BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM) V. ES SOLAR PRIVATE LIMITED
CITATION: C.A. No.-009273 / 2019
BENCH: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 03-05-2021
ISSUE: In this case The Appeal was preferred against the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity at Delhi, whereby the order of the KERC Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) was overruled. In this case, the question before the Supreme Court was whether the respondents commissioned the solar projects from the date of approval of the PPAs by KERC, whether injection of power into the Grid was a pre-requirement for deciding the date of commissioning of the Projects and whether the Commercial Operation Date and Commissioning Date were similar.
JUDGEMENT: Supreme Court in this case reiterated the broad principles of interpretation of contracts and held that while construing a clause in a contract the exercise to be undertaken is to determine the words used, mean and the intent of the parties must be understood from the language in the light of the surrounding circumstances and object of the contract.
The Supreme Court in this case held that the KERC had made a mistake by wrongly relying upon the definition of the month in the PPAs, as the said definition excluded the “date of the event”. As there was no dispute that the power was injected into the Grid from the solar plants the Court opined that it was not necessary to adjudicate the other issue and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
Read Full Judgement, Click Here.
INDIAN SCHOOL,  JODHPUR & ANR. V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS
CITATION: C.A. No.- 1724 / 2021
BENCH: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 03-05-2021
ISSUE: In this case, the first set of appeals was filed by the appellants questioning the validity of the Rajasthan Schools Act, 2016 particularly Sections 3, 4, 6 to 11,15 and 16 and the Rules framed under titled Rajasthan Schools Rules, 2017, specifically Rules 3, 4, 6 to 8 and 11 being ultra vires the Constitution and abbreviate the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The second set of appeals challenges the orders passed by the State Authorities regarding deferment of collection of school fees including reduction of fees limited to 70 per cent of fees by schools affiliated with the CBSE and 60 per cent from the schools affiliated with RBSE, in view of the reduction of the syllabus by the respective Boards on account of the global pandemic from March 2020.
JUDGEMENT: The Supreme court dismissed the petitioner’s challenge holding that the private unaided schools are free to devise their fee structures, which can be regulated by the Government in the interests of the general public. The Court had held that private unaided schools are free to devise their fee structures, which can be regulated by the Government in the interests of the general public. The Hon’ble Court relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Modern Dental College and Research Centre & Other v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors, the Court held that the appellants had failed to validate the challenge to the validity of the relevant provisions of the Act. As regards the second set of appeals challenging the deferment of collection and reduction of fees charged by private unaided schools in the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Court held that the impugned order passed by the State Authorities was beyond the scope of the powers vested in them.The impugned order contravened the various statutory provisions and therefore Article 162 cannot rescue the State Government. The Court further held that it was not open to the State Government to issue directions in respect of commercial aspects of contracts between two private parties with which the State has no connection. However, the Court observed that the Management of schools that are meant to be doing a charitable activity of imparting education is expected to take curative measures to mitigate the adversities of students and their parents. Accordingly, the Court said that it could be assumed that the schools had saved a minimum of 15 percent of their operating costs on account of the closure. The Court disposed of the appeals and issued directions  to deduct 15 percent of the annual school fees in place of unutilised facilities/activities.
Read Full Judgement, Click Here.
FORUM FOR PEOPLES COLLECTIVE EFFORTS (FPCE) V. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
CITATION: W.P.(C) No.-000116 / 2019
BENCH:  HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 04-05-2021
ISSUE: Whether the West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act, 2017 is violative of the provisions of the Indian Constitution.
JUDGMENT: The Supreme Court in this judgment highlighted some salient features of Article 254;  a law made by the legislature of a State which is repugnant to Parliamentary legislation on a matter enumerated in the Concurrent List has to yield to a Parliamentary law whether enacted before or after the law made by the State legislature and the State law shall “to the extent of the repugnancy” be void. However, the consequences of such repugnancy can be cured if the State legislation receives the assent of the President which will not preclude Parliament from enacting a law on the subject matter, as stipulated in the proviso to clause (2). 
