Supreme Court Digest, 1 to 15 April 2024

Nominal Index

Arun Shankar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
2024 STPL(Web) 252 SC: Murder – Circumstantial Evidence

Aabid Khan Vs. Dinesh And Others
2024 STPL(Web) 248 SC: MACT –  Disability Assessment

Annapurna B. Uppin And Others Vs. Malsiddappa And Another
2024 STPL(Web) 228 SC: Consumer – Maintainability of Complaint

Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund And Another Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 STPL(Web) 222 SC: Murder – Circumstantial Evidence  – Appeal against Conviction

M/S Bharti Airtel Limited Vs. A.S. Raghavendra
2024 STPL(Web) 225 SC: Industrial Dispute – Workmen

Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda & Anr. Vs. State Of Gujarat
2024 STPL(Web) 250 SC: Murder – Conviction set aside

General Manager, M/S Barsua Iron Ore Mines Vs. Vice President United Mines Mazdoor Union And Ors.
2024 STPL(Web) 224 SC: Service Law – Dispute over Date of Birth

Chandan Vs. State (Delhi Admn.)
2024 STPL(Web) 234 SC: Murder – Motive

Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. Vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd.
2024 STPL(Web) 249 SC: Challenge to arbitral award – Perversity and patent illegality

Deep Mukerjee Vs. Sreyashi Banerjee
2024 STPL(Web) 229 SC: Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Potency test of Husband

M/S. Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. (Presently Known As M/S. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd.) Vs. Delhi Development Authority
2024 STPL(Web) 230 SC: Leased Plots – Demand of unearned increase

Karikho Kri Vs. Nuney Tayang And Another
2024 STPL(Web) 247 SC: Election – Invalidation set aside

Karim Uddin Barbhuiya Vs. Aminul Haque Laskar & Ors.
2024 STPL(Web) 240 SC: Election Petition – Rejection of

K.B. Lal (Krishna Bahadur Lal) Vs. Gyanendra Pratap & Ors.
2024 STPL(Web) 242 SC: Condonation of Delay – Not allowed

Krishnadatt Awasthy Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
2024 STPL(Web) 226 SC: Service Law – Natural Justice

Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala Vs. State Of Gujarat
2024 STPL(Web) 243 SC: Release of Vehicle – Proper Course

Kizhakke Vattakandiyil Madhavan (Dead) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Thiyyurkunnath Meethal Janaki And Ors.
2024 STPL(Web) 244 SC: Partition Suit – Right of widow son born after Re marriage

Level 9 Biz Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Himachal Pradesh Housing And Urban Development Authority & Another
2024 STPL(Web) 219 SC: Practice and Procedure – Disposal of Writ Petition by High Court

Manisha Mahendra Gala & Ors. Vs. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani & Ors.
2024 STPL(Web) 256 SC: Easement Right – Right not made out

Manikandan Vs. State By The Inspector Of Police
2024 STPL(Web) 231 SC: Murder – Conviction set aside

Mahakali Sujatha Vs. Branch Manager, Future Generali India Life Insurance Company Limited & Another
2024 STPL(Web) 255 SC: Insurance – Suppression of material fact

Meher Fatima Hussain Vs. Jamia Milia Islamia & Ors.
2024 STPL(Web) 259 SC: Service Law – Regularization of Appointment

Smt. Najmunisha Sole Vs. State Of Gujarat
2024 STPL(Web) 246 SC: NDPS – Conviction Set aside

Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles @ Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana Vs. State Of Maharashtra And Others
2024 STPL(Web) 227 SC: Caste Certificate – Validity of

Operation Mobilization India & Ors. Vs. State Of Telangana & Ors.
2024 STPL(Web) 235 SC: Foreign Contribution – Freezing of Account

Phr Invent Educational Society Vs. Uco Bank And Others
2024 STPL(Web) 253 SC: Maintainability of Writ – SARFAESI

Prem Raj Vs. Poonamma Menon & Anr.
2024 STPL(Web) 220 SC: Dishonor Of Cheque – Relationship between civil and criminal proceedings

Purni Devi & An Vs. Babu Ram & Anr.
2024 STPL(Web) 221 SC: Limitation – Exclusion of time spent in prosecuting a proceeding in a court without jurisdiction

Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By L.Rs. & Ors. Vs. Special Deputy Collector (La)
2024 STPL(Web) 239 SC: Condonation of Delay – Not allowed

M/S Rajco Steel Enterprises Vs. Kavita Saraff And Another
2024 STPL(Web) 245 SC: Dishonour of Cheques – Presumption Rebutted

Ravishankar Tandon Vs. State Of Chhattisgarh
2024 STPL(Web) 254 SC: Murder – Conviction set aside

Sanjay Chaudhary And Anr. Vs. Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. And Anr.
2024 STPL(Web) 251 SC: Housing – Interest on buyer

Subhash @ Subanna & Ors. Vs. State Of Karnataka Ministry Of Home Affairs
2024 STPL(Web) 257 SC: Murder – Conviction Upheld

Shoma Kanti Sen Vs. State Of Maharashtra & Anr.
2024 STPL(Web) 236 SC:  Bail – Unlawful Activities

State Of Kerala Vs. Union Of India
2024 STPL(Web) 218 SC: Constitution Law – Borrowing power of state

State Of Maharashtra And Another Vs. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd.
2024 STPL(Web) 233 SC: Stamp Duty – Increase in Share Capital

State Of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Shilpa Jain & Ors.
2024 STPL(Web) 237 SC: Quashing of FIR – Set aside

Union Of India & Anr. Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) Through His LR
2024 STPL(Web) 223 SC: Condonation of Delay – Reasonable diligence

Vipin Sahni And Another Vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation
2024 STPL(Web) 238 SC: Discharge in Criminal Case – Valid

Vitthalrao Marotirao Navkhare Vs. Nanibai (Dead), Through Lrs, And Others
2024 STPL(Web) 241 SC: Partition Suit – Joint family business

Vvf Ltd. Employees Union Vs. M/S. Vvf India Limited & Anr.
2024 STPL(Web) 258 SC: Industrial Dispute – Jurisdiction of High Court in judicial review

Subject Index

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – Challenge to arbitral award – Perversity and patent illegality – Material Breach – The Supreme Court exercised its curative jurisdiction to review its earlier decision and allowed the curative petitions filed by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (DMRC) against the restoration of an arbitral award favoring Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (DAMEPL). The dispute arose from the termination of the concession agreement between the parties concerning the Delhi Airport Metro Express Line. DMRC challenged the termination notice issued by DAMEPL, claiming that the defects in the civil structure were not cured within the stipulated period, leading to a material breach of the agreement. The arbitral tribunal upheld DAMEPL’s termination and awarded substantial damages against DMRC. The Delhi High Court set aside the arbitral award, citing perversity and patent illegality. However, the Supreme Court, in an earlier appeal, restored the arbitral award.

In the present judgment, the Supreme Court acknowledged that its earlier decision resulted in a miscarriage of justice. It held that the Division Bench of the High Court had correctly applied the legal test and found the arbitral award to be tainted with perversity and patent illegality. The Supreme Court concluded that its intervention in restoring the arbitral award was unwarranted and constituted a grave miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the curative petitions were allowed, and parties were restored to their pre-arbitral award position. The Court emphasized that the curative jurisdiction should be sparingly exercised and cautioned against its routine application to challenge arbitral awards, preserving the integrity of the arbitration process. (Para 68, 69, 71), Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. Vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd.: 2024 STPL(Web) 249 SC

Civil

Caste Certificate – Validity of – The appeals arose from a common judgment of the Bombay High Court, which quashed the order of the District Caste Scrutiny Committee validating the appellant’s caste claim as ‘Mochi – Scheduled Caste’ in Maharashtra. The appellant contested the 2019 Parliamentary election from Amravati constituency as an independent candidate on a reserved seat for Scheduled Caste, leading to challenges against her caste certificate’s validity. The Scrutiny Committee had accepted the appellant’s caste claim based on documents including a bonafide certificate and an indenture of tenancy from 1932, affirming her forefathers’ migration from Punjab to Maharashtra. The High Court overturned the Committee’s decision, alleging fraudulent procurement of documents by the appellant.

