Treating homebuyers as financial creditors under IBC not unconstitutional
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'.
(Case : Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd and another v Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 43/2019, decided on 09.08.2019)
Rape-death of minor girl : Death penalty upheld with 2 : 1 majority
The Supreme Court (2:1) 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.
(Case : Manoharan v State, Crl Appeal No. 1174-1175/2019, decided on 21.08.2019)
In another decision rendered on October 3, a bench confirmed by 2:1 majority death penalty to a man found guilty for murder and rape of a two year old girl.
While the majority comprising Justices R F Nariman and Surya Kant upheld the death penalty confirmed by the Bombay High Court in the case Ravi v State of Maharashtra, Justice Subhash Reddy dissented.
Kashmir habeas orders
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. Critical comments on the SC order may be read here, here and here.
(Case : Sitaram Yechury vs Union of India, WP(Crl) No.229/2019, decided on 28.08.2019)
NGOs 'Substantially Financed' by Government amenable to RTI Act
In an important judgment delivered today, the Supreme Court has held that nongovernmental 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.
(Case : D.A.V. College Trust And Management Society vs. Director Of Public
Instructions, C.A 9828/2018, decided on 17.09.2019)
Police cannot attach immovable property under Section 102 CrPC
The Supreme Court has 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 Court held that the expression 'any property' appearing in Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not include 'immovable property'.
(Case : Nevada Properties Pvt Ltd v State of Maharashtra, Crl Appeal No.1481/2019, 24.09.2019)
Article 137 Limitation Act applies to IBC
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.
(Case : Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave v Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd and others, C.A No. 4952/2019, decided on 18.09.2019)
Sec 3J Of National Highways Act, to the extent it excludes solatium & interest as per Land Acquisition Act, unconstitutional
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.
(Case : Union of India & ors v. Tarsem Singh and ors, C.A No. 7064/2019, decided on 19.09.2019).
Centre's review against dilution of SC/ST Act allowed
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.
(Case : Union of India v State of Maharashtra and others, RP(c) No.228/2018 in WP(c) No.416/2018, decided on 01.10.2019)
Levy of sales tax/service tax on supply of food and drinks by incorporated clubs
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.
(Case : State of West Bengal v Calcutta Club Ltd and Chief Commissioner of Central Excise & Service and others v Ranchi Club Ltd, Civil Appeal 4184/2009, decided on 04.10.2019)
Magistrate Can Invoke Power U/S 156(3) CrPC even at post-cognizance stage, SC says 43 Yr old precedent wrongly decided
A three judge bench of the Supreme Court has 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 observed that the finding in law in the said judgment that the power under Section 156(3) CrPC can only be exercised at the pre-cognizance stage is erroneous.
(Case : Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and others v The State of Gujarat and others, Crl Appeal No. 478-479/2017, decided on 16.10.2019)
Bail granted to P Chidambaram in CBI case in INX Media scam
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.
(Case : P Chidambaram v CBI, Crl Appeal No. 1603/2019, decided on 22.10.2019)
Justice Arun Mishra's non-recusal from Indore Development Authority case
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.
(Case : Indore Development Authority and others v Manohar Lal and others, SLP(c) No.9036-38/2019, decided on 24.10.2019)
SC Allows Centre's Plea To Recover Adjusted Gross Revenue Of Rs 92k cr From Telecom Companies
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).
(Case : Union of India v Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India, C.A No.6328-6399/2015, decided on 24.10.2019)
Ayodhya-Babri Masjid dispute
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. A comment on the judgment may be read here.
(Case : M Siddiq (d) through Lrs v Mahant Suresh Das and others, C.A No. 10866-10867/2010, decided on 08.11.2019)
RTI applicable to the office of CJI
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.
(Case : Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court v Subash Chandra Agarwal, Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010, decided on 13.11.2019)
0 Comments