REPORTABLE JUDGMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

IN MAY 2022

REPORTABLE CASE DETAILS AREA OF LAW / RATIO / HELD

JUDGMENTS
AUTHORED BY:
Cox & Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Arbitration Law-Group of
Ltd. & Anr. Companies Doctrine:
While examining the group of
Date: 06.05.2022 companies doctrine in the context of
Bench Strength: 3 Judges arbitration proceedings, the Chief
Justice of India (authoring the Judgment
for himself and Justice A.S. Bopanna)
doubted the correctness of the Judgment
in Chloro Controls India Private
Limited v. Severn Trent Water
Purification Inc., (2013) 1 SCC 641. It
Hon'ble Mr. was observed that the exposition in
Justice N. V. Chloro Controls clearly indicates an
Ramana, The understanding of the doctrine which
Chief Justice of cannot be sustainable in a jurisdiction
India. which respects party autonomy.
Accordingly, the Court referred the
matter to a large Bench to decide the
following questions :
a. Whether the phrase ‘claiming through
or under’ in Sections 8 and 11 could be
interpreted to include ‘Group of
Companies’ doctrine?
b. Whether the ‘Group of companies’
doctrine as expounded by Chloro
Control Case (supra) and subsequent
judgments are valid in law?

NOTE: Justice Surya Kant has penned a

separate concurring judgment.

Surendran v. State of Kerala Criminal Law-Admissibility of Dying

Declaration:
Date: 13.05.2022 While deciding an Appeal against an
Bench Strength: 3 Judges Order of the H.C, upholding the
conviction of an Accused u/S. 498A,
and acquitting him u/S. 304-B, the
Supreme Court held that the evidence of
a deceased wife with respect to cruelty
could be admissible in a trial for a
charge u/S. 498A I.P.C. u/S. 32(1) of the
Evidence Act. There are certain
necessary pre-conditions which must be
met before the evidence is admitted.
Firstly, her cause of death must come
into question in the matter; secondly, the
prosecution will have to show that the
evidence which is sought to be admitted
with respect to S.498A I.P.C. must also
relate to the circumstances of the
transaction of the death. Accordingly,
the Court upheld the conviction of the
Accused u/S. 498A.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

Hon'ble Mr. S.P. Velumani v. Arappor Iyakkam Criminal Law - Entitlement to
Justice N. V. and Ors. Preliminary Report u/S. 207 Cr.P.C.:
Ramana, The The Supreme Court while allowing the
Chief Justice of Date: 20.05.2022 prayer of an Accused (who was also a
India. Bench Strength: 3 Judges Cabinet Minister in Tamil Nadu)
seeking supply of a Copy of the
Preliminary Report, observed that –
(i) The mandate of S. 207 of Cr.P.C. (i.e.
The Accused is entitled to documents
relied on by the prosecution after the
Magistrate takes cognizance) cannot be
read as a provision etched in stone to
cause serious violation of the rights of
the Accused, as well as to the principles
of natural justice. (This observation was
made in the peculiar facts i.e. the
Preliminary Report, filed during the
AIADMK regime of which the
Appellant was a member, had
exonerated him, but after the DMK
Government came to power, the State
changed its stand, and registered an
F.I.R against the Appellant)
(ii) When the State has not pleaded any
specific privilege which bars disclosure
of material utilized in the earlier
preliminary investigation, there is no
good reason for the High Court to permit
the report to remain shrouded in a sealed
cover.

Samaj Parivartana Samudaya and Environmental Law-Export of Iron

Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. Ore:
The Supreme Court was considering
Date: 20.05.2022 various I.As. inter alia seeking to lift the
Bench Strength: 3 Judges prohibition on the export of iron ore, and
permission to sell the unsold stock of
iron ore already excavated without
resorting to the process of e-auction
conducted through the Monitoring
Committee. Upon consideration of the
stand of the concerned Ministry and
authorities, the Court granted
permission to the parties to sell the
already excavated iron ore stock-pile at
various mines and stock yards in
Bellary, Tumkur and Chitradurga in
Karnataka, without having to resort to
the process of e-auction. Further, the
Court also granted permission to the
Applicants to enter into direct contracts
to lift the excavated iron ore through
inter State sales, and to export iron ore
and pellets manufactured from the iron
ore produced from the mines situated in
Karnataka, to countries abroad, as is
being done in the rest of the country, but
in terms of the policy of the Government
of India.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

 University of Delhi v. Smt. Shashi Service Law-Provident Fund:
Kiran & Ors. Etc.
The Supreme Court was considering
Date: 10.05.2022 batches of appeals initiated by
Bench Strength: 2 Judges employees seeking to shift from the
Central Provident Fund to the General
Provident Fund after a cut-off date.
The Court noted that under a
Notification, the employees were
deemed to have “come over” to the
Hon'ble Mr. GPF, unless they expressly exercised
Justice Uday an option to continue to remain under
Umesh Lalit the CPF before the cut-off date.

Accordingly, the Court held that the

H.C. had rightly concluded that if the
option was exercised by the employee
after the cut-off date, the same was non
est in the eyes of law.

Suresh Mahajan v. State of Madhya Constitutional Law-Conduct of

Pradesh & Anr. Elections:

Date: 10.05.2022 The Supreme Court was considering a

Bench Strength: 3 Judges writ petition challenging provisions of
3 statutes in Madhya Pradesh
authorizing the State Government to
issue notifications from time to time
determining the number and extent of
wards to be constituted in the
Hon'ble Mr. concerned local bodies.
Justice A. M.
Khanwilkar The Court noted that in the State of
Madhya Pradesh, more than 23,263
local bodies were functioning without
elected representatives for over last 2
years and more. It was opined that this
was bordering on break down of rule
of law and more so, palpable infraction
of the constitutional mandate qua the
existence and functioning of such local
self-government, which cannot be
countenanced.

Accordingly, the Court directed the

State Commission to issue election
programme without any further delay
on the basis of the wards as per the
delimitation done in the concerned
local bodies when the elections had
become due consequent to expiry of 5
years term of the outgoing elected
body, or before coming into force of
the impugned Amendment Act(s)
whichever is later.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

 Neppali Sai Vikash & Ors. v. Union Educational Institutions-
of India & Ors. Reduction of Percentile for NEET
PG:
Date: 02.05.2022
Bench Strength: 2 Judges The Supreme Court was deciding a
Miscellaneous Application for
reduction of 5 percentile for
admission to NEET PG Courses.
Hon'ble Dr.
It was held that the Union of India
Justice D. Y.
Chandrachud had taken a considered decision not
to reduce the minimum marks
further. The Court would not be
inclined to interfere unless there is a
manifest arbitrariness in the decision
making process, or in the decision. In
this case, there was no arbitrariness.

It was held that the Court would not

be justified in the exercise of the
power of judicial review to direct a
further reduction of 5 percentile,
since that would be trenching upon
the academic / policy domain.

NIMS University v. Union of India Educational Institutions-Reduction

& Ors. of Percentile for Super Speciality
Courses:
Date: 09.05.2022
Bench Strength: 2 Judges The Supreme Court was considering a
writ petition inter alia seeking
lowering of cut-off percentile to Super
Speciality Courses.

It was held that the question whether

the percentile should be reduced is a
matter of academic policy. The
reasons which have weighed with the
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
in declining to reduce the percentile
cannot be regarded as extraneous or
arbitrary. It was held that super
specialty courses cannot be equated
with post graduate courses, or with
under graduate admission.

The Court cannot be unmindful of the

fact that Super Specialty courses are at
the apex of the academic spectrum. If
a considered decision is taken not to
lower standards by reducing the
percentile fixed for eligibility, such a
decision cannot be faulted. The
reasons furnished are not extraneous or
arbitrary. Accordingly, the Court
dismissed the writ petition.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

Hon'ble Dr. Justice Veena Singh (Dead) Through LR v. Civil Law-Registration and Execution
D. Y. Chandrachud The District Registrar/Additional of a Document:
Collector (F/R) And Another
While deciding an appeal against an
Date: 10.05.2022 order of the High Court (affirming the
Bench Strength: 3 Judges decision of the District Registrar)
allowing the registration of a Sale Deed,
the Supreme Court held that the
execution of a document does not stand
admitted merely because a person
admits to having signed the document.
Such an interpretation accounts for
circumstances where an individual signs
a blank paper and it is later converted
into a different document, or when an
individual is made to sign a document
without fully understanding its contents.
Adopting a contrary interpretation
would unfairly put the burden upon the
person denying execution to challenge
the registration before a civil court or a
writ court, since registration will have to
be allowed once the signature has been
admitted.

It was held that the admission of one‘s

signature on a document is not
equivalent to admission of its execution.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the
Order of the High Court.

M/s Aravali Power Co Pvt Ltd. v. Environment Law-Accumulation of

Vedprakash & Anr. Fly Ash:

Date: 10.05.2022 The Supreme Court was considering a

Bench Strength: 2 Judges challenge to various Judgments of the
NGT pertaining to the handling of
accumulated fly ash at the units of
several thermal power producers. The
NGT had directed that the
environmental compensation for non-
compliant thermal power plants must be
determined from 31.12.2017, which was
the cut-off date provided under an
earlier Notification. However, during
pendency of the proceedings, a fresh
notification was issued in supersession
of the earlier Notifications.

The Court observed that the basis of the

order of the NGT would be
fundamentally altered by the subsequent
Notification.

The Court accordingly set aside the

Orders of the NGT, and held that any
party aggrieved by the subsequent
Notification would be at liberty to
pursue the remedies which are available
in law before the appropriate forum.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

Hon'ble Dr. Justice Baiju K.G & Ors. v. Dr. V.P. Joy Contempt Jurisdiction-Victims of
D. Y. Chandrachud Endosulfan:
Date: 13.05.2022
Bench Strength: 2 Judges While hearing a contempt petition
filed by victims of Endosulfan in
Kerala, the Supreme Court made
serious observations regarding the
delay on the part of the State Govt. in
providing compensation to the
victims, as directed by the Supreme
Court in 2017.

The Court directed the Chief Secretary

to hold monthly meetings to ensure
that the judgment of the S.C. is
diligently implemented by
undertaking the process of –
(a) identifying the victims of
Endosulfan and drawing up a list of
beneficiaries; (b)ensuring the
disbursement of compensation of Rs. 5
lakhs to each of the victims; and
(c) taking steps for ensuring due
medical facilities within reasonable
distance from their places of residence.

The Court observed that the inordinate

delay by the State Government in
compensating the persons affected by
the use of Endosulfan not only reflects
its failure to comply with the order of
the Court, but also further compounds
the violation of the fundamental rights
of such persons.

Dr R. Dinesh Kumar Reddy & Ors. Educational Institutions -

v. Medical Counselling Committee Postponement of NEET PG:
(MCC) & Ors.
The Supreme Court was deciding a
Date: 13.05.2022 plea for postponement of the NEET-
Bench Strength: 2 Judges PG 2022. The Court observed that over
2 lakh students have registered for the
ensuing examination, and their
schedule would be seriously affected if
a further postponement is granted
under a direction of the Court. It was
held that postponement of exams
results in chaos and uncertainty.

It was held that the plea cannot be

entertained for the reason that it would
seriously impact the availability of
patient care and qualified post-
graduate doctors. It is likely to have a
cascading effect on patient care and on
the careers of those doctors who have
already registered in large numbers for
the ensuing examination. Accordingly,
the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

Hon'ble Dr. Justice Advocate Association Bengaluru v. Contempt Proceedings-Appointments
D. Y. Chandrachud Anoop Kumar Mendiratta and Anr. to ITAT:

Date: 17.05.2022 While deciding a contempt petition

Bench Strength: 2 Judges pertaining to appointments to the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the
Supreme Court held that as a general
practice all inputs bearing on the
candidature of each prospective
applicant under consideration, whether
the inputs emanate from the IB or from
any other source, ought to be placed by
the Union Government on the record of
the Search-cum-Selection Committee in
advance, before the recommendations
are formulated.