Thus, the Supreme Court observed that sections 3 to 17 of the WB, 1993 Act were repugnant to the corresponding provisions which are contained in the RERA and they stand repealed upon the enactment of the RERA in 2016, following Sections 88 and 89 read with Article 254(1) of the Constitution. WB-HIRA in the present judgment will not, in any manner, revive the WB 1993 Act, which was repealed upon the enactment of WB-HIRA since the WB 1993 Act is itself repugnant to the RERA and would stand impliedly repealed.
Read Full Judgement, Click Here.
JAISHRI LAXMANRAO PATIL V. THE CHIEF MINISTER & OTH.
CITATION: C.A. No.-003123-003123 / 2020
BENCH: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 05-05-2021
ISSUE: In this case, the question before Supreme Court was whether Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018 granting 12 to 13 per cent reservation for the Maratha community in addition to 50 per cent social reservation covered by exceptional circumstances as contemplated by Constitution Bench in Indra Sawhney’s case? and whether the State Government on the strength of Maharashtra State Backward Commission Report has made out a case of existence of exceptional circumstances in the State?
JUDGEMENT: Supreme Court held that if reservation goes above 50 per cent limit which is rational, and political pressure will make it hard to reduce it. The reservation of 50 per cent was arrived at on the principle of reasonability and achieves equality as protected by Article 14 of the Constitution, of which Articles 15 and 16 are facets. The Court also upheld Indra Sawhney case thereby holding that when the Court had laid down that reservation should not exceed 50 per cent except in exceptional circumstances, all the authorities are bound by law. The Court did not find any exceptional circumstances to extend reservation beyond 50 per cent and thus struck down the Maratha reservation.
Read Full Judgement, Click Here.
GURU DUTT PATHAK V. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH HOME DEPARTMENT STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CITATION: Crl. A. No.-000502-000502 / 2015
BENCH:  HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 06-05-2021
ISSUE: Whether reversing of the judgment and order of acquittal of the Trial Court by the Allahabad High Court is appreciable and is in concurrence with section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973.
JUDGMENT: The Honourable Supreme Court asserted the judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court by quoting paragraphs 12 to 19 from the judgment in the case of Babu v. the State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189 which said “......While dealing with a judgment of acquittal, the appellate court has to consider the entire evidence on record, so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. The appellate court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial court had failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken into consideration the evidence brought on record contrary to law......”. The court also supported the High Court’s observation that, where there is clinching evidence of eyewitnesses, mere non-examination of some of the witnesses/independent witnesses and/or in absence of examination of any independent witnesses would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution.
Negating the contentions made by the appellant in favouring his acquittal due to lack of evidence and solid proof produced by the prosecution against it, the court upheld the conviction of the accused by the High Court and dismissed the appeal.
Read Full Judgement, Click Here.
THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA V. M.R. VIJAYABHASKAR
CITATION: C.A. No.-001767-001767 / 2021
BENCH:  HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 06-05-2021
ISSUE: Whether the oral observations of the judges apart from the official judicial record shall be a part of media reporting.
JUDGMENT:  The SC court’s judgment was supported by three points namely open courts and Indian Judiciary, freedom of expression of media and media and judicial accountability. According to the Supreme Court, the courts are meant to be a public space. Indian judiciary is an independent institution that not only imparts justice but also educates the society about it.  It is the symbol for transparency and un-bias in a system, in cases of rapes or child sexual abuse, etc., where in-camera proceeding is a necessity. Article 19 of the Indian Constitution imparts a right of freedom of speech and expression which is used by media to state facts in front of society. They are the fourth pillar of the Indian political system which protects the whole system from crumbling. Thus, these rights hold them accountable for spreading awareness and information which is helpful and non-detrimental to the society at large. It supported its opinion by quoting Lord Diplock from the case of Attorney General vs Leveller Magazine [1979] A.C. 440, who held that “The principle of open justice requires that the court should do nothing to discourage fair and accurate reports of proceedings.”
