDY
DATE OF
JUDGMENT: 28 APRIL 2021
CRIMINAL
ISSUE: Whether
in circumstances where Appellant conviction is based on injured eye witnesses
suffering from major contradictions, could be held as being successful in
proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt?
JUDGMENT: Supreme
Court held that prosecution has proved the case against Appellant-Accused
beyond reasonable doubt and did not find any merit in the appeals and the same
was dismissed. As the key witnesses testimony is trustworthy, consistent, and
natural. Court added that contradictions that are projected are minor
contradictions and cannot be the basis to discard their evidence. There is no
substance in the argument that there are major contradictions. It cannot be a
basis for discarding the evidence because of the minor contradictions. Court
also held that evidence of the injured witnesses cannot to set aside without
any cogent reasons.
Read full Judgment, Click Here.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I V. M/S. RELIANCE ENERGY LTD. (FORMERLY BSES LTD.) THROUGH ITS M.D.
CITATION: 2021 LATEST CASELAW 227 SC
BENCH: JUSTICES
L. NAGESWARA RAO AND VINEET SARAN
DATE OF
JUDGMENT: 28 APRIL 2021
TAXATION
ISSUE: Whether
the deduction to be restricted to business income, as had been the stand of the
revenue for the assessment year?
JUDGMENT: Supreme
Court dismissed the appeal stating the scope of Section 80-IA (5) of the Income
Tax Act is limited to the determination of quantum of deduction under Section
80-IA (1) treating eligible businesses as the only source of income. The
deduction business as a whole has to be treated as the only source of income.
It is not relevant under which head of income, the income is assessable.
Read full Judgment, Click Here.
JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD V. M/S. RAMKRISHNA FORGING LTD.
CITATION: AIR 2021 SC 2184
BENCH: JUSTICES
L. NAGESWARA RAO AND VINEET SARAN
DATE OF
JUDGMENT: 30 APRIL 2021
ELECTRICITY
ACT, 2003
ISSUE: Whether
provision relating to non-reduction of load before the expiry of the initial
period of the agreement is discriminatory, arbitrary, and against the public
policy?
JUDGMENT: Supreme
Court dismissed the petition since a reduction of load should be allowed under
the provisions of Regulations 9.2 of regulations 2005 while stating that the
board has erred in treating the application for reduction of load to be
determined by clause 9b of the agreement. Court also stated that it will
deliberately not deal with whether the provision of Regulations 9.2.1 is
discriminatory, arbitrary, and against the public policy. As it had been
already dealt with by the High Court. Court held that the consumer has the
liberty to pray for a reduction under Regulation 9.2. While going through the
regulations and the agreements between the parties, the court believed that any
agreement for increase and decrease in load after the first one shall be
considered as supplementary agreements.
Read full Judgment, Click Here.
IN RE: DISTRIBUTION OF ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES AND SERVICES DURING PANDEMIC
CITATION: AIR 2021 SC 2356
BENCH: JUSTICES
DY CHANDRACHUD, L. NAGESWARA RAO, AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT
DATE OF
JUDGMENT: 30 APRIL 2021
CONSTITUTION
ISSUE: The
present proceedings were related to directions issued to the Central Government
to report on the existence and requirement of setting up a coordinating body to
consider the allocation of various resources and declaration of essential
medicines and medical equipment as essential commodities concerning COVID.
JUDGMENT: Supreme Court passed the following directions in respect of the above submission:
Within 2 days from the hearing, the Government of India shall rectify the deficit in the supply of oxygen to the GNCTD.
The Central Government together with States needs to prepare a stock of oxygen for emergency purposes and decentralize the location of the emergency stocks.
The Central and State Governments to notify, it will attract a coercive exercise of jurisdiction by this Court in case of any clampdown on information on social media or harassment caused to individuals seeking or delivering help.
The Central Government needs to formulate a national policy for admissions in hospitals and it shall be followed by all the States. Until such policy is formulated, no patient shall be denied hospitalization or essential drugs for lack of local residential proof or identity proof.
The Central Government shall revisit its policies for the availability of oxygen, availability, and pricing of vaccines, and availability of essential drugs at affordable prices.
Read full Judgment, Click Here.
SUKHBIR V. AJIT SINGH
CITATION: 2021 LATEST CASELAW 229 SC
BENCH: JUSTICES
D.Y. CHANDRACHUD AND M. R. SHAH
DATE OF
JUDGMENT: 30 APRIL 2021
CONTRACT
ISSUE: Whether
the respondent is entitled to compensation when the contract has become
impossible for no fault of the plaintiff as the land has been acquired by the
acquiring body under the Land Acquisition Act?
JUDGMENT: The
Supreme Court held that the decree for compensation holds good since it was
passed as an alternate decree instead of a decree of the specific performance.
Under section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, states an award of
compensation can be passed instead of specific performance. Court referred to
the case of Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh,
(1992) 1 SCC 647 and Urmila Devi v. Deity,
Mandir Shree Chamunda Devi, (2018) 2 SCC 284, held that respondent
is entitled to Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation which is deposited with the
acquiring body and the remaining deposited amount is to be paid to the original
plaintiff as compensation together with interest and solatium.
Read full Judgment, Click Here.
Relevant Links:
- To Read Important Supreme Court Judgements of January 2021, Click Here
- To Read Important Supreme Court Judgements of February 2021, Click Here
- To Read Important Supreme Court Judgements of March 2021, Click Here
MyLawman is now on Telegram (t.me/mylawman) Follow us for regular legal updates. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter or join our whats app group .You can also subscribe for our Newsletter for Email Updates.
0 Comments