It was held that all inputs, as available

with the Government, must be placed
before the SCSC in advance. In an
exceptional situation, where certain
material comes to light after the
submission of the recommendations,
that must also be drawn to the attention
of the SCSC so as to enable it to consider
whether any modification of its
recommendations is necessary.

Accordingly, the Court requested the

SCSC to convene a meeting so that a
final decision could be taken.

Maha P. & Ors. v. The State of Educational Institutions - NRI seats

Kerala & Ors. to general quota:

Date: 18.05.2022 While deciding a plea challenging the

Bench Strength: 2 Judges decision of the Commissioner of
Entrance Examination not extending the
time provided to NRI candidates to
submit documents / make corrections in
their applications in the concerned
quota, the Supreme Court held that the
CEE had rejected the representation
seeking extension of time, since
sufficient time was given for submission
of documents.

Further, the Court observed that the

Appellants had not contended that the
rejection of the representation was
malafide or arbitrary. Since the
Appellants had not challenged the
provisions of the Information Bulletin
which stipulated that the vacant NRI
seats shall be converted to unreserved
seats during the mop-up round, the
Court cannot decide on the legality of
such a conversion of seats. Accordingly,
the Court dismissed the appeals.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

Hon'ble Dr. Justice Canara Bank v. G S Jayarama Civil Law-Scope of Permanent Lok
D. Y. Chandrachud Adalats:
Date: 19.05.2022
Bench Strength: 2 Judges The Supreme Court was deciding an
appeal against an Order of the H.C.
setting aside an award passed by the
Permanent Lok Adalat. Upon
consideration of the legal framework of
the Legal Services Act, 1987, it was held
that conciliation proceedings under
Section 22-C of the LSA Act are
mandatory in nature. The Court held that
if Permanent Lok Adalats are allowed to
bypass this step just because a party is
absent, it would be tantamount to
deciding disputes on their merit ex parte
and issuing awards which will be final,
binding and will be deemed to be
decrees of civil courts. Further, it was
held that the finding of the H.C. that a
Permanent Lok Adalat cannot act as a
regular civil court in adjudicating the
dispute between the parties was
incorrect.

Union of India & Anr. v. M/s Mohit Goods & Services Tax-
Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Recommendations of GST Council:

Date: 19.05.2022 The Supreme Court was deciding an

Bench Strength: 3 Judges appeal against a Judgment of the High
Court allowing a Writ Petition
challenging 2 notifications issued by the
Central Government pertaining to the
levy of Integrated Goods & Services
Tax. It was held that the
recommendations of the GST Council
are not binding on the Union and States.
The ‘recommendations’ of the GST
Council are the product of a
collaborative dialogue involving the
Union and States. They are
recommendatory in nature. To regard
them as binding edicts would disrupt
fiscal federalism, where both the Union
and the States are conferred equal power
to legislate on GST.

Further, it was held that the Government

while exercising its rule-making power
under the provisions of the CGST Act
and IGST Act is bound by the
recommendations of the GST Council.
However, that does not mean that all the
recommendations of the GST Council
made by virtue of the power Article
279A (4) are binding on the legislature’s
power to enact primary legislations.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the
appeals, and upheld the decision of the
High Court.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

Hon'ble Dr. Justice P.R.Adikesavan v. The Registrar Criminal Law-Appeal against
D. Y. Chandrachud General, High Court of Madras and conviction:
Another The Supreme Court was considering an
appeal against the conviction of the
Date: 23.05.2022 Appellant u/S. 2(c)(iii) r.w. S.12(1) of
Bench Strength: 2 Judges the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. In this
case, a single judge of the H.C. had
issued a non-bailable warrant against the
Appellant (who was an advocate). When
the warrant was being served, the
Appellant and 50 other advocates
gheraoed the police, and prevented them
from executing the same.

The Single Judge of the H.C. opined that

a prima facie case of contempt was
made out against the Appellant. In an
appeal before the Division Bench, the
Appellant filed an I.A. to summon the
Single Judge of the H.C. as a witness,
and also filed an I.A. seeking recusal of
one of the judges on the Division Bench.

The Supreme Court took the view that

the conduct of the Appellant, who is a
member of the Bar, was thoroughly
contemptuous. There was a clear
attempt to obstruct the process of justice
when the non-bailable warrant was
sought to be served on him by the
competent police officials, which was
recorded in the video footage. It was
held that the Appellant was complicit in
the obstruction of justice. The Court
accordingly upheld the conviction of the
Appellant.

Mamta v. State of NCT of Delhi Criminal Law-Reversal of Bail:

Date: 24.05.2022 The Supreme Court reversed the bail

Bench Strength: 2 Judges granted to an Accused in the case of the
kidnapping and murder of a 13 year-old
boy. The Court held that the H.C. did not
consider that crucial witnesses were yet
to be examined. The release of the
Accused on bail, at this stage, would run
a grave risk of impeding a fair trial. The
apprehension of the parents of the
deceased boy and of the prosecution that
the witnesses may be tampered with
cannot be regarded as lacking in
substance.

The Court accordingly reversed the bail

granted to the Accused, and directed the
trial court to conclude the trial on a day-
to-day basis, and preferably within 1
year.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

 Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India & Constitutional Law - Vaccine
Ors. Mandate:
The Supreme Court while deciding a
Date: 02.05.2022 Writ Petition seeking detailed data with
Bench Strength: 2 Judges respect to COVID-19 vaccines and
challenging the vaccine mandate for
availing services / benefits, inter-alia,
held that – (i) Bodily integrity is
protected under Article 21 of the CoI
and no individual can be forced to be
Hon'ble Mr. vaccinated; (ii) Personal autonomy of an
Justice L. individual, which is a recognised facet
Nageswara Rao of the protections guaranteed under
Article 21, encompasses the right to
refuse to undergo any medical treatment
in the sphere of individual health; (iii)
The Government is entitled to regulate
issues of public health concern by
imposing certain limitations on
individual rights, which are open to
scrutiny by constitutional courts to
assess whether such invasion into an
individual’s right to personal autonomy
and right to access means of livelihood
meets the threefold requirement as laid
down in K.S. Puttaswamy i.e., (i)
legality, which pre-supposes the
existence of law; (ii) need, defined in
terms of a legitimate State aim; and (iii)
proportionality, which ensures a rational
nexus between the objects and the
means adopted to achieve them.
A.G. Perarivalan v. State, Through Criminal Law-Remission of Sentence:
Superintendent of Police The Supreme Court invoked powers
CBI/SIT/MMDA, Chennai, Tamil under Article 142 of the CoI while
Nadu and Anr. directing the release of AG Perarivalan,
who was convicted in the Rajiv Gandhi
Date: 18.05.2022 assassination case. The Court invoked
Bench Strength: 3 Judges its powers on account of the inordinate
delay in deciding the remission
application of the convict and held – (i)
Non-exercise of the power under Art.
161 or inexplicable delay in exercise of
such power not attributable to the
prisoner is subject to judicial review by
this Court, especially when the State
Cabinet has taken a decision to release
the prisoner and made recommendations
to the Governor to this effect. (ii) The
advice of the State Cabinet is binding on
the Governor in the exercise of his
powers under Art. 161 of the CoI. The
Court ultimately released the convict
taking into account his prolonged period
of incarceration, his satisfactory conduct
in jail as well as during parole, chronic
ailments, his educational qualifications
acquired during incarceration and the
pendency of his petition under Art. 161
for 2.5 years after the recommendation
of the State Cabinet.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

 Jaswinder Singh (Dead) Through Criminal Law-Enhancement of
Legal Representative v. Navjot Sentence:
Singh Sidhu & Ors.
The Supreme Court allowed a Review
Date: 19.05.2022 Petition preferred by the family of the
Bench Strength: 2 Judges deceased victim against its Judgment
of May 2018 which had reduced the
sentence awarded to Respondent No.1
/ Mr. Navjot Singh Sidhu to fine of Rs
1,000 from 3 years imprisonment in
Hon'ble Mr. the case.
Justice Sanjay
Kishan Kaul While exercising review jurisdiction,
the Court, in addition to fine, imposed
a sentence of rigorous imprisonment
for one year. It was observed that a
disproportionately light punishment
humiliates and frustrates a victim of
crime when the offender goes
unpunished, or is let off with a
relatively minor punishment, as the
system pays no attention to the
feelings of the injured.

Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala & Service Law-Recovery of

Ors. increments:

Date: 02.05.2022 The Supreme Court was considering

Bench Strength: 2 Judges an appeal filed by an employee against
an Order of the High Court (upholding
the decision of the State of Kerala)
directing that recovery proceedings be
initiated against the employee for
Hon'ble Mr. increments which were given to him
Justice S. Abdul 10 years prior to his retirement.
Nazeer
It was held that in this case, the excess
payment was made due to a mistake in
interpreting the Kerala Service Rules,
which was subsequently pointed out
by the Accountant General.

The Court held that an attempt to

recover the said increments after
passage of 10 years of the retirement
of the Appellant is unjustified.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the

appeal, and set aside the Order of the
High Court.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

 Ravinder Singh @ Kaku v. State of Criminal Law-Reversal of
Punjab Conviction:
The Supreme Court set aside the Order
Date: 04.05.2022 of Conviction passed by the High Court
Bench Strength: 2 Judges which had convicted the Appellant /
Accused No. 2, u/s. 302, 120B I.P.C., on
the charges of Murder of two minor
children of the Complainant-Father and
the Accused No.1-Mother of the Minor
Children. The Court, while allowing the
Hon'ble Mr. Appeal against Conviction of the
Justice Vineet Accused No.2, and dismissing the
Saran Appeal against Acquittal of the Accused
No. 1 and 3 filed by the State held as
under –
(i) The prosecution failed to establish
motive beyond reasonable doubt, and
that the close proximity of the Accused
No. 2 with the Accused No. 1 (mother of
the deceased children) relied by the
prosecution to establish motive, did not
in any manner indicate that the murder
was committed in furtherance to their
close proximity.
(ii) The last seen theory and the recovery
was based upon evidence of prosecution
witnesses with numerous contradictions
and inconsistencies, and therefore,
conviction cannot be sustained merely
on circumstantial evidence.
(iii) The electronic evidence should be
in accordance with the statute and
comply with the certification
requirement for it to be admissible in the
court of law. Oral evidence in the place
of such a certificate, cannot possibly
suffice, as Section 65B(4) is a
mandatory requirement of the law.

J.Sekar @Sekar Reddy v. Criminal Law-Quashing of PMLA

Directorate of Enforcement proceedings:
The Supreme Court was deciding
Date: 05.05.2022 proceedings arising out of PMLA
Bench Strength: 2 Judges offences, where a closure report was
filed (and accepted by the Court) with
respect to the scheduled offence. It was
held that in cases of PMLA, the Court
cannot proceed on the basis of
preponderance of probabilities. The
allegation must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt in the Court. Even
otherwise, it is incumbent upon the
Court to look into the allegation and the
material collected in support thereto,
and find out whether prima facie the
offence is made out. Unless the
allegations are substantiated by the
authorities, and proved against a person
in the court of law, the person is
innocent. Upon consideration of the
facts, the Court quashed the PMLA
proceedings.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

Hon'ble Mr. Reddy Veeranna v. State of Uttar Land Acquisition-Quantum of
Justice Vineet Pradesh & Ors. compensation:
Saran
Date: 05.05.2022 While deciding an appeal arising out of
Bench Strength: 2 Judges the issue of quantum of compensation
payable in land acquisition proceedings,
the Supreme Court held that there is no
straight jacket formula to arrive at the
quantum of deduction of development
charge, and same must be assessed
based on the facts of the individual case,
after due consideration of all the factors
which might affect such quantum.

On consideration of the peculiar facts,

the Supreme Court held that the
deduction to the extent of 50% made by
the H.C. cannot be sustained. The Court
also held that on a reading of S.34 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it is clear
that if the amount of compensation is not
paid or deposited on or before taking
possession of the land, interest @ 9%
p.a. shall be leviable from the time of
taking of possession until it is so paid or
deposited.