In its analysis, the Supreme Court highlighted the procedural guidelines for caste certificate validation established by the Constitution Bench in Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, emphasizing the need to streamline the procedure to prevent fraudulent claims. The Court noted the extensive procedure prescribed by the Maharashtra Act of 2000 and Rules of 2012 for Scrutiny Committees to verify caste claims, emphasizing the Committee’s fact-finding authority and minimal interference allowed by courts.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court’s interference amounted to a roving inquiry, exceeding its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, especially when the Scrutiny Committee had followed due process and arrived at its decision based on evidence. It reiterated the principle that the High Court should not act as an appellate body in certiorari petitions, refraining from reappreciating evidence unless the findings were perverse or suffered from a jurisdictional error. The Court reinstated the Scrutiny Committee’s validation order, emphasizing its expertise in evaluating caste claims and adherence to procedural requirements.

Moreover, the Court clarified that the validation of the appellant’s caste did not amend the Presidential Order, as she claimed ‘Mochi’ based on her genealogical history, aligning with Entry 11 of the Presidential Order applicable to Maharashtra. The Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and restoring the Scrutiny Committee’s validation order. (Para 9, 12, 16, 19, 24) Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles @ Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana Vs. State Of Maharashtra And Others: 2024 STPL(Web) 227 SC

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 5 -Leased Plots – Demand of unearned increase – Amalgamation of Company – Clause restricting transfer in the lease deeds was broad enough to cover involuntary transfers, including mergers or amalgamations. – The appellant contended that the amalgamation of companies does not amount to a transfer within the meaning of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA), and therefore, the clause restricting transfer in the lease deeds did not apply. However, the respondent-DDA argued that the order of amalgamation clearly transferred the plots to the appellant, and thus, the demand for unearned increase was justified.

Court analyzed the clauses of the perpetual lease deeds and the order of amalgamation. It observed that the clause restricting transfer in the lease deeds was broad enough to cover involuntary transfers, including mergers or amalgamations. Referring to previous judgments, the Court held that such transfers attracted the payment of unearned increase value as per the lease terms.

The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that the transfer did not fall within the definition of transfer under Section 5 of the TPA, noting that the clause in the lease deeds was broader in scope. It upheld the demand for unearned increase value by the respondent-DDA.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, and the appellant was directed to withdraw the principal amount deposited with the Court along with accrued interest.

The judgment reinforces the principle that clauses in lease deeds restricting transfer are applicable to mergers or amalgamations, and such transfers may attract payment of unearned increase value as per the lease terms. M/S. Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. (Presently Known As M/S. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd.) Vs. Delhi Development Authority: 2024 STPL(Web) 230 SC

Stamp Act, 1899 – Section 2(1), 3 – Companies Act, 1956 – Section 391,396 – Stamp Duty – Increase in Share Capital – The issue of stamp duty payment on the increase in share capital of a company under the Stamp Act and the Companies Act. The respondent, National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd., increased its share capital and paid stamp duty accordingly. However, it later sought a refund, contending that stamp duty had already been paid earlier. The High Court allowed the refund, prompting the state to appeal.

The Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Stamp Act and the Companies Act concerning the payment of stamp duty on the Articles of Association of a company. It held that Form No. 5, used to notify the Registrar of Companies about an increase in share capital, was not an instrument subject to stamp duty. Stamp duty was chargeable only on the Articles of Association, and any increase in share capital was to be considered part of the same instrument.

Furthermore, the Court clarified that the maximum cap on stamp duty payable applied as a one-time measure and not to each subsequent increase in share capital. The judgment referred to relevant precedents and legislative amendments to support its interpretation of the law.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s order directing the refund of stamp duty paid by the respondent, along with interest. (Para 2, 9, 14, 16, 19), State Of Maharashtra And Another Vs. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd.: 2024 STPL(Web) 233 SC

Representation of the People’s Act, 1951- Sections 83(1)(a) and 83(1)(b)  – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VII, Rule 11 – Election Petition – Rejection of – Allegations of corrupt practices and improper acceptance of nomination – Election to Legislative Assembly of Assam – Appellant filed nomination papers as candidate of All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF) – Respondent filed Election Petition questioning appellant’s election – Appellant sought rejection of Election Petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – High Court dismissed appellant’s application – Appeal before Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court observed that the Election Petition lacked concise statement of material facts and full particulars of alleged corrupt practices as required under Sections 83(1)(a) and 83(1)(b) of the Representation of the People’s Act, 1951. The Court emphasized that mere bald and vague allegations without basis were insufficient to constitute a cause of action. It further held that the Election Petition failed to demonstrate how the appellant’s actions constituted undue influence or how the improper acceptance of nomination materially affected the election result.