The Apex Court observed that the issues raised or comments made by the Bench during an oral hearing provide clarity not just to the judges who adjudicate upon the matter but also allow the lawyers to develop their arguments with a sense of creativity founded on the spontaneity of thought. Many a time, judges play the role of a devil‘s advocate with the counsel to solicit responses that aid in a holistic understanding of the case and test the strength of the arguments advanced before them. That is where the real art of advocacy comes to play. After making the following observations the honourable court disposed of the appeal and other pending applications.
Read Full Judgement, Click Here.
RAJKUMAR SABU V. M/S SABU TRADE PRIVATE LIMITED
CITATION: T.P. (Crl.) No.-000017 / 2021
BENCH:  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 07-05-2021
ISSUE: Whether the criminal case must be transferred from Salem District Court, Tamil Nadu to Patiala House District Court, Delhi.
JUDGMENT: The apex court held that the allegations made by the petitioners of the partial trial were baseless and lacked material proof. Keeping in mind the connection between the civil suits pending in the Delhi High Court and the said criminal case pending before Salem District Court the court stated that the acceptance of the petition would not make much difference as the jurisdiction of fora would remain distinct despite being in the same state. Finally, while discussing the medium of the proceeding as a barrier for the petitioner the court proposed the aid of a translator or an appointed interpreter and observed that language cannot be the sole reason for the appreciation of a transfer petition.
The court observed inconvenience as the primary reason for the institution of this transfer petition. In support of its judgment, the apex court quoted Rajesh Talwar vs. CBI [(2012) 4 SCC 217] judgment which said “If the plea of inconvenience for transferring the cases from one court to another, on the basis of time taken to travel to the court conducting the criminal trial is accepted, the provisions contained in the Criminal procedure Code earmarking the courts having jurisdiction to try cases would be rendered meaningless. Conveniences or inconveniences are inconsequential so far as the mandate of law is concerned.” Thus the SC dismissed the transfer petition and disposed of all connected applications.
Read Full Judgement, Click Here.
MANGALA WAMAN KARANDIKAR (D) TR.LRS. V. PRAKASH DAMODAAR RANADE
CITATION: C.A. No.-010827-010827 / 2010
BENCH:  HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 07-05-2021
ISSUE: Whether the Defendants are tenants of the suit property or not?  
JUDGMENT: The apex court analyzed the language of the contract and stated that the real question which the High Court has framed is that whether the agreement of 7th February 1963 was a license to conduct a business in the premises or was a license to run the existing business which was being run by the respondents in the suit premises. Does the document create an interest in the premises or the business? However, the answer to the question was contrary to the one given by High Court. The apex court observed that the language of the agreement was unambiguous and straightforward. While discussing the applicability of S.95 and proviso 6 of S.92 to the present case it observed that the deceased appellant never intended to give license for conducting business in the premises rather continuing the existing business and if the contrary view is adopted as correct it would render S.92 of the Evidence Act, otiose and also enlarge the ambit of proviso 6 beyond the main Section itself. Such interpretation, provided by the High Court, violates basic tenants of legal interpretation. It also stated that such arrangements are not covered under the Bombay Rent Act. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the trial court is accordingly not ousted. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment passed by the trial court and the first appellate court and reversed the judgment of the High Court.
Read Full Judgement, Click Here.
RAHUL SHARMA V. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
CITATION: C.A. No.-001769-001769 / 2021
BENCH: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 07-05-2021
ISSUE: In this case before the Supreme Court, the appellant's parents were travelling in a vehicle that met with an accident and the appellant’s parents succumbed to their injuries. At the time of the accident, the vehicle was insured by Respondent no. 1. The appellants made two separate claims before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation for the death of a parent. While adjudicating the claim about the appellant’s mother, the Tribunal ascertained the compensation to be ₹ 41,55,235/-, which included a 50 per cent addition towards future prospects, relying on Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. In appeal by Respondent No. 1 before the Delhi High Court, the total compensation payable towards the appellants’ mother was reduced to ₹ 21,66,000/-. The High Court held that the Appellants’ mother was ineligible for the compensation of future prospects, as she was self-employed, and held that 50 percent of income was to be decreased towards personal and living expenses.