Further, if the amount of compensation

has not been paid or deposited within 1
year, the interest would be payable @
15% p.a. on expiry of the period of 1
year.

Accordingly, the Court directed that the

landowners were entitled to
compensation along with statutory
interest, as directed by the High Court
and 3% penal interest.

MIHAN India Ltd. v. GMR Airports Civil Law-Annulment of Bidding

Ltd. & Ors. Process:

Date: 09.05.2022 The Supreme Court, while deciding an

Bench Strength: 2 Judges appeal against an Order of the High
Court quashing the decision of the
Respondent to annul the bidding process
for Nagpur Airport, held that it is
apparent that government contracts are
expected to uphold fairness, equality
and rule of law while dealing with
contractual matters. The Right to
Equality under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India abhors
arbitrariness. The transparent bidding
process is favoured by the Court to
ensure that constitutional requirements
are satisfied. Accordingly, the Court
upheld the decision of the High Court.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

 New Okhla Industrial Development Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code-
Authority v. Anand Sonbhadra NOIDA is a financial creditor:

Date: 17.05.2022 The Supreme Court was considering the

Bench Strength: 2 Judges issue of whether NOIDA would be a
financial creditor under the IBC. It was
held that NOIDA would be an
operational creditor under the IBC.

The Court held that in the lease, there

Hon'ble Mr. was no disbursement of any debt (loan)
Justice K.M. or any sums by NOIDA to the lessee. It
Joseph would therefore not be a “financial
creditor” within the ambit of S.5(8) of
the IBC.

Further, the Court examined various

sub-sections of S.5(8), and concluded
that NOIDA would not be a financial
creditor, but would be an operational
creditor.

Bhag Singh Etc. v. Union of India & Land Acquisition-Quantum of

Anr. compensation:

Date: 05.05.2022 While deciding appeals arising out of

Bench Strength: 2 Judges land acquisition proceedings pertaining
to the issue of quantum of
compensation, the Supreme Court held
that market value of land cannot be
assessed by applying suitable deduction
to the market value of land acquired by
Hon'ble Mr. a subsequent notification.
Justice Hemant
Gupta It was held that the Reference Court had
rightly assessed the compensation on the
basis of land situated in another Village
acquired by the same notification.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the
appeals.

Delhi Development Authority v. Land Acquisition - Lapsing of

Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors. proceedings:

Date: 06.05.2022 The Supreme Court was considering a

Bench Strength: 2 Judges case where the H.C. held that the land
acquisition proceedings had lapsed, and
directed the purchaser to refund the
compensation paid to the owner.

Allowing the appeal of the DDA, the

Supreme Court held that where the
original land owner never filed
objections under Section 5-A of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1984 the
purchaser cannot seek the relief which
was not available even to the original
land owner. Accordingly, the Court set
aside the Judgment of the H.C.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

Hon'ble Mr. Samarpan Varishtha Jan Parisar & Civil Law-Status of inmates of Old
Justice Hemant Ors. v. Rajendra Prasad Agarwal & Age Homes as Licensees:
Gupta Ors.
The issue which arose for
Date: 06.05.2022 consideration in this case was whether
Bench Strength: 2 Judges the inmates in an old-age home were
licensees, or they had the right to stay
in the old age home for the lifetime, as
a matter of right. It was held that the
inmates of an old-age home have no
legal right to protect their possession
without complying with
corresponding obligations, since their
possession is not a legal possession but
only permissive possession.
Therefore, they cannot seek any
injunction to restrain the management
of the old age home not to dispossess
them.

It was held that the inmates in the old

age home are licensees, and are
expected to maintain a minimum level
of discipline and good behaviour, and
not cause disturbance to the fellow
inmates, who are also senior citizens.
Therefore, if one parent is the cause of
disruption of peace for other inmates
in the old age home, the administration
of the old age home is at liberty to
terminate the license, and ask the
inmate to vacate the room allotted to
them.

Delhi Administration Thr. Land Acquisition-Lapsing of

Secretary, Land and Building Dept. proceedings:
& Ors. v. Pawan Kumar & Ors.
While deciding an appeal against an
Date: 06.05.2022 Order of the H.C., declaring that the
Bench Strength: 2 Judges land acquisition proceedings had
lapsed, the Supreme Court relied upon
its recent Judgment in Delhi
Development Authority v. Godfrey
Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors., and held that a
subsequent purchaser was not entitled
to claim lapsing of the proceedings
under the Right to Fair Compensation
Act, 2013.

It was held that the finding that

compensation was not offered to the
land owners, and therefore the deposit
in Court cannot be regarded as
payment of compensation, is not
tenable in view of the judgment in
Indore Development Authority v.
Manoharlal & Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the
Order of the H.C.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

Hon'ble Mr. Sathyanath & Anr. v. Sarojamani Civil Law - Res Judicata as a
Justice Hemant Preliminary Issue:
Gupta Date: 06.05.2022
Bench Strength: 2 Judges The Supreme Court was deciding an
appeal against an Order of the High
Court directing the trial court to frame
a preliminary issue as to whether the
suit filed by the appellant is barred by
res judicata.

It was held that preliminary issues are

those where no evidence is required,
and on the basis of a reading of the
plaint or the applicable law, if the
jurisdiction of the Court, or the bar to
the suit is made out, the Court may
decide such issues with the sole
objective of expeditious decision. It
was held that res judicata is a mixed
question of law and fact depending
upon the pleadings of the parties, the
parties to the suit etc.

The Court concluded that the direction

of the H.C. to frame a preliminary
issue of res judicata runs counter to the
mandate of Order XIV Rule 2 of the
Code and thus, not sustainable in law.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the
Order of the High Court.

Delhi Development Authority v. Land Acquisition-Lapsing of

Sunil Khatri & Ors. proceedings:

Date: 19.05.2022 The Supreme Court, while deciding a

Bench Strength: 2 Judges challenge to an Order of the High
Court declaring that the land
acquisition proceedings had lapsed,
held that in this case, the period of 5
years had not lapsed as on the
01.01.2014, which could lead to
lapsing of the proceedings. The DDA
was prevented from taking possession
by the interim orders passed in a
number of writ petitions.

Therefore, prior to the commencement

of Right to Fair Compensation Act,
2013, there was no stay free period of
5 years which could lead to a
declaration that the proceedings stood
lapsed.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the

Order of the High Court.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

 Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Tax Law-Income Tax Act:
Agarwal
While deciding an Appeal by the Union-
Date: 04.05.2022 Revenue against an order of the
Bench Strength: 2 Judges Allahabad High Court which had
quashed several reassessment notices
issued by the Revenue after 01.04.2021,
under the unamended Section 148 of the
Income Tax Act, the Supreme Court,
inter-alia, directed that the reassessment
notices u/S. 148 of the unamended
Hon'ble Mr. Income Tax Act which were issued
Justice beyond 01.04.2021 (Amendment date of
Mukeshkumar the said provision by the Finance Act,
Rasikbhai Shah 2021) to be deemed to have been issued
under Section 148A of the Income Tax
Act as substituted by the Finance Act,
2021, and be treated as Show Cause
Notices in terms of Section 148A(b).

The said directions were passed on the

ground of striking a balance between the
rights of the Revenue as well as the
respective assesses, and with a view
avoiding filing of further appeals before
the Court and burdening the Court with
approximately 9,000 further appeals.

Abdul Matin Mallick v. Subrata Civil Law-Right of Pre-emption:

Bhattacharjee (Banerjee) and Ors.
The Supreme Court was deciding a case
Date: 05.05.2022 arising out of pre-emption proceedings
Bench Strength: 2 Judges under the West Bengal Land Reforms
Act, 1955. It was held that the deposit of
the entire sale consideration with
additional 10% of the sale consideration
alongwith the pre-emption application is
a statutory and mandatory requirement.
This is a pre-condition before any
further enquiry u/S. 9 of the Act is held.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the
Order of the High Court, which had
permitted the pre-emptors to deposit the
balance sale consideration with
additional 10% while deciding the
revision application.

Swadesh Kumar Agarwal v. Dinesh Arbitration Law-Termination of

Kumar Agarwal & Ors, etc., etc. mandate of an arbitrator:

Date: 05.05.2022 In this case, the High Court had

Bench Strength: 2 Judges terminated the mandate of an arbitrator,
while deciding an application u/S. 11(6)
of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. It
was held that in a case where there is no
written agreement between the parties
on the procedure for appointing an
arbitrator, the parties are free to agree on
a procedure by mutual consent and / or
agreement and the dispute can be
referred to an arbitrator/s who can be
appointed by mutual consent.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Failing any agreement referred to S.
Mukeshkumar 11(2), S. 11(5) of the Act shall be
Rasikbhai Shah attracted, and in such a situation, the
application for appointment of
arbitrator/s shall be maintainable u/S.
11(5) of the Act, and not u/S. 11(6) of
the Act. In a case where there is a
written agreement and / or contract
containing the arbitration agreement,
and the appointment or procedure is
agreed upon by the parties, an
application u/S.11(6) of the Act shall
be maintainable.

It was further held that once the

dispute is referred to arbitration, and
the sole arbitrator is appointed by the
parties by mutual consent and the
arbitrator/s is so appointed, the
arbitration agreement cannot be
invoked for the second time. The Court
held that in a case where there is a
dispute on the mandate of the
arbitrator being terminated on the
ground mentioned u/S.14(1)(a), such a
dispute has to be raised before the
“court”, defined u/S. 2(e) of the 1996
Act, and such a dispute cannot be
decided on an application u/S. 11(6) of
the 1996 Act.

Reshma Sultana v. The State of Service Law-Fraud in selection

Karnataka & Ors. process:

Date: 10.05.2022 The Supreme Court was considering

Bench Strength: 2 Judges an appeal against an Order of the High
Court holding that the appointment of
the Appellant was vitiated by fraud,
and further directing to forward the
necessary documents and proposals
for appointing the original writ
petitioner as a full-time Lecturer in
Urdu subject.

It was held that once the entire

selection process was found to be
vitiated due to fraud, collusion and
manipulation, thereafter the High
Court ought to have passed an order
for a fresh selection after following the
due process of selection.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court set

aside the direction issued by the High
Court to forward the documents of the
original writ petitioner for his
appointment, and directed that a fresh
selection process be initiated.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rekha Jain v. State of Karnataka & Criminal Law-Quashing of F.I.R.:
Mukeshkumar Anr.
Rasikbhai Shah The Supreme Court, while allowing an
Date: 10.05.2022 Appeal filed by the Accused against an
Bench Strength: 2 Judges Order of the High Court dismissing a
petition for quashing of an F.I.R. u/S.
420 I.P.C., held that –

(i) All allegations in the F.I.R. were only

directed against the co-accused / Mr.
Kamalesh Mulchand Jain.

(ii) To make out a case against a person

for the offence u/S. 420 I.P.C., there
must be a dishonest inducement to
deceive a person to deliver any property
to any other person. In the present case,
there was no allegation at all against
Appellant/Accused – Rekha Jain of any
inducement by her to deceive and to
deliver the gold jewellery.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the

F.I.R.

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh v. State Service Law-Fixation of Minimum

of Goa & Anr. Wages:

Date: 10.05.2022 The Supreme Court was deciding an

Bench Strength: 2 Judges appeal against the Judgment of the High
Court dismissing the writ petition filed
by the appellant challenging a
Notification revising the minimum
wages in the State.

The subject Notification did not mention

the provision under which it was issued.
The only explanation by the State was
that there was an error, which was
sought to be rectified by the subject
Notification.

However, the Court held that since there

was no clerical or arithmetical mistake,
the subject notification could not be
issued u/S. 10 of the Minimum Wages
Act. It was held that u/S. 10 of the Act,
only clerical or arithmetical mistakes
can be corrected.