Citing precedents, the Court reiterated that a charge of corrupt practice required precise, specific, and unambiguous pleadings, failing which the Election Petition was liable to be rejected. Omission of a single material fact leading to an incomplete cause of action warranted dismissal of the Election Petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Sections 83 and 87 of the Representation of the People’s Act, 1951.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the Election Petition. (Para16, 18, 19, 20, 25), Karim Uddin Barbhuiya Vs. Aminul Haque Laskar & Ors.: 2024 STPL(Web) 240 SC

Partition Suit – Joint family business – Dispute regarding partition of properties including houses and agricultural lands – Plaintiff claiming joint family business along with deceased brother – Trial Court decreeing partition of agricultural land alone as ancestral property, rest being self-acquired properties of deceased brother – Appellate Court decreeing partition in entirety in favor of plaintiff – Second Appeal filed by defendants dismissed by High Court – Review petition filed challenging observation of Appellate Court regarding commencement of joint business from 1991 – High Court, erroneously interpreting Appellate Court’s judgment, excludes certain properties from partition – Supreme Court setting aside High Court’s order – Affidavit and deposition of deceased brother affirming joint family business held binding on successors-in-interest – Observations made by High Court without foundation set aside – Defendants’ inconsistent pleas regarding joint business not accepted – Judgment of Appellate Court upholding partition decree affirmed – Civil appeals allowed. (Para 21 to 29), Vitthalrao Marotirao Navkhare Vs. Nanibai (Dead), Through Lrs, And Others: 2024 STPL(Web) 241 SC

Partition Suit – Right of widow son born after Re marraige – Succession under Mitakshara law – Validity of deeds executed by deceased’s widow and son after remarriage of widow – Effect of Hindu Widows Remarriage Act, 1856 on widow’s right to deceased husband’s property – Admissibility of documents challenged at appellate stage – High Court’s reliance on deeds executed by widow upheld – Court holds that widow’s title over deceased husband’s property extinguished upon remarriage – Deeds executed by widow and son upheld as valid conveyances by legal heirs of deceased – Lessee’s rights limited to term of lease – Plaintiff, born after widow’s remarriage, not entitled to share of property – Appeal allowed. (Para 20), Kizhakke Vattakandiyil Madhavan (Dead) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Thiyyurkunnath Meethal Janaki And Ors.: 2024 STPL(Web) 244 SC

Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Sections 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i) and 100(1)(d)(iv) – Election – Invalidation set aside – The election petition alleged non-disclosure of assets and liabilities, including the ownership of vehicles, by Karikho Kri in the affidavit filed with his nomination. The High Court framed nine issues, including issues related to non-disclosure of assets, submission of ‘No Dues Certificate,’ and its impact on the election result.

Non-disclosure of Assets: The High Court held against Karikho Kri for non-disclosure of vehicles registered in the names of his wife and son. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, noting that the vehicles were transferred before the nomination filing date and thus could not be considered his assets. [Para 25-28]

Impropriety in Nomination Acceptance: The High Court held Karikho Kri’s nomination acceptance improper due to non-disclosure of assets and non-submission of a ‘No Dues Certificate’ related to government accommodation. The Supreme Court clarified that not every defect in nomination constitutes impropriety and must be of a substantial nature to affect the election result materially. It found Karikho Kri’s non-disclosures were not substantial defects. [Para 39-42]

Non-compliance with Election Rules: The High Court held Karikho Kri’s nomination acceptance improper based on non-compliance with election rules, linking it to Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act of 1951. However, the Supreme Court found insufficient pleading and proof of material non-compliance, thus rejecting this ground. [Para 45-48]

The Supreme Court allowed Karikho Kri’s appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and affirming his election as the returned candidate. It held that the High Court erred in finding grounds for invalidating the election under Sections 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i), and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act of 1951. [Para 50-51], Karikho Kri Vs. Nuney Tayang And Another : 2024 STPL(Web) 247 SC

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226/227  – Maintainability of Writ – SARFAESI – Whether the High Court erred in entertaining a writ petition despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that the High Court should ordinarily not entertain a writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy is available, especially in matters involving recovery of public dues or bank loans. Exceptions to this rule include cases where the statutory authority acted against the principles of natural justice or in violation of the law.