JUDGEMENT: Supreme Court, in this case, relied on the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and restated that in case the deceased was self-employed, and below the age of 40 in such case, 40 per cent addition would be made to their income as future prospects. In this case, the appellants’ mother was 37, and therefore 40 per cent of future prospects were to be awarded. Further, it was held that based on the afore-stated precedent, deduction towards personal and living expenses for a person who was married with two dependents was to be 1/3rd and the High Court had erred by deducting 50 per cent. In disposing of the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the total compensation payable was ₹ 38,24,890/- Payable with the interest of 9 percent payable per annuml.
Read Full Judgement, Click Here.
MALLAPPA V. STATE OF KARNATAKA
CITATION: Crl.A. No.-001993-001993 / 2010
BENCH: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 07-05-2021
ISSUE: Whether the widow of the deceased  is a primary eye witness to the incident or not?
JUDGEMENT: Supreme Court in this case held that the High Court had erred by accepting the testimony of the widow of the deceased as there were evident contradictions as regards her seeing the appellant at the spot of the occurrence. Further, the Court held that certain inconsistencies, which would not have any material impact on the case, however, the inconsistent statements as regards when and where the witness saw the appellant and whether she saw him committing the act of assault was of significance. Further, the depositions by the other witnesses were silent in respect to the recovery of a broken wooden club from the spot, and the confiscation of a wooden club from the home of the accused could not prove that the club seized was the one used to assault the deceased, as wooden clubs are common tools to be found in rural households. The evidence left with would have been two accused persons being seen running away and that would have been a thin piece of evidence to convict someone under Section 302 of the Code. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a commission of the offence by the appellant through the principle of Res Gestae of recovery of the weapon and set aside the judgment of the High Court convicting the appellant and the consequential order of sentence having so held.
Read Full Judgement, Click Here.
SANJAY KUMAR RAI V. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
CITATION:  Crl.A. No.-000472-000472 / 2021
BENCH: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 07-05-2021
ISSUE:  In this case, this appeal originates from the judgment passed by the High Court of Allahabad whereby a criminal revision against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, refusing to discharge the appellant under Section 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code,1860 has been turned down. Respondent No. 2 had conducted a journalistic investigation for malpractices against a gas agency and had also applied for information under the RTI 2005, to investigate the black marketing of gas cylinders by the said agency. The appellant was a partner in the gas agency. The appellant had threatened to kill respondent No.2. Respondent No. 2 filed before the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 155(2) Code of Criminal Procedure for conducting an investigation. The Court accordingly directed.
JUDGEMENT: Supreme Court in this case was of the view that there was a material change in the statement of respondent No. 2/complainant, as he had for the first time, introduced two witnesses and further noted that even though a charge sheet came to be filed based on the statement of the complainant and affidavit of the two witnesses, the IO did not record the appellant’s version. The Trial Court rejecting the appellant's discharge application filed under Section 279 Code of Criminal Procedure the appellant approached the High Court through a Criminal Revision Petition (CRP). The Supreme Court discoursed that the High Court under-appreciated the judgment in Asian Resurfacing, as the said case dealt with a challenge to the charges framed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the judgment itself laid down that not only is Prevention of Corruption Act a special legislation but it also contains a specific bar under Section 19 against the routine exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Further, in Madhu Limaye v. the State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551 which had laid down those orders framing charges are neither interlocutory or final in nature and are therefore not affected by the bar of Section 397 (2) Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court has inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and to secure ends of justice having regard to the facts and circumstances of individual cases. The Supreme Court concluded that by not entertaining the revision petition on merits the High Court committed the jurisdictional error. In line with the fact that the High Court and the court below have not examined the fairness of criminal investigation in this case and other related matters concerning the improvement of witness statements, the High Court must reconsider the matter and decide the revision petition.
Read Full Judgement, Click Here.