Even by applying Section 21 of the

General Clauses Act, and assuming that
the State had power to amend, vary or
rescind the notification, in that case also
such power can be exercised in a like
manner, namely after following the
procedure, which was followed while
issuing the original notification.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the

subsequent Notification.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

Hon'ble Mr. Justice State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Chetan Service Law-Appointment:
Mukeshkumar Jeff The Supreme Court set aside the
Rasikbhai Shah decisions of the Single Judge and the
Date: 11.05.2022 Division Bench of the Rajasthan High
Bench Strength: 2 Judges Court which directed the State to
consider the appointment of the
Respondent to the post of Constable
(General). The candidature of the
Respondent was initially rejected on the
ground that he suppressed material facts
about his criminal antecedents, however
the same was reversed by the High
Court mainly on the ground that the
offences were trivial in nature and the
suppression of such offences should
have been ignored. The Court, while
reversing the Judgment of the H.C., held
that the question is not whether the
offences were trivial in nature or not.
The question is one of suppression of
material fact by the Respondent in
respect of his criminal antecedents and
making a false statement in the
application form. The duty of the
constable is to maintain law and order.
Therefore, it is expected that he should
be honest and that his integrity is above
board and that he is reliable.
Anjana Saraiya v. The State of U.P. Civil Law-Allotment of Plot:
& Ors. While deciding a challenge to an Order
of the H.C. dismissing a Writ Petition
Date: 12.05.2022 filed by the Petitioner challenging the
Bench Strength: 2 Judges cancellation of her allotment, the S.C.
observed that the Petitioner had paid the
first 3 instalments, and the delay in
payment of other instalments arose due
to financial difficulty caused due to the
ill-health of her husband. The deposit of
amounts by the Petitioner indicated her
bona fides. Further, the Court held that
the Petitioner had made a fair offer of
paying Rs.2 Lacs additionally as
compensation for the delay.
Accordingly, the Court directed the
authorities to allot the plot to the
Petitioner under the Middle-Income
Group Scheme.
Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Contempt jurisdiction-Quantum of
Fund v. Dharmesh S. Jain and punishment:
Another The Supreme Court was deciding the
quantum of punishment to be awarded to
Date: 12.05.2022 the contemnor. Upon considering that
Bench Strength: 2 Judges despite the contemnor being granted
sufficient opportunities to either settle
the dispute amicably, or comply with the
orders of the S.C. and the H.C., neither
the orders were complied with, nor the
dispute was settled amicably.
Accordingly, the Court sentenced the
contemnor to simple imprisonment for 7
days, with a fine of Rs.5 lacs.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Civil Law-Proceedings under writ
Mukeshkumar Narendra Jayantilal Trivedi & Anr. jurisdiction:
Rasikbhai Shah In this case, the Supreme Court
Date: 13.05.2022 deprecated the conduct of the Appellant,
Bench Strength: 2 Judges who had first challenged an interim
order of the H.C. before the S.C., and
during the pendency of the SLP, had
withdrawn the proceedings before the
H.C. The Supreme Court observed that
such conduct on the part of the litigant
to once enjoy the fruits of litigation for
a number of years, invite an order on
merits, which is against him, and in the
appeal initially obtain an ex -parte ad-
interim relief and thereafter, having
realised that the same would not be
sustained, withdraw the appeal and
request that the observations made by
the Court while dismissing the writ
petition may not be considered, cannot
be accepted. Such conduct is
reprehensible and accordingly, the
Court imposed costs of Rs.1 Lac.
Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome Consumer Law-Writ Petition
Private Limited maintainable against NCDRC Order:
The Supreme Court was deciding the
Date: 13.05.2022 issue whether a W.P. under Article 227
Bench Strength: 2 Judges was maintainable against an Order of the
NCDRC in an Appeal u/S. 58(1)(a)(iii)
of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
While answering the issue in the
affirmative, the Court held that since the
2019 Act does not provide for a further
appeal to the S.C. from an Order passed
by the NCDRC in exercise of its powers
u/S. 58(1)(a)(iii) or S.58(1)(a)(iv) [i.e.
Appellate jurisdiction], the remedy
available to an aggrieved party would be
to approach the concerned H.C. having
jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the CoI.
Sudhir Ranjan Patra (Dead) thr. Civil Law-Setting aside ex parte
LRs. & Anr. v. Himansu Sekhar decree:
Srichandan & Ors. The Supreme Court was deciding an
appeal against an Order of the H.C.
Date: 17.05.2022 setting aside an ex-parte Order against
Bench Strength: 2 Judges the Appellants (Defendants), but
holding that they could not be permitted
to file their written statements. It was
held that there was no specific order of
the Trial Court on the prayer seeking
permission to file the written statement,
after setting aside the ex-parte decree.
Thus, the observation made by the H.C.
directing that the defendants shall not be
allowed to file their written statement
was beyond the scope of the revision
petition before it. Accordingly, the
Court remanded the matter to the Trial
Court to decide the prayer made by the
defendants to file their written
statement.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Kumar Jatav v. The State of Criminal Law-Quashing of
Mukeshkumar U.P. & Ors. Proceedings:
Rasikbhai Shah
Date: 17.05.2022 The Supreme Court, while setting
Bench Strength: 2 Judges aside an order passed by the H.C.
quashing the criminal proceedings and
summoning order against the Accused
for offences u/S. 307, 504, 506 of
I.P.C. and S. 3(10)(15) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
held that –

(i) There was no discussion by the

High Court on the allegations made
against the accused, and on the legality
and validity of the order passed by the
Magistrate summoning the accused.

(ii) The Impugned Order passed by the

High Court was a cryptic, non-
reasoned order.

(iii) The observation of the H.C. that

no useful purpose will be served by
prolonging the case, cannot be a good
ground and / or a ground at all, to
quash the criminal proceedings when a
clear case was made out for the
offences alleged.

Balwan Singh (Dead) By Lrs. Etc. Land Acquisition-Quantum of

Etc. v. The State of Haryana and Compensation:
Ors.
The Supreme Court, while deciding
Date: 18.05.2022 appeals filed by land owners seeking
Bench Strength: 2 Judges enhancement of compensation for land
acquisition held that the H.C. had not
assigned any reasons to reduce the
deductions from 20% to 10%., and
accordingly set aside that part of the
H.C. Judgment.

Further, it was held that reliance

placed by the landowners upon an
allotment letter in favour of Maruti
Suzuki India Limited at a higher
compensation, cannot be made the
basis of determining the
compensation, since it was made 3
years after the issuance of the S.4
Notification. What is required to be
considered is the nature of the acquired
land on the date of S. 4 notification,
usage of such land for a specific
purpose, and potential of such land at
the time of acquisition.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajpal Singh v. Saroj (Deceased) Civil Law-Limitation for cancellation
Mukeshkumar Through LRs and Anr. of Sale Deed:
Rasikbhai Shah While deciding the period of limitation
Date: 18.05.2022 for filing a suit seeking cancellation of
Bench Strength: 2 Judges sale deed, the Supreme Court held that
such a suit was required to be filed
within a period of 3 years from the date
of the knowledge of the sale deed.
Further, it was held that when a
composite suit is filed for cancellation of
the sale deed as well as for recovery of
the possession, the limitation period is
required to be considered with respect to
the substantive relief of cancellation of
the sale deed, which would be 3 years
from the date of the knowledge of the
sale deed sought to be cancelled.
Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Service Law-Compassionate
Orissa & Ors. Appointment:
The Supreme Court allowed an Appeal
Date: 20.05.2022 against the decision of the High Court
Bench Strength: 2 Judges which dismissed the plea of the
Appellant for appointment on
compassionate grounds, and directed the
State of Orissa to consider the case
under the Orissa Civil Service
(Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990,
and if found eligible, to appoint him for
the post of Junior Clerk. The Court
while concluding so also observed that
considering the object and purpose of
appointment on compassionate grounds,
(i.e., a family of a deceased employee
may be placed in a position of financial
hardship upon the untimely death of the
employee while in service and the basis
or policy is immediacy in rendering of
financial assistance to the family of the
deceased consequent upon his untimely
death), the authorities must consider and
decide such applications for
appointment on compassionate grounds
as per the policy prevalent, at the
earliest, but not beyond a period of 6
months from the date of submission of
such completed applications.
Gurmel Singh v. Branch Manager, Consumer Law-Insurance Claims:
National Insurance Co. Ltd. The Supreme Court was considering a
challenge to an Order of the NCDRC
Date: 20.05.2022 denying the relief of settlement of
Bench Strength: 2 Judges claims under the Insurance Policy to the
Appellant. The Insurance Company
rejected the claim of the Appellant on
the ground that he had not produced
either the original certificate of
registration, or even the duplicate
certified copy of the certificate of
registration issued by the RTO.
However, the Appellant produced a
photocopy of the certificate of
registration and other registration
particulars as provided by the RTO.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

Hon'ble Mr. Justice The Court held that the non-settlement
Mukeshkumar of claims can be said to be deficiency of
Rasikbhai Shah service. The insurance company was too
technical while settling the claim and
had acted arbitrarily. While settling
claims, the insurance company should
not be too technical, and ask for
documents, which the insured is not in a
position to produce due to
circumstances beyond his control.
Accordingly, the Court held that the
Appellant is entitled to an insurance
amount of Rs. 12 lacs along with interest
@ 7 % from the date of submitting the
claim. Further, the insurance company
was directed to pay Rs.25,000 as
litigation costs to the Appellant.
M/s Knit Pro International v. The Criminal Law-Copyright Act, 1957:
State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. While deciding a challenge to an Order
of the H.C. quashing an F.I.R. u/S. 63 of
Date: 20.05.2022 the Copyright Act on the ground that it
Bench Strength: 2 Judges is a non-cognizable offence, the
Supreme Court held that the punishment
provided for an offence u/S. 63 is
imprisonment for a term not less than 6
months, which may extend to 3 years
and with fine. Therefore, the maximum
punishment which can be imposed
would be 3 years. Considering Part II of
the 1st Schedule of the Cr.P.C., if the
offence is punishable with
imprisonment for 3 years and onwards,
but not more than 7 years the offence is
a cognizable offence. Only in a case
where the offence is punishable by
imprisonment for less than 3 years, or
with fine only the offence can be said to
be non-cognizable. Thus, the Court
concluded that the offence u/S. 63 of the
Copyright Act is a cognizable and non-
bailable offence. Accordingly, the Court
set aside the Order of the H.C.
Union of India & Ors. v. Anil Prasad Law Relating to Armed Forces-Pay
Scale:
Date: 20.05.2022 The Supreme Court set aside the order
Bench Strength: 2 Judges of the High Court which held that a
retired Armed Forces personnel, on re-
appointment in the Government Service,
would be entitled to the last drawn pay
as Armed Forces personnel. It was held
that such a finding was contrary to para
8 of the Central Civil Services (fixation
of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners)
Order, 1986, which implied that on re-
employment in the government service,
an employee working with the Armed
Forces shall be entitled to advance
increments equal to the completed years
of service rendered by him in the Armed
Forces on a basic pay equal to, or higher
than the minimum of the scale attached
to the civil post in which he is employed.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agra Development Authority, Agra Land Acquisition - Lapsing of
Mukeshkumar v. Anek Singh and others proceedings:
Rasikbhai Shah
Date: 20.05.2022 In this case, the High Court relied upon
Bench Strength: 2 Judges the S.C. Judgment in Pune Municipal
Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3
SCC 183, and held that the land
acquisition proceedings had lapsed
since the amount of compensation was
not actually paid to the land owners.

The Supreme Court held that the

Judgment in Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra) was overruled by
a Constitution Bench in Indore
Development Authority v. Manoharlal
and Others, (2020) 8 SCC 129, and
accordingly set aside the Order of the
High Court.

State Bank of India & Anr. v. K.S. Service Law - Dismissal from
Vishwanath Service:

Date: 20.05.2022 While deciding a challenge to an Order

Bench Strength: 2 Judges of the High Court., which set aside an
order of punishment, and directed the
Employer-Bank to give all
consequential benefits, except back
wages to the Employee, the Supreme
Court held that the High Court
committed a grave error in interfering
with the order passed by the
disciplinary authority dismissing the
delinquent officer from service.

Further, the contention of the

employee that he was acquitted in the
criminal proceedings, and therefore he
cannot be held guilty in departmental
proceedings was rejected.