In this case, the High Court’s failure to consider the irreversible stage reached by the auction sale and registration, coupled with the borrower’s non-compliance with DRT’s order, rendered the writ petition unsustainable.

The Supreme Court emphasized the need for High Courts to exercise caution and restraint in entertaining petitions that may adversely affect banks’ rights to recover dues. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court’s order, and dismissed the writ petition with costs imposed on the borrower.(Para 29 to 34), Phr Invent Educational Society Vs. Uco Bank And Others: 2024 STPL(Web) 253 SC

Easement Right – Right not made out – The appellants, descendants of a subsequent purchaser, sought declaration of easementary rights and permanent injunction. The trial court decreed their suit, but the appellate court overturned it, subsequently upheld by the High Court. Another suit filed by the respondents seeking declaration of no right of way by the appellants was decreed. The appellants contended acquisition of easementary rights by prescription, necessity, and through a sale deed. However, the Court found their pleadings insufficient to establish uninterrupted enjoyment for over 20 years as required by law. The evidence presented lacked substantiation of the claim, and the appellate court’s power to overturn findings of fact was affirmed. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed for lacking merit.(Para 38 to 40), Manisha Mahendra Gala & Ors. Vs. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani & Ors.: 2024 STPL(Web) 256 SC

Constitution Law

Constitution of India,  Article 293 – Constitution Law – Borrowing powers of States and the regulatory authority of the Union of India. Whether the Union can regulate all borrowings of a State beyond loans from the Central Government, and if liabilities arising from the Public Account and State-Owned Enterprises fall under the purview of Article 293(3) of the Constitution. The Court identifies substantial constitutional questions related to fiscal federalism, the principle of equality under Article 14, past practices of borrowing regulation, the role of the Reserve Bank of India, and the necessity of prior consultation with States for implementing Finance Commission recommendations.

In the absence of authoritative interpretation on Article 293, the Court refers the matter to a larger bench comprising five judges for a comprehensive examination and pronouncement on the identified questions. [Para. 10], State Of Kerala Vs. Union Of India: 2024 STPL(Web) 218 SC

Interim Injunction – Triple-Test – Constitution Law – Borrowing power of state – The triple-test principle for granting interim injunctions, emphasizing the importance of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. It distinguishes between prohibitory and mandatory injunctions and the level of scrutiny applied to each.

Plaintiff’s contentions regarding under-utilization of borrowing space, over-borrowing adjustments, and fiscal space for additional borrowing. It finds that the plaintiff has not established a prima facie case due to uncertainties regarding borrowing calculations and adjustments.

Considering the potential adverse effects on the nation’s fiscal health, the Court concludes that the balance of convenience favours denying interim relief to the plaintiff. It highlights the interconnectedness of State borrowings with national creditworthiness and macroeconomic stability. [Para. 31-32]

Based on the findings regarding the triple-test criteria, the Court dismisses the interim application, clarifying that its observations are limited to the interim injunction and do not prejudge the final outcome of the suit. (Para 16-27, 31 -32, 37-39) State Of Kerala Vs. Union Of India: 2024 STPL(Web) 218 SC

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section – Consumer – Maintainability of Complaint – Commercial Purpose – The appellants pleaded that the respondent’s status as a partner in the firm rendered the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986,  non-maintainable. They argued that the dispute was commercial and should be adjudicated by a civil court. They also challenged the liability of legal heirs of a deceased partner for the firm’s debts.