JAYAMMA V. HOME DEPARTMENT
CITATION: Crl.A. No.-000758-000758 / 2010
BENCH: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 07-05-2021
ISSUE: In this case, the findings of the trial Court were overturned and after setting aside the appellants’ acquittal, they have been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment. The appellants had a standing family dispute with the deceased. After quarrels, the appellants had allegedly gone to the deceased residence, drenched her in kerosene and set fire. The sole material on record before the trial Court to connect the accused with the offence was the deceased dying declaration. It was contended before the Supreme Court, that while interfering with an order of acquittal under Section 378 Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court was required to analyse the evidence on record to return a specific finding as to why it was impossible to sustain the order of the Trial Court, and in the instant case neither did the High Court evaluate the evidence nor did it deal with the findings of the trial Court. It was submitted that in the circumstances of the present case, the dying declaration could form the sole basis to convict the appellants.
JUDGEMENT: Supreme Court in this case analysed the evidentiary value of a dying, including Sham Shankar Kankaria v. the State of Maharashtra, (2006) 13 SCC 165 in which the Supreme Court had restated specific principles regarding the evidentiary value of dying declarations. The Court noted that Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was an exception to the general rule against the acceptability of hearsay evidence, and clause (1) thereof made the statement of the deceased admissible. Reference was made to Surinder Kumar v. the State of Haryana, (2011) 10 SCC 173 in which it was held that neither a rule of law nor of prudence that the dying declaration could be acted upon without corroboration, however, the Court must be satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary. The Court concluded that in the instant case the dying declaration of the deceased was not adequate to convict the appellants. The Supreme Court noted that motive appeared for the accused to have committed such a crime and the deposition of the witnesses, who were the son and daughter-in-law of the deceased, that she had committed suicide, opposed the prosecution case, the Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court order, accordingly acquitting the appellants.
Read Full Judgement, Click Here.
ACHHAR SINGH V. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
CITATION: Crl.A. No.-001140-001141 / 2010
BENCH: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 07-05-2021
ISSUE: The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh whereby their acquittal by the Additional Sessions Judge has been set aside. Consequently, the appellant has been convicted for offences under Sections 452, 326 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo rigorous, while Budhi Singh has been found guilty for offences under Sections 302 and 452 INDIAN PENAL CODE and penalized to undergo imprisonment for life.
In this case, the question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was vindicated in interfering with the discharge by the trial Court? Under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appeal against acquittal is not limited to determining whether or not the trial Court view was impossible, and the High Court is not barred from appreciating the evidence.
JUDGEMENT: In this case, the Supreme Court held that the fact that the accused executed an axe blow on the deceased old woman’s head knowing that an axe blow on a vital body part would in all probability cause death, justified his conviction for the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. As for the first accused, the Supreme Court agreed with the view of the High Court and held that the witnesses were constant about the accused’s attack with an axe, his conviction under Sections 326 and 323 INDIAN PENAL CODE to be upheld. The contention was that there were many people inside the small room at the time of the occurrence, holding that the eyewitnesses had seen the fatal blow to the deceased and ousted that the first accused had caused such a blow. Reliance was placed on Gangadhar Behera v. the State of Orissa, (2002) 8 SCC 381, to hold that where a major portion of the evidence is found lacking the residue is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused and conviction can be based on it. In the instant case, there is no reason why the complainants would falsely incriminate the appellants, whilst allowing the real culprits to go with impunity. On examination of the material on record, the Court decided that the acquittal by the Trial Court was flawed, and dismissed the appeal.
Read Full Judgement, Click Here.
UTTAR PRADESH POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. V. CG POWER AND INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS LIMITED
CITATION: SLP(C) No.-008630 / 2020
BENCH:  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT, HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 12-05-2021
ISSUE: Whether the High court is competent to allow the writ petition and pass the order even when an arbitration clause exists in the agreement between the two parties.JUDGMENT: The SC while referring to Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of TradeMarks, Mumbai and Ors. AIR 1999 SC 22 observed that it is well settled that the availability of an alternative remedy does not prohibit the High Court from entertaining a writ petition in an appropriate case. The High Court may entertain a writ petition, notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy, particularly (1) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of a fundamental right; (ii) where there is a failure of principles of natural justice or (iii) where the impugned orders or proceedings are whole without jurisdiction or (iv)the vires of an Act is under challenge.