The Court held that the fact that the

criminal court acquitted the
respondent by giving him the benefit
of doubt, will not, in any way, render a
completed disciplinary proceeding
invalid, nor affect the validity of the
finding of guilt, or consequential
punishment.

Accordingly, the Court upheld the

dismissal of the employee from
service, and set aside the direction of
the High Court to grant consequential
benefits to him.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Faizabad-Ayodhya Development Law relating to Land Acquisitions-
Mukeshkumar Authority, Faizabad v. Dr. Rajesh Quantum of Compensation:
Rasikbhai Shah Kumar Pandey & Ors.
The Supreme Court reversed the
Date: 20.05.2022 decision of the H.C. which had
Bench Strength: 2 Judges directed the authorities to pay
compensation to the original
landowners as per the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, on the ground
that on the date on which the 2013 Act
came into force, no award u/S. 11 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was
declared with respect to the lands
acquired.

The Supreme Court discussed and

summarized its Judgment in Indore
Development Authority v. Manoharlal
and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, and held
that the landowners cannot be
permitted to take advantage of the
interim order obtained by them due to
which the authority could not declare
the award u/S.11 of the 1894 Act, and
thereafter contend that in that view of
the matter, they shall be paid
compensation u/S. 24(1) of the 2013
Act, under which a higher
compensation will be available to
them.

Shri M.L. Patil (Dead) Through LRs Service Law-Payment of Pension:

v. The State of Goa and Anr.
The Supreme Court was considering a
Date: 20.05.2022 challenge to an Order of the H.C.
Bench Strength: 2 Judges holding that even though the Petitioner
ought to have superannuated at 60
years instead of 58 years, he shall not
be entitled to arrears of backwages and
revised pension for the said 2 years,
and the same shall be payable from
01.01.2020.

While modifying the Order of the H.C,

the Supreme Court held that the H.C.
may be justified in denying any salary
for the period of 2 extra years, but
there is no justification at all for
denying the arrears of pension.
Further, it was held that there was no
justification at all by the H.C. to make
the revised rates of pension payable
only from 01.01.2020. Accordingly,
the Order of the H.C. was modified to
the aforesaid extent, and the Petitioner
was granted the relief of pension.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ayodhya Faizabad Development Land Acquisition-Lapsing of
Mukeshkumar Authority and Anr. v. Ram Newaj proceedings:
Rasikbhai Shah and others
The Supreme Court was deciding a
Date: 20.05.2022 challenge to an Order of the H.C.
Bench Strength: 2 Judges holding that the land acquisition
proceedings of the Respondents’ land
had lapsed u/S. 24(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation Act, 2013, solely on the
ground that though the deposit of the
compensation was made in the Treasury,
the same was not deposited in Court, and
consequently the payment of
compensation of the amount was not
made to the land owners.

Applying the law laid down in Indore

Development Authority v. Manoharlal
and Others, (2020) 8 SCC 129, the
Supreme Court set aside the Order of the
H.C.

The State of Bihar & Ors. v. Rajmati Service Law-Payment of Pension:

Devi & Anr.
While deciding whether the deceased
Date: 20.05.2022 husband of the Respondent would be
Bench Strength: 2 Judges covered by the New or Old Pension
Scheme, the Supreme Court concluded
that when the husband of the
Respondent was absorbed in service, the
Old Scheme was abolished, and the New
Scheme was in operation. He would,
therefore, be covered under the New
Scheme.

Since the New Scheme did not provide

for family pension, the Respondent (i.e.
wife of the deceased employee) would
not be entitled to the same. Accordingly,
the Court set aside the Order of the H.C.,
which had directed payment of family
pension to the Respondent.
Dr. K. M. Sharma & Ors. v. The Service Law-Parity in Pay Scale:
State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
The Supreme Court was deciding an
Date: 20.05.2022 appeal against an Order of the H.C.
Bench Strength: 2 Judges rejecting the plea of the Appellants
(Shiksha Karmis) seeking parity in pay
scale with municipality / municipal
teachers in the State of Chhattisgarh.
The Court concluded that when
Municipal teachers and Shiksha Karmis
are appointed under different Rules, and
there are different methods of selection
and recruitment, a Shiksha Karmi
cannot claim parity in pay-scale with
that of Municipal teachers on the
principle of equal pay for equal work.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the
Appeal.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

 Pawan Kumar v. Union of India & Service Law-Discharge of an
Anr. employee:
The Supreme Court was considering a
Date: 02.05.2022 challenge against an Order of the H.C.
Bench Strength: 2 Judges upholding the discharge of the appellant
from the post of Constable in the RPF.
The Appellant was discharged on the
ground that he suppressed his
prosecution in a criminal case. The
Court held that by mere suppression of
Hon'ble Mr. material / false information, regardless
Justice Ajay of the fact whether there is a conviction
Rastogi or acquittal, the employee / recruit is not
to be discharged / terminated
axiomatically from service just by a
stroke of a pen. At the same time, the
effect of suppression of material / false
information involving in a criminal case,
if any, is left for the employer to
consider, and take an appropriate
decision on the suitability of the
employee into service. Mere
suppression of material in a given case
does not mean that the employer can
arbitrarily terminate the employee from
service. The Court also noted that in the
present case, the criminal proceedings
against the Appellant were trivial.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the
Order of the H.C., and directed re-
instatement of the Appellant.

V. Prakash @ G.N.V. Prakash v. Civil Law- Trusts:

M/s. P.S. Govindaswamy Naidu & In this case, the High Court rejected the
Sons’ Charities Represented By Its claim of the Appellant to be appointed
Managing Trustee & Ors. as the founder trustee of the respondent-
trust, after the death of his father on the
Date: 09.05.2022 ground that he was a Green-Card
Bench Strength: 2 Judges Holder, and did not “reside” in Madras.
The Supreme Court held that the
overwhelming evidence produced by
the Appellant in the form of Aadhaar
Hon'ble Mr. Card issued by the GoI and his Income
Justice Dinesh Tax assessments in India based on the
Maheshwari certification of a Chartered Accountant,
fulfills the requirement of ‘resident’ u/S.
6 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was
held that considering the spirit of the
Scheme of Administration, the concept
of representation of the branch of
founder trustee needs to be respected
and, in that regard, claim of the
descendant (i.e. Appellant) cannot be
lightly brushed aside by a mere count of
number of days of stay in India, while
ignoring all other features and factors
showing his choice of staying in India.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set
aside the Order of the H.C., and directed
that the Appellant be entitled to hold the
office of founder trustee.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

Hon'ble Mr. Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra & Criminal Law-Maharashtra Control
Justice Dinesh Ors. of Organised Crime Act, 1999:
Maheshwari The Supreme Court was deciding an
Date: 20.05.2022 appeal against an Order of the H.C.
Bench Strength: 2 Judges rejecting the challenge of the appellant
against an Order sanctioning his
prosecution under the MCOCA. It was
held that the rule of strict construction
cannot be applied in an impracticable
manner, so as to render the statute itself
nugatory. In other words, the rule of
strict construction of a penal statute, or a
special penal statute is not intended to
put all the provisions in such a tight iron
cast that they become practically
unworkable, and thereby, the entire
purpose of the law is defeated. Strict
adherence by the authorities concerned
to the requirements of MCOCA cannot
be stretched beyond common sense, and
practical requirements in terms of the
letter and spirit of the statute. The Court
held that the expression ‘other
advantage’ cannot be read in a
restrictive manner. There could be
advantage to a person committing a
crime which may not be directly leading
to pecuniary advantage, or benefit, but
could be of getting a strong hold, or
supremacy in the society, or even in the
syndicate itself. Accordingly, the Court
upheld the sanction order.

Dilip Hariramani v. Bank of Baroda Criminal Law - Negotiable

Instruments Act:
Date: 09.05.2022 In this case, the Appellant, who was a
Bench Strength: 2 Judges Partner of a Firm and stood as a
Guarantor for a Loan had filed an appeal
against his conviction u/S. 138 of the
N.I. Act. Allowing the Appeal, the S.C.
held that vicarious liability u/S.141(1)
can be pinned when the person is in
overall control of the day-to-day
Hon'ble Mr. business of the company, or firm.
Justice Sanjiv Vicarious Liability u/S. 141(2) can arise
Khanna because of the director/manager’s
personal conduct or transactional role,
notwithstanding that the person was not
in overall control of the day-to-day
business of the company when the
offence was committed. It was held that
the provisions of S. 141 impose
vicarious liability by deeming fiction,
which pre-supposes and requires the
commission of the offence by the
company. Therefore, unless the
company has committed the offence as a
principal accused, the persons
mentioned in S.141(1)or(2) would not
be liable, and convicted as vicariously
liable. Accordingly, the Court set aside
the conviction of the Appellant.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

Hon'ble Mr. M.P. Rajya Tilhan Utpadak Arbitration Law-Arbitrator and
Justice Sanjiv Sahakari Sangh Maryadit, Pachama, Commissioner:
Khanna District Sehore & Others v. M/s. The Supreme Court held that there is a
Modi Transport Service distinction between the scope and
functions of an arbitral tribunal, and a
Date: 11.05.2022 commissioner appointed under Order
Bench Strength: 2 Judges XXVI CPC. It was held that for
submission to arbitration, there must be
an arbitration agreement, or an
agreement in terms of Section 21 of the
Arbitration Act, 1940 providing that the
disputes between the parties be
determined in a quasi-judicial manner.
Commissioners are appointed by the
court. Such appointment may be with
consent of the parties, or even when
there is objection to the appointment.
Pre-existing agreements or the
requirement that the parties agree before
the Court, as is mandatory in case of
arbitration, is not necessary when a
court directs appointment of a
Commissioner. The Court also
introduced the concept of a “facilitator”
who may be appointed by a Court, be it
a commissioner or an expert, for a
specific purpose and cause for
ascertainment of a fact which may be
disputed. The Court also analysed the
provisions of Order XXVI CPC, and
concluded that the Commissioners’
reports are ‘non-adjudicatory in nature’.
The Court concluded that the Report of
the Commissioner in this case is not an
award, and is to be treated as a report of
a Commissioner appointed by the Court
under Order XXVI Rule 11 CPC.
PTC India Financial Services Ltd. v. Civil Law-Contracts and pledge of
Venkateswarlu Kari & Anr. goods:
The Supreme Court was considering the
Date: 12.05.2022 issue of whether the Depositories Act,
Bench Strength: 2 Judges 1996 r.w. Regulation 58 of the SEBI
(Depositories & Participants)
Regulations, 1996 has the legal effect of
overwriting the provisions relating to
the contracts of pledge under the Indian
Contract Act, 1872.
It was held that the Depositories Act and
the 1996 Regulations do not expressly
state that their provisions prevail over
the Contract Act, or any other law in
force. On the other hand, Section 28 of
the Depositors Act states that “the
provisions of this Act shall be in
addition to, and not in derogation of any
other law for the time force relating to
the holding and transfer of securities.”
Thus, the Depositories Act is in addition
to other laws relating to the holding and
transfer of securities.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