Thus, the SC held that UPPTCL has no power and authority or jurisdiction to realize labour cess under the Cess Act in respect of the first contract by withholding dues in respect of other contracts and/or invoking a performance guarantee. The court upheld the judgment and the order of the High Court and dismissed the Special Leave Petition instituted under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution. 
Read Full Judgement, Click Here.
GAUTAM NAVLAKHA V. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
CITATION: Crl.A. No.-000510-000510 / 2021
BENCH:  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT, HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 12-05-2021ISSUE: Whether the house arrest of 34 days is made under Section 167 of CrPc and is to be added in the total custody of 90 days for default bail.
JUDGMENT: The apex court was obligated to pronounce a judgment that is not in negation with any of the two fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution namely Articles 21 and 22 and adding to it does not hinder the process of administering justice. In the case of Bikramjit Singh vs. the State of Punjab (2020) 10 SCC 616 it was stated that” A right to default bail is a fundamental right”. But here again, it must depend upon the fulfilment of conditions in Section 167. It observed that the order passed by the High Court for the house arrest restricted the investigating authorities in getting remand or transit remand of the accused ordered by the CMM, Saket for investigation. Although the order of the High Court for house arrest of the accused restrained him from using his communicating devices and meeting people other than the residents, it defeated the object of the police custody provided under Section 167 of CrPc and Section 43D(2) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Thus, it was held that the house arrest of 34 days is not made under Section 167 of CrPc and shall be excluded from the 90 days of total custody for administering productive investigation to meet ends of justice.  
Read Full Judgement, Click Here.
INDIA RESURGENCE ARC PRIVATE LIMITED V. M/S. AMIT METALIKS LIMITED
CITATION: C.A. No.-001700 / 2021
BENCH:  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 13-05-2021
ISSUE: Whether the proposed resolution plan approved by the majority of Committee of Creditors (CoC) and Adjudicating Authority is just and fair.
JUDGMENT: The Court referred to its judgment in the case of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors.: (2020) 8 SCC 5316  which stated that” ........On a plain reading of section 53 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 it is manifestly clear that the considerations regarding feasibility and viability of the Resolution Plan, distribution proposed with reference to the order of priority amongst creditors as per statutory distribution mechanism including priority and value of security interest of Secured Creditor are matters which fall within the exclusive domain of Committee of Creditors for consideration.”
The same was observed under Maharashtra Seamless Limited v. Padmanabhan Venkatesh and Ors. (2020) 11 SCC 467 which stated that “.........there is no scope for the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Authority to proceed on any equitable perception or to assess the resolution plan based on quantitative analysis. Thus, the treatment of any debt or asset is essentially required to be left to the collective commercial wisdom of the financial creditors........”
The SC while concluding its judgment by reiterating the Essar Steel India case which observed that “..... If an "equality for all" approach recognising the rights of different classes of creditors as part of an insolvency resolution process is adopted, secured financial creditors will, in many cases, be incentivised to vote for liquidation rather than resolution, as they would have better rights if the corporate debtor was to be liquidated rather than a resolution plan is approved. This would defeat the entire objective of the Code which is to first ensure that resolution of distressed assets takes place and only if the same is not possible should liquidation follow.” upheld the order passed by the Appellate Authority and dismissed the said appeal.
Read Full Judgement, Click Here.
LALIT KUMAR JAIN V.    UNION OF INDIA
CITATION: T.C.(C) No.-000245 / 2020
BENCH: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 21-05-2021
ISSUE: In this case before the Supreme Court question which arises concerns the validity of a notification dated 15/11/2019 issued by the Central Government. Other reliefs too have been claimed concerning the validity of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Rules, 2019 concerning Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors issued on 15/11/2019. Likewise, the validity of regulations was challenged by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India on 20/11/2019.
JUDGEMENT: Supreme Court in this case held that due to the non-obstante clause in Section 238, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code any proceedings initiated against personal guarantors would be adjudicated by the National Company Law Tribunal. The Court also held that parliamentary intent was to treat personal guarantors contrarily from other categories of individuals. Merely because the process of insolvency in Part III, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was applied to individuals whereas the process for Corporate Debtors was set out in Part II does not lead to an absurdity. Thus, the Court held that there was no compulsion that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code should at the same time be made applicable to all individuals and thus the impugned notification was not an instance of legislative exercise. The sanction of a resolution plan and finality imparted to it by Section 31 does not discharge the guarantor’s liability though, an involuntary act of the principal debtor leading to loss of security would not absolve a guarantor of liability.
Read Full Judgement, Click Here.
SUNIL KUMAR @ SUDHIR KUMAR V. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT
CITATION: Crl. A. No.-000526-000526 / 2021
BENCH:  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 25-05-2021
ISSUE: Whether the court is obligated to pronounce the sentences for different offences consecutively or concurrently and the order for the same in case of consecutive sentences.  
JUDGMENT:  The Supreme Court emphasised the need for the pronouncement of sentences for different offences either consecutively or concurrently by quoting Nagaraja Rao v. Central Bureau of Investigation: (2015) 4 SCC 302 that “.....The expressions “concurrently” and “consecutively” mentioned in the Code are of immense significance while awarding punishment to the accused........ It is for this reason that award of former inure to the benefit of the accused whereas award of latter is detrimental to the accused interest. It is, therefore, legally obligatory upon the court of the first instance while awarding sentences to specify in clear terms in the order of conviction as to whether sentences awarded to the accused would run “concurrently” or they would run “consecutively.......”.
To administer complete justice available under article 142 of the Indian Constitution combined with section 55 of IPC, 1860 and sections 433 and 433A under Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 the court confined the sentence to aggregate 14 years of imprisonment and stated that the judgment is selective and subject to the circumstances and facts of this case. The appeal was partly allowed.
Read Full Judgement, Click Here.
GURMEET SINGH V. THE STATE OF PUNJAB
CITATION: Crl. A. No.-001731-001731 / 2010
BENCH:  HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 28-05-2021
ISSUE: Whether the conviction of the appellant by the trial court under section 304-B, IPC (Dowry Death) in absence of charges under 498A, IPC is sustainable.
JUDGMENT: The apex court reiterated the guidelines for conviction under 304-B IPC issued by the court in the case of Satbir Singh v. the State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1735-1736 of 2010 which stated that “......ii. The prosecution must at first establish the existence of the necessary ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 304-B, IPC. Once these ingredients are satisfied, the rebuttable presumption of causality, provided under Section 113-B, Evidence Act operates against the accused”. The court observed that in the case of Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar (2005) 2 SCC 388 it was held that “.....It is to be noted that Sections 304-B and 498-A under IPC cannot be held to be mutually inclusive. These provisions deal with two distinct offences...... If the case is established, there can be a conviction under both the sections.” The SC upheld the order of the Trial Court convicting the appellant under Section 304-B, IPC.
Read Full Judgement, Click Here.
NATHU SINGH V. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
CITATION: Crl. A. No.-000522-000522 / 2021
BENCH:  HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 28-05-2021
ISSUE: Whether the order passed by the Allahabad High court of denial of anticipatory bail under S. 438 of CrPc to the accused and simultaneously, granting them protection for arrest barring any coercive action for a period of 90 days is sustainable.