Hon'ble Mr. Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak v. Service Law-Payment of arrears of
Justice Sanjiv Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation higher pay scale:
Khanna The Supreme Court was deciding an
Date: 18.05.2022 appeal against an Order passed by the
Bench Strength: 2 Judges division bench of the H.C. restricting
the grant of a higher pay-scale to the
Appellants-Employees from the date of
the Order of the single judge of the H.C.
(i.e. 2018), and not from the date of the
concerned notification (i.e. 2010). It was
held that the Division Bench should not
have taken the date of the decision /
judgment of the Single Judge for grant
of the said benefit in view of the
decision in Union of India and Others v.
Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648. It was
held that the date of the decision of the
Single Judge is a fortuitous
circumstance. Only the date of filing of
the W.P. is relevant while examining the
question of delay and laches, or
limitation. Accordingly, the Court held
that the Appellants were entitled to
arrears of higher pay scale from a period
of 3 years preceding the filing of the
W.P. before the single judge, alongwith
interest @ 7% p.a. w.e.f. 01.09.2017.
BBR (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. S.P. Singla Arbitration Law-Seat of Arbitration:
Constructions Pvt. Ltd. The Supreme Court while deciding an
issue as to whether conducting the
Date: 18.05.2022 arbitration proceedings at one place
Bench Strength: 2 Judges (Delhi), owing to the appointment of a
new arbitrator, would shift the
‘jurisdictional seat of arbitration’ from
an earlier place (Haryana) fixed by the
first arbitrator for the arbitration
proceedings, held that –
(i) The place or venue fixed for
arbitration proceedings, when S.20(2)
applies, will be the jurisdictional ‘seat’
and Courts having jurisdiction over the
jurisdictional ‘seat’ would have
exclusive jurisdiction. This principle
would have an exception, which would
apply when, by mutual consent, the
parties agree that the jurisdictional ‘seat’
should be changed, and such consent
must be express and clearly understood
and agreed by the parties;
(ii) The appointment of a new arbitrator
who holds the arbitration proceedings at
a different location would not change
the jurisdictional ‘seat’ already fixed by
the earlier, or first arbitrator. The place
of arbitration in such an event should be
treated as a venue where arbitration
proceedings are held. Consequently, the
Supreme Court held that the Courts in
Delhi would not have jurisdiction, since
the jurisdictional ‘seat of arbitration’
was Haryana, and not Delhi.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

 The Secretary to Govt. Of Kerala, Arbitration Law-Kerala Revocation
Irrigation Department and Others v. of Arbitration Clauses and Reopening
James Varghese and Others of Awards Act:

Date: 04.05.2022 The Supreme Court was considering the

Bench Strength: 2 Judges legislative competence of the Kerala
State Legislature to enact the Kerala
Revocation of Arbitration Clauses and
Reopening of Awards Act, 1998, and
whether the State Act encroaches upon
Hon'ble Mr. the judicial power of the State.
Justice Bhushan
Ramkrishna While holding the Act to be
Gavai unconstitutional, the Court relied upon
its Judgments in G.C. Kanungo v. State
of Orissa (1995) 5 SCC 96 and M.P.
Rural Road Development Authority &
Anr. v. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers &
Contractors (2012) 3 SCC 495, which
held that the source of the enactment of
the 1940 Act, 1996 Act and the State
Acts legislated by Orissa and M.P.
Legislatures is Entry 13 of List III of the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of
India. Ordinarily, if there is any conflict
between the Central law and the State
law, in view of Art. 254(1) of the
Constitution of India, the Central law
would prevail. However, in view of
Art.254(2), the State law would prevail
when it is reserved for consideration,
and receives assent of the President of
India. Further, the Court also held that
the Kerala Act interferes with judicial
functions, and was liable to be declared
as unconstitutional.

Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Arbitration Law-Award of Interest:

Limited v. Delhi Metro Rail
Corporation The Supreme Court, while deciding the
issue of whether the “sum” awarded u/S.
Date: 05.05.2022 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and
Bench Strength: 2 Judges Conciliation Act 1996, would include
pendente lite interest held as under –
(i) The grant of interest would be
available to the Arbitral Tribunal only
when there is no agreement to the
contrary between the parties;
(ii)The phrase “unless otherwise agreed
by the parties” in S.31(7)(a) clearly
emphasizes that when the parties have
agreed with regard to any of the aspects
covered u/S.31(7)(a) of the 1996 Act,
the Arbitral Tribunal would cease to
have any discretion with regard to the
aspects mentioned in the said provision;
(iii) Only in the absence of such an
agreement u/S. 31(7)(a), the Arbitral
Tribunal would have a discretion to
grant, or refuse to grant interest.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

Hon'ble Mr. Chhattisgarh State Power Electricity Law-Usage for captive
Justice Bhushan Distribution Company Ltd. v. power plant:
Ramkrishna Gavai Chhattisgarh State Electricity
Regulatory Commission And While deciding an appeal from a
Another decision of the APTEL, the Supreme
Court held that a combined reading of
Date: 12.05.2022 S. 9 and S.2(8) of the Electricity Act
Bench Strength: 2 Judges would reveal that a person is entitled to
construct, maintain, or operate a
captive generating plant, when such a
plant is primarily for his own use.
S.2(8) would further show that it
includes a power plant set up by any
co-operative society, or association for
generating electricity.

The requirement is that it should be

primarily for the use of the members of
such co-operative society, or
association. It was held that the
definition of “person” is wide enough
to include any company, or body
corporate, or association, or body of
individuals, whether incorporated, or
not, or artificial juridical person. It was
held that Rule 3(1) provides that no
power plant shall qualify as a “Captive
Generating Plant” unless the following
conditions are fulfilled : (i) not less
than 26% of the ownership is held by
the captive user/s; and (ii) not less than
51% of the aggregate electricity
generated in such plant, determined on
an annual basis, is consumed for the
captive use.

The Court held that in the facts of the

case, both the conditions were
fulfilled, and accordingly, the Court
dismissed the Appeals.

Indian Overseas Bank v. M/s. RCM Insolvency and Bankruptcy-

Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. SARFAESI & IBC:

Date: 18.05.2022 The Supreme Court held that once the

Bench Strength: 2 Judges CIRP is commenced, there is complete
prohibition of any action to foreclose,
recover, or enforce any security
interest created by the Corporate
Debtor in respect of its property.

The words “including any action under

the SARFAESI Act” in Section 14 of
IBC are significant. The legislative
intent is clear that after the CIRP is
initiated, all actions, including any
action under the SARFAESI Act to
foreclose, recover, or enforce any
security interest are prohibited.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

Hon'ble Mr. Further, it was held that in view of the
Justice Bhushan provisions of S.14(1)(c) IBC, which
Ramkrishna Gavai have an overriding effect over any other
law, any action to foreclose, recover, or
enforce any security interest created by
the Corporate Debtor in respect of its
property, including any action under the
SARFAESI Act is prohibited. It was
held that the Appellant-Bank could not
have continued the proceedings under
the SARFAESI Act once the CIRP was
initiated, and the moratorium was
ordered. Accordingly, the Court upheld
the Order of the NCLAT which set aside
the sale of the assets of the corporate
debtor.

Yamuna Expressway Industrial Law relating to Land Acquisition-

Development Authority Etc. v. Additional Compensation:
Shakuntla Education And Welfare
Society & Ors. Etc. The Supreme Court allowed an appeal
filed by the Yamuna Expressway
Date: 19.05.2022 Industrial Development Authority
Bench Strength: 2 Judges (YEIDA) challenging the order of the
Allahabad High Court, which had set
aside the policy decision of the State to
issue additional notices seeking
additional premium from original
allottees of plots developed by the
YEIDA.
The Court, while upholding the policy
decision of the State Government as
reflected in the said G.O. dated
28.08.2014 and the Resolution of the
Board of YEIDA dated 15.09.2014, held
that –
(i) In case of a conflict between public
interest and personal interest, public
interest will outweigh personal interest;
(ii) The policy decision was taken after
taking into consideration all relevant
factors, and was guided by reasons;
(iii) Before taking the policy decision,
the State Government, through the
Chaudhary Committee, had done a wide
range of deliberations with all the
stakeholders including the allottees,
farmers and YEIDA.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. A. Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code-

Balakrishnan & Anr. Holder of Recovery Certificate:

Date: 30.05.2022 The Supreme Court held that a liability

Bench Strength: 3 Judges in respect of a claim arising out of a
Recovery Certificate would be a
“financial debt” u/S.5(8) IBC, and the
holder of a Recovery Certificate would
be a financial creditor u/S.5(7) IBC.
Further, it was held that a person would
be entitled to initiate CIRP within a
period of 3 years from the date on which
the Recovery Certificate is issued.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

 Cox & Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Arbitration Law-Group of
Ltd. & Anr. Companies Doctrine:
While authoring a concurring judgment
Date: 06.05.2022 examining the group of companies
Bench Strength: 3 Judges doctrine in the context of arbitration
proceedings, Justice Surya Kant traced
the origins of the said doctrine, and
concluded that in view of the various
judgments applying the doctrine in
different contexts, it was necessary for
the issue to be decided by a larger bench.
Justice Surya Kant opined that in
Hon'ble Mr.
addition to the issues framed by the
Justice Surya
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, the
Kant
following issues also need to be
determined by a larger bench –
A. Whether the Group of Companies
Doctrine should be read into Section 8
of the Act, or whether it can exist in
Indian jurisprudence independent of any
statutory provision?
B. Whether the Group of Companies
Doctrine should continue to be invoked
on the basis of the principle of ‘single
economic reality’?
C. Whether the Group of Companies
Doctrine should be construed as a means
of interpreting the implied consent, or
intent to arbitrate between the parties?
D. Whether the principles of alter ego
and / or piercing the corporate veil can
alone justify pressing the Group of
Companies Doctrine into operation even
in the absence of implied consent?
NOTE: The Hon’ble Chief Justice of
India has delivered the Judgment for
himself and Justice A.S. Bopanna, while
Surya Kant has penned a separate
concurring judgment.

The State of Karnataka & Ors. v. G. Civil Law-Right of restoration of

Ramanarayana Joshi land:
The Supreme Court was deciding a case
Date: 17.05.2022 arising out of the right to seek
Bench Strength: 2 Judges restoration of land under the Karnataka
Land Revenue Rules, 1966. It was held
that as on the date when the right
accrued to the respondent to make an
application seeking restoration, the
Hon'ble Mr. status of the property was the same, and
Justice Ajjikuttira the same was only transferred from the
Somaiah Bopanna Revenue Department of the
Government to the Forest Department of
the same Government i.e., from one arm
to another. This cannot be construed that
the land in question had been “disposed
of” as contemplated under Rule 119(2)
of the 1966 Rules. Further, it was held
that when a factual finding is rendered
by the H.C., it will not arise for
consideration in the limited scope
available to the S.C. in a SLP.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

Hon'ble Mr. Union of India & Ors. v. Brigadier Law Relating to Armed Forces-
Justice Ajjikuttira Javed Iqbal Promotions:
Somaiah Bopanna The Supreme Court upheld the order of
Date: 17.05.2022 the Armed Forces Tribunal, Lucknow
Bench Strength: 2 Judges Bench (AFT) which had directed
Brigadier Iqbal / Respondent to be
promoted forthwith to the post of
Additional Major General (Litigation)
in the Judge Advocate General’s
Branch. The Respondent was not
accorded the benefit of promotion on the
ground that he was placed in the low
medical category for ‘Hypertension’ P2
(P) with COPE Coding C201P1El.
The Court, while allowing the
Respondent to be promoted, held that –
(i) The medical reports were made
available to the Selection Board, and a
conscious decision was made
recommending his promotion;
(iii) The role of the Military Secretary
(who introduced the rider interfering
with the promotion) is only to bring to
the notice of the Chief of the Army Staff
if the officer concerned has been graded
against the guidelines in the board
grading;
(ii) The only disability of the
Respondent while in SHAPE-2 also is
with regard to the risk in high altitude
service, and the Selection Board has
kept in view the normal nature of work
to be performed as JAG (Litigation).

Sabitri Samantaray v. State of Criminal Law – Section 106 of the

Odisha Evidence Act:
While deciding an appeal against the
Date: 20.05.2022 conviction of the Appellants for an
Bench Strength: 3 Judges offence u/S. 302 I.P.C., the Supreme
Court held that Section 106 of the Indian
Evidence Act applies to cases where the
chain of events has been successfully
established by the prosecution, from
which a reasonable inference is made
Hon'ble Mr.
out against the accused. It was held that
Justice Krishna
S.106, in no way, exonerates the
Murari
prosecution from discharging its burden
of proof beyond reasonable doubt; it
merely prescribes that when an
individual has done an act, with an
intention other than that which the
circumstances indicate, the onus of
proving that specific intention falls onto
the individual and not on the
prosecution. The Court held that, in this
case, the prosecution had successfully
established the chain of events, and the
onus was on the Accused to prove how
the deceased lost his life inside their
house. Accordingly, the Court upheld
the conviction of the Accused person.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

Hon'ble Mr. Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P. & Criminal Law-Reversal of Grant of
Justice Krishna Anr. Bail:
Murari
The Supreme Court was considering a
Date: 20.05.2022
challenge to an Order granting Bail to
Bench Strength: 3 Judges
Respondent No.2-Accused for an
offence u/S. 302 I.P.C. While setting
aside the order granting Bail to the
Accused, the Court held that –
(i) The grant of bail to the Accused
only on the basis of parity shows that
the impugned order passed by the High
Court suffers from the vice of non-
application of mind rendering it
unsustainable.
(ii) The H.C. had not considered the
criminal history of the Accused.
(iii) The H.C. had not considered the
nature and gravity of the crime.
(iv) The material evidence available,
and the involvement of Respondent
No.2 / Accused in the said crime, and
recovery of weapon from his
possession was also not considered by
the H.C.