JUDGMENT: The SC believed that S. 438 imbues the High Court with a discretionary power to allow or reject the anticipatory bail. However, such discretionary power cannot be exercised in an untrammelled manner. The court refers to the judgment pronounced by the constitution bench in the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1 which held that” ...the protection granted to a person under Section 438 CrPc should not invariably be limited to a fixed period:....... the life or duration of an anticipatory bail order does not end normally at the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the court,...Again, if there are any special or peculiar features necessitating the court to limit the tenure of anticipatory bail, it is open for it to do so. ”
Thus the SC held that the impugned order passed by the High Court does not meet any of the standards as laid out above firstly, after the dismissal of the anticipatory bail application, based on the nature and gravity of the offence, the High Court has granted the impugned relief to the respondents without assigning any reasons. Secondly, in granting the relief for 90 days, the Court has seemingly not considered the concerns of the investigating agency, complainant or the proviso under Section 438(1), CrPc, which necessitates that the Court pass such an exceptional discretionary protection order for the shortest duration that is reasonably required. Thus, the order passed by the High court was set aside and the appeal was allowed by the SC.
Read Full Judgement, Click Here.
SATBIR SINGH V. THE STATE OF HARYANA
CITATION: Crl. A. No.-001735-001736 / 2010
BENCH: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 28-05-2021
ISSUE: In this case, the challenge was to the judgment passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby the High Court had dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants and upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court under Sections 304-B and 306 of Indian Penal Code and must be interpreted keeping in mind the legislative intent to curb the social malevolent of bride burning and dowry demand.
JUDGEMENT: Supreme Court, in this case, upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 304B but set aside the conviction under Section 306, Indian Penal Code since there was inadequate evidence to prove the fact of suicide without reasonable doubt by the prosecution and consequently, the presumption under Section 113-A, Evidence Act 1872 could not be attracted. It was observed that sometimes family members of the husband are linked in, even though they have no active role in the commission of the offence and are residing at distant places and the Court needs to be vigilant in its approach in such cases.
Read Full Judgement, Click Here.
IN RE: DISTRIBUTION OF ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES AND SERVICES DURING PANDEMIC
CITATION: SMW(C) No.-000003 / 2021
BENCH:  HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 31-05-2021
ISSUE: Whether the new Liberal Vaccination Policy introduced by the central government for the procurement of vaccines conforms with the present situation of the 2nd wave of CoVID-19 pandemic.
JUDGMENT: The apex court analysed the efficiency of the Liberal Vaccination Policy on five different parameters namely vaccine procurement and distribution, vaccination by private hospitals, pricing of vaccine, vaccine logistics and the digital divide. The court observed that procurement of vaccines and their distribution was earlier governed by the Universal Immunization Programme (UIP) under which essential vaccines were procured by the Union of India (UoI) and were distributed to States/UTs free of cost administering them to the end beneficiary. This has now transformed to autonomous procuring of vaccines by the States/UTs and private hospitals from the manufacturers directly which has led to the imbalance and creation of monopoly due to the inequality in monetary resources. It is also made difficult for the State/UTs to procure it from foreign manufacturers as they are not willing to deal with anyone other than the federal government of the nation.
The said monopoly has created a differential pricing for the consumers of the different age groups of vaccines making it immensely burdensome to get vaccinated. It is a clear violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution Mere procurement is not the only issue transportation and storing the vaccine hinders the process due to lack of logistics support in certain States and UTs which are almost dependent on UoI. The introduction of digital web portals to stop corruption in administering vaccines to consumers has led to the formulation of the tedious process which a majority of the Indian population is unaware of and most of the remote hospitals are unequipped with the digital means.
To neutralize the negative effects of the new Liberal Vaccination Policy the court has ordered the Union of India to file an affidavit addressing all the issues mentioned in the judgment with proper solutions. The court also directed the Union of India to provide necessary data on the percentage of the population that has been vaccinated with certain guidelines.
Read Full Judgement, 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
  • To Read Important Supreme Court Judgements of April 2021, Click Here

 About the Author: This Case Brief is prepared by Mr. Ayush Saini, a law graduate from Amity Law School, Amity University, NOIDA, and is an intern at MyLawman. He can be reached at advayushsaini@gmail.com and by Mr. Rajat Gupta, LLB (Hons.) from Banaras Hindu University and is an intern at MyLawman. He can be reached at rajatgupta@rocketmail.com. 

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. 

 For More Case Briefs, Click Here