United India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Consumer Law - ‘Double

Levis Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd. Insurance’:

Date: 02.05.2022 The Supreme Court, while dealing

Bench Strength: 3 Judges with the issue of “double insurance”,
i.e., where an entity seeks to cover
risks for same, or similar incidents
through two different - overlapping
policies, set aside the order of the
NCDRC which allowed the insurance
Hon'ble Mr.
claim of Levis Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Justice S.
Ravindra Bhat
The Court noted that the Claimant
Company had also availed a separate
Marine Insurance Policy (STP Policy),
and as per Condition No. 4 of the Fire
Insurance Policy (SFSP Policy), the
Appellant-Insurance Company was
not to be held liable in such cases.

The Court, while allowing the Appeal

filed by the Insurance Company,
observed that a contract of insurance is
and always continues to be one for
indemnity of the defined loss, no more
no less. In the case of specific risks,
such as those arising from loss due to
fire, etc., the insured cannot profit and
take advantage of double insurance.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

Hon'ble Mr. Ritu Maheshwari v. M/s. Civil Law-Contracts / Allotment:
Justice S. Ravindra Promotional Club
Bhat The Supreme Court set aside the
Date: 05.05.2022 decision of the Allahabad High Court
Bench Strength: 3 Judges which had directed the New Okhla
Industrial Development Authority to re-
consider the Applications for allotment
of industrial plots of M/s. Promotional
Club in accordance with law. The High
Court had held that NOIDA’s failure to
call the club’s representative for
interview, was not supported by any
reason, and that its candidature was
never considered for allotment. The
Supreme Court while allowing the
Appeal of NOIDA held that –
(i) When a policy decision like the
closure, or termination of a benefit
available to a class of persons is not
challenged, the consequence of such
closure (which is the impact on the
pendency of those wishing to be
considered), cannot ordinarily be the
subject matter of a grievance.
(ii) Once the legality of closure of the
old scheme was undisputed, there was
no manner of right inhering with the
club, to insist that its claim for any plot
had to be considered.
(iii) When regulations or schemes, or
policies change, Applicants for their
benefits have no inherent right to be
considered under the old policy; rather
the consideration has to be under the
new regime, unless the latter contains an
express stipulation to the contrary.

In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases Criminal Law-Special Courts under

under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 N.I. Act:

Date: 19.05.2022 The Supreme Court issued directions to

Bench Strength: 3 Judges conduct a pilot study to test the scheme
of employing retired judicial officers
and retired court staff to operationalise
Special Courts under the N.I. Act. This
pilot study was directed to be tested for
1 year in 25 Special Courts, which shall
be established in 5 judicial districts i.e.
Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Delhi
and Uttar Pradesh, which were
identified as having the highest
pendency of N.I. Act cases. It was
directed that the Special Courts under
this pilot study may employ retired
judicial officers and retired court staff,
preferably those who have retired within
the past 5 years. The Court also issued
further guidelines regarding the
preparation of advance and weekly lists,
functioning of Courts, procedure to be
followed, mediation, data collection,
etc.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

Hon'ble Mr. C.C.,C.E. & S.T. – Bangalore Indirect Tax-Levy of Service Tax:
Justice S. Ravindra (Adjudication) Etc. v. M/s. Northern
Bhat Operating Systems Pvt Ltd. While deciding an Appeal from a
Judgment of the CESTAT, the Supreme
Date: 19.05.2022 Court held that an Indian Company was
Bench Strength: 3 Judges a recipient for service (of manpower
recruitment and supply services) by an
overseas entity, in regard to the
employees it seconded to the assessee,
for the duration of their deputation or
secondment. In view of the same, the
Indian entity was held liable to pay
service tax.

Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Criminal Law-Commutation of Death

Pradesh Penalty:

Date: 20.05.2022 The Supreme Court, while deciding a

Bench Strength: 3 Judges challenge to the death penalty awarded
to the Accused in the case of robbery
and murder of 3 people, highlighted the
role of the public prosecutor, and issued
certain practical guidelines to be
followed by trial courts / States for
collecting and evaluating mitigating
circumstances of the Accused.

It was directed that the State must, for an

offence carrying capital punishment, at
the appropriate stage, produce material
which is preferably collected
beforehand, before the Sessions Court,
disclosing psychiatric and psychological
evaluation of the accused. Thereafter,
the State must, in a time-bound manner,
collect additional information pertaining
to the accused such as his age, family
background, etc. Lastly, information
regarding the accused’s jail conduct and
behaviour, work done (if any), activities
the accused has involved themselves in,
and other related details should be called
for in the form of a report from the
relevant jail authorities (i.e., probation
and welfare officer, superintendent of
jail, etc.).

On the role of the public prosecutor, the

Court held that the role of the public
prosecutor is intrinsically dedicated to
conducting a fair trial, and not for a
“thirst to reach the case in conviction”.

In the facts of the case, the Court upheld

the conviction of the accused persons,
but commuted the death penalty to life
imprisonment for a minimum term of 25
years.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

 Aravinth R.A. v. The Secretary to
Constitutional Law-Medical
the Government of India, Ministry
Education:
of Health and Family Welfare & The Supreme Court upheld the
Ors. constitutional validity of Regulations
4(a)(i), 4(a)(ii), 4(b) and 4(c) of the
Date: 02.05.2022 National Medical Commission (Foreign
Bench Strength: 2 Judges Medical Graduate Licentiate)
Regulations 2021 and Schedule- II 2(a)
and 2(c)(i) of the National Medical
Commission (Compulsory Rotating
Hon'ble Mr. Medical Internship) Regulations, 2021.
Justice V. These Regulations provided for certain
Ramasubramanian conditions (including compulsory
internship) to be fulfilled by Foreign
Medical Graduates in order to be
registered to practice medicine in India.
Upon examining the background and the
object of the Indian Medical Council
Act, 1933, the Supreme Court
concluded that the National Medical
Council was empowered under the 1933
Act to frame the said Regulations. It was
held that the Regulations do not
encroach into the sovereignty of the
countries where the foreign institutions
are located, by stipulating minimum
standards for students who want to
practise there. The Regulations merely
prescribe the minimum standards to be
fulfilled by those who study in those
institutions, but who want to practise in
India. Accordingly, the Court dismissed
the special leave petitions, and upheld
the validity of the Regulations.
Asset Reconstruction Company Civil Law-Registration of documents:
(India) Limited v. S.P. Velayutham The Supreme Court, while discussing
& Ors. the provisions of the Registration Act,
1908, and the duties of the Registering
Date: 04.05.2022 Officer held that S. 34(3)(c) of the
Bench Strength: 2 Judges Registration Act imposes an obligation
on the Registering Officer to satisfy
himself about the right of a person
appearing as a representative, assign or
agent. It was further held that if the
Registering Officer under the Act is
construed as performing only a
mechanical role, without any
independent mind of his own, then even
Government properties may be sold, and
documents may be registered by
unscrupulous persons driving the parties
to go to a civil court. Such an
interpretation may not advance the
cause of justice. Accordingly, the Court
set aside the Order of the Division
Bench of the H.C., and upheld the Order
of the Single Judge of the H.C., which
declared a Sale Deed made on the basis
of a PoA as null and void, on the ground
that the PoA prohibited the agent from
creating encumbrances on the property.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

Hon'ble Mr. Nedumpilli Finance Company Civil Law-Regulation of NBFCs:
Justice V. Limited v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Ramasubramanian The Court was considering the issue
Date: 10.05.2022 whether NBFCs regulated by the RBI,
Bench Strength: 2 Judges under Chapter IIIB of the Reserve Bank
of India Act, 1934 could also be
regulated by State enactments such as
Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 and
Gujarat Money Lenders Act, 2011.

It was held that in contrast to the State

enactments regulating the business of
money lending, whose one-eyed focus is
only the protection of borrowers, the
RBI Act takes a holistic approach to the
business of banking, money lending,
and operation of currency and credit
system of the country. It was held that
Chapter IIIB of the RBI Act shows that
the power of intervention available for
the RBI over NBFCs, is from the cradle
to the grave. In other words, no NBFC
can carry on business without being
registered under the Act, and an NBFC
which takes birth with the registration
under the Act is liable to be wound up at
the instance of the RBI. The entire life
of a NBFC from the womb to the tomb
is also regulated and monitored by RBI.
It was thus concluded that State Acts
will have no application to NBFCs
registered under the RBI Act and
regulated by RBI.

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Shyama Service Law-Doctrine of Legitimate

Nandan Mishra Expectation:
The Supreme Court upheld the decision
Date: 05.05.2022 of the Patna High Court, which inter alia
Bench Strength: 2 Judges held that +2 lecturers appointed
pursuant to an Advertisement ought to
be treated as members of the Bihar
Subordinate Education Service
Selection Grade Cadre, and are entitled
to be merged with the Bihar Education
Service Class II. In this case, while
Hon'ble Mr. implementing a merger decision, an
Justice Hrishikesh exception was carved out by the Bihar
Roy Government, whereunder, the benefit of
merger into BES was denied to +2
lecturers in Government schools, and
the ostensible premise for the deviation
was that the +2 lecturers were never
treated, or recognized as part of the
BSES cadre. Terming the action of the
Bihar Government as arbitrary, the
Court observed that where the
substantive legitimate expectation is not
ultra vires the power of the authority,
and the Court is in a position to protect
it, the State cannot be allowed to change
course, and belie the legitimate
expectation.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

Hon'ble Mr. Madhya Pradesh High Court Environmental Law-Jurisdiction and
Justice Hrishikesh Advocates Bar Association and Anr. Benches of NGT:
Roy v. Union of India and Anr.
The Supreme Court was considering a
Date: 18.05.2022 writ petition inter alia praying for a
Bench Strength: 2 Judges direction to set up Benches of the NGT
in every State where principal Benches
of High Courts are situated across India.
While discussing the scheme of the
NGT Act, it was held that nothing
contained in the NGT Act, either
impliedly or explicitly, ousts the
jurisdiction of the High Courts under
Article 226 and 227 and the power of
judicial review remains intact and
unaffected by the NGT Act.

Further, considering the low caseload of

the NGT, compared to the CAT, the
Court concluded that there was no basis
to allow a Bench of the NGT to be set up
in every State. Further, the Court also
upheld the constitutional validity of S.22
of the NGT Act (which provides for a
statutory appeal to the Supreme Court
against an Order of the NGT).
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the
writ petition.

The Employees State Insurance Civil Law-Interpretation of a

Corporation & Ors. v. M/s. Key Dee Notification:
Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.
The Supreme Court was deciding the
Date: 19.05.2022 applicability of a Notification, which
Bench Strength: 2 Judges extended the provisions of the
Employees’ State Insurance Act, to
various areas in Assam. The Court held
that if the words used are unambiguous,
the cardinal principle of interpretation is
that effect has to be given to every word
in the subject notification.

The Court held that there was definite

and unambiguous reference to the areas
beyond the territorial limits of the
Silchar Municipal Board in the
Notification. Furthermore, the village
Tarapur (where the factory of the
respondent is situated), is mentioned a
second time. The words used are not
surplusage and emphatically proclaim
the drafter’s intention to include wider
areas within the purview of the
notification, and thereby the ESI Act.
The plain language of the notification
settles the issue against the respondent.
Accordingly, the Court held that the
Notification was applicable to the
factory of the Respondent.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

 Narsingh Ispat Ltd. v. Oriental Consumer Law-Repudiation of
Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. Insurance Claim:
While deciding a challenge to the
Date: 02.05.2022 decision of an Insurance Company
Bench Strength: 2 Judges repudiating the claim of the Appellant
(as upheld by the NCDRC) under the
Exclusion Clause for acts of terrorism,
the Supreme Court held that parties
cannot rely upon the definitions of
‘terrorism’ under various penal statutes,
Hon'ble Mr. since the Exclusion Clause contains an
Justice Abhay. S. exhaustive definition of acts of
Oka terrorism. It was held that the National
Commission erred in relying upon the
Exclusion Clause. The Court
accordingly restored the Complaint
before the NCDRC to decide the
quantum of compensation payable to the
Insured.

Aarav Jain v. The Bihar Public Service Law-Non-production of

Service Commission & Ors. original documents:
The Supreme Court held that the
Date: 23.05.2022 cancellation of the candidature of the
Bench Strength: 2 Judges Petitioners on the ground of non-
production of original certificates at the
time of the interview was improper,
unjustified and not warranted. The Court
Hon'ble Mr. accordingly directed that the Petitioners
Justice Vikram be adjusted towards existing vacancies
Nath to the post of Civil Judge (Junior
Division).

Ms. P. v. The State of Madhya Criminal Law-Reversal of grant of

Pradesh & Anr. Bail:
The Supreme Court was considering a
Date: 05.05.2022 challenge to an Order granting Bail to
Bench Strength: 3 Judges Respondent No.2-Accused for offences
u/S. 376(2)(n) and 506. While setting
aside the order granting Bail to the
Accused, the Court held that if the Order
granting bail is found to be illegal, or
perverse, then such an order is
susceptible to scrutiny and interference
Hon'ble Ms. by the Appellate Court. In this case, the
Justice Hima Court held that the posters / hoardings
Kohli with captions like “Bhaiyaa is back”
“Back to Bhaiyaa”, and “Welcome to
Role Janeman” amplify the celebratory
mood of the Accused and his supporters
on his having been released from
detention in less than 2 months of being
taken into custody for a grave offence,
which entails sentence of not less than
10 years, which may even extend to life.
The Court also noted that there are 4
other criminal antecedents of the
Accused. Accordingly, the Court
cancelled the Bail granted to the
Accused.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

Hon'ble Ms. Meena Devi v. State of U.P. & Anr. Criminal Law-Reversal of grant of
Justice Hima Kohli Bail:
Date: 13.05.2022
Bench Strength: 2 Judges The Supreme Court reversed the Bail
granted to Respondent No.2, who was
convicted for murder / conspiring to
murder the Appellant’s husband, while
he was on the way to depose against
Respondent No. 2 for an earlier case
(pertaining to his kidnapping by
Respondent No. 2). The Court reversed
the grant of Bail on the following
grounds –
(i) The Order granting Bail was cryptic,
non-speaking, and amply demonstrated
non-application of mind;
(ii) Respondent No.2 was a hardened
criminal with several cases registered
against him, and was facing trial in more
than 37 cases registered against him
under various Acts;
(iii) The Order granting Bail
mechanically recorded the submissions
of the Counsel for the parties, and
thereafter proceeded to release the
Accused on bail. It was held that pre-
fixing the operative para of the order
with the words “In view of the
aforesaid”, can hardly reflect
application of judicial mind by the
Court.

Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act-Right to a shared
Date: 12.05.2022 household:
Bench Strength: 2 Judges
The Supreme Court, while deciding
various issues pertaining to enforcement
of rights under the D.V. Act held that –
(i) The expression ‘right to reside in the
shared household’ would include not
only actual residence, but also
constructive residence in the shared
Hon'ble Mrs. household i.e., right to reside therein,
Justice B. V. which cannot be excluded vis-a-vis an
Nagarathna aggrieved person, except in accordance
with the procedure established by law.
The expression ‘joint family’ cannot be
understood as in Hindu Law.
(ii) It is not mandatory for the aggrieved
person to have actually lived, or resided
with those persons against whom the
allegations have been levelled at the
time of seeking relief.
(iii) The Magistrate has jurisdiction to
take cognizance of a Complaint u/S. 12
of the D.V. Act, in the absence of a
Domestic Incident Report when the
Complaint is not filed through the
Protection Officer.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

Hon'ble Mrs. K. Srinivasappa & Ors. v. M. Civil Law-Lok Adalat Award:
Justice B. V. Mallamma & Ors. A challenge was raised before the
Nagarathna Supreme Court against an Order of the
Date: 18.05.2022 H.C. setting aside a compromise decree
Bench Strength: 2 Judges passed by the Lok Adalat, and
remanding the matter to the Civil Judge
to be decided as if no compromise was
arrived at between the parties. It was
held that to recall a compromise which
was recorded would call for strong
reasons. This is because a compromise
would result ultimately into a decree of
a Court, which can be enforced just as a
decree passed on an adjudication of a
case. This is also true in the case of a
compromise recorded before a Lok
Adalat.

When the Lok Adalat disposes cases in

terms of a compromise arrived at
between the parties, after following
principles of equity and natural justice,
every such award of the Lok Adalat
shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil
Court, and such decree shall be binding
upon the parties. It was held that a Writ
Court cannot, in a casual manner, de
hors any reasoning, set aside the order
of Lok Adalat. Accordingly, the Court
restored the Lok Adalat Award.

Veerendra v. State of Madhya Criminal Law-Commutation of Death

Pradesh Penalty:

Date: 13.05.2022 The Supreme Court was deciding an

Bench Strength: 3 Judges appeal against a Judgment of the H.C.
awarding death penalty to the Petitioner-
Accused for the rape and murder of an 8
year old girl. It was held that the lapse,
or omission to carry out DNA profiling,
by itself, cannot be permitted to decide
the fate of a trial for the offence of rape
especially, when it is combined with the
Hon'ble Mr. commission of the offence of murder.
Justice C.T. Even if such a flaw had occurred in the
Ravikumar investigation in a given case, the Court
still has a duty to consider whether the
materials and evidence available on
record before it, is enough and cogent to
prove the case of the prosecution.

In a case based on circumstantial

evidence, the Court has to consider
whether, despite such a lapse, the
various links in the chain of
circumstances form a complete chain
pointing to the guilt of the accused
alone, in exclusion of all hypotheses of
innocence in his favour.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

Hon'ble Mr. Considering that the Appellant had no
Justice C.T. criminal antecedents, hailed from a
Ravikumar poor socio-economic background, had
an unblemished conduct inside the jail,
and that he was aged 25 years at the
time of commission of the offence, the
Court commuted the death penalty to
imprisonment for a period of 30 years,
without application of the provisions
of premature release / remission.

Muzzaffar Husain v. State of Uttar Service Law-Misconduct by a

Pradesh & Anr. judicial officer:

Date: 06.05.2022 The Supreme Court was deciding a

Bench Strength: 2 Judges challenge to an Order of the High
Court imposing the punishment of
70% curtailment of pensionary
benefits given to a judicial officer, as a
result of departmental proceedings
initiated against him for misconduct. It
was held that showing undue favour to
a party under the guise of passing
Hon'ble Ms. judicial orders is the worst kind of
Justice Bela M. judicial dishonesty and misconduct.
Trivedi
The extraneous consideration for
showing favour need not always be a
monetary consideration. A judge must
decide the case on the basis of the facts
on record and the law applicable to the
case. If he decides a case for
extraneous reasons, then he is not
performing his duties in accordance
with law.

Accordingly, the Court upheld the

punishment imposed upon the
Petitioner.

Munni Devi alias Nathi Devi (Dead) Hindu Succession-Entitlement of a

Thr LRs. & Ors. v. Rajendra Alias Hindu Widow:
Lallu Lal (Dead) Thr LRs. & Ors.
While deciding the entitlement of a
Date: 18.05.2022 Hindu widow to the property of her
Bench Strength: 2 Judges husband, the Supreme Court held that
a Hindu woman’s right to maintenance
was not, and is not an empty formality,
or an illusory claim being conceded as
a matter of grace and generosity.

It is a tangible right against the

property, which flows from the
spiritual relationship between the
husband and wife.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

Hon'ble Ms. The said right was recognised and
Justice Bela M. enjoined by pure Shastric Hindu Law,
Trivedi which existed even before the passing
of the Hindu Women’s Rights to
Property Act, 1937, or the 1946 Acts.
Those Acts merely gave statutory
backing recognising the position as
was existing under the Shastric Hindu
Law.

It was held that where a Hindu widow

is in possession of the property of her
husband, or of the husband’s HUF, she
has a right to be maintained out of the
said property. She is entitled to retain
the possession of that property in lieu
of her right to maintenance.

Section 14(1) and the Explanation

thereto envisages liberal construction
in favour of females, with the object of
advancing and promoting the socio-
economic ends sought to be achieved
by the said legislation.

Chandrapal v. State of Chhattisgarh Criminal Law-Extra-judicial

confession by Co-Accused:
Date: 27.05.2022
Bench Strength: 2 Judges The Supreme Court was deciding an
appeal against conviction of the
Appellant u/S.302 and 201 read with
Section 34 I.P.C. While acquitting the
Accused, the Supreme Court held that
an extra judicial confession is a weak
kind of evidence, and unless it inspires
confidence, or is fully corroborated by
some other evidence of clinching
nature, ordinarily conviction for the
offence of murder should not be made
only on the evidence of extra judicial
confession.

Further, it was held that in order to

convict an accused u/S. 302 IPC, the
first and foremost aspect to be proved
by prosecution is the factum of
homicidal death. If the evidence of
prosecution falls short of proof of
homicidal death of the deceased, and if
the possibility of suicidal death could
not be ruled out, the Accused could not
be convicted merely on the basis of the
theory of “Last seen together”.

Accordingly, the Court acquitted the

Appellant.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi

 Harnek Singh & Ors. v. Gurmit Consumer Law-Medical Negligence:
Singh & Ors.
In a case of Medical Negligence, the
Date: 18.05.2022 Supreme Court allowed an Appeal of the
Bench Strength: 3 Judges Complainant / Husband of the deceased
patient, who was admitted to the Preet
Surgical Centre & Maternity Hospital /
Respondent No. 2, on the advice of Dr.
Gurmeet Singh / Respondent No. 1 for a
Gallbladder surgery, and subsequently
Hon'ble Mr. died due to some shortcomings in the
Justice laparoscopiccholecystectomy surgery
Pamidighantam conducted by Respondent No. 1.
Sri Narasimha The Court held that the opinion and
findings of the Medical Council of India
regarding the professional conduct of a
doctor have great relevance while
considering claim for compensation on
the basis of medical negligence, and that
in the proceedings for damages due to
professional negligence, the question of
intention does not arise.

The Court concluded that a case of

deficiency of service was made out
against the doctor and the hospital for
medical negligence, and directed
payment of Rs. 25 Lacs with interest @
6% p.a. from the date of SCDRC order
as Compensation to the Appellant.

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. Service Law-Appointments to

Raj Kumar & Ors. vacancy arising before amendment of
Rules:
Date: 20.05.2022
Bench Strength: 3 Judges The Supreme Court was considering
whether appointments to public posts
which fell vacant prior to the
amendment of Rules would be governed
by the old Rules, or the new Rules.

The Court concluded that its Judgment

in Y.V. Rangaiah and others v. J.
Sreenivasa Rao, (1983) 3 SCC 284,
which held that posts which fell vacant
prior to the amendment of Rules would
be governed by old Rules, and not by
new Rules, does not reflect the correct
position of law. It was held that there is
no rule of universal application that
vacancies must be necessarily filled on
the basis of the law which existed on the
date when they arose. It was held that
Rangaiah’s case must be understood in
the context of the rules involved therein.
There is no obligation for the
Government to make appointments as
per the old rules, in the event of
restructuring of the cadre is intended for
efficient working of the unit.

Prepared by Vidhi Thaker & Prastut Dalvi