The Court held that since there was a registered partnership deed, the respondent remained a partner in the firm. The investment being for profit, the dispute fell outside the purview of the Act. Moreover, legal heirs of a deceased partner are not liable for the firm’s debts. The Court set aside the orders of the lower forums and dismissed the complaint. It allowed the respondent to seek remedies in the appropriate civil court. (Para 6, 7, 8), Annapurna B. Uppin And Others Vs. Malsiddappa And Another: 2024 STPL(Web) 228 SC

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section – Consumer Protection Act – Maintainability of Appeal before Supreme Court – Held: That the present appeal is not maintainable in view of the recent judgment of this Court in the case of Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Suresh Chand Jain and Another, (2023) SCC Online SC 877 wherein this Court has held that the remedy of Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court would be available to an aggrieved party where the NCDRC has decided an appeal or a revision but no such remedy would be available where it was an original complaint before the NCDRC. The present petition should be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.(Para 5.1), Annapurna B. Uppin And Others Vs. Malsiddappa And Another: 2024 STPL(Web) 228 SC

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 23 – Housing – Interest on buyer – Appeal by Complainant – The appellants contested the direction permitting the respondent-developer to charge interest at 9% per annum on the balance amount from 14th November, 2017, till the date of payment. The complainant already made 90% payment in June 2014 – Admittedly, the respondent-developer failed to handover the possession of the flat to the appellants-homebuyers by the scheduled date i.e. 16th March, 2014 upon which the consumer dispute came to be registered.

Held:  In this background, we are of the view that the learned Commission erred in directing that the opposite party i.e. respondent-developer shall be entitled to charge interest @9% per annum from the appellants-homebuyers on the balance amount (except stamp duty and registration charges) from 14th November, 2017 till the date of payment. Thus, the said part of the impugned order whereby, the respondent-developer has been permitted to charge interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the balance amount is quashed and set aside. (Para 4, 5, 6), Sanjay Chaudhary And Anr. Vs. Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. And Anr., 2024 STPL(Web) 251 SC

Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 103, 106 – Insurance – Suppression of material fact – Burden of proof – Life insurance – Suppression of information about other life insurance policies – Appeal against National Commission order rejecting the complaint by overturning State Commission order – Held: Before the NCDRC, the respondent again provided the aforesaid tabulation of policies of the insured-deceased. The respondents in their affidavit stated that the insured-deceased had taken multiple insurance policies before taking the policy from them. The NCDRC however accepted the averment of the respondents, without demanding corroborative documentary evidence in support of the said fact. The NCDRC, on the contrary, also held that the fact about multiple policies was not dealt with by the appellant in her complaint or evidence affidavit and this therefore proved that the insured had indeed taken the policies from multiple companies as claimed by the respondents.

The aforesaid approach adopted by the NCDRC is, in our view, not correct. The cardinal principle of burden of proof in the law of evidence is that “he who asserts must prove”, which means that if the respondents herein had asserted that the insured had already taken fifteen more policies, then it was incumbent on them to prove this fact by leading necessary evidence. The onus cannot be shifted on the appellant to deal with issues that have merely been alleged by the respondents, without producing any evidence to support that allegation.

Supreme Court also held on the facts of this case having regard to the nature of queries in Query Nos.6.1 and 6.2, there was no suppression of any material fact as per our earlier discussion based on the contra proferentem rule.

Appeal allowed – Insurer to pay claim with interest (Para 49, 50, 52, 53), Mahakali Sujatha Vs. Branch Manager, Future Generali India Life Insurance Company Limited & Another: 2024 STPL(Web) 255 SC

Insurance – contra proferentem rule  – Certain clauses in the policy of insurance could be interpreted in light of the contra proferentem rule as against the insurer. In order to seek specific information from the insured, the proposal form must have specific questions so as to obtain clarity as to the underlying risks in the policy, which are greater than the normal risks. (Para 31), Mahakali Sujatha Vs. Branch Manager, Future Generali India Life Insurance Company Limited & Another: 2024 STPL(Web) 255 SC

Compensation

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – MACT –  Disability Assessment – Appellant sustained injuries in a road accident – Tribunal and High Court awarded compensation based on lower percentage of disability assessed – Medical evidence indicated higher percentage of disability – Compensation enhanced considering expert medical opinion and claimant’s employment history – Tribunal and High Court’s failure to accept medical evidence constitutes error – Compensation enhanced under various heads – Insurance company directed to pay enhanced compensation with interest – Appeal allowed.(Para10), Aabid Khan Vs. Dinesh And Others: 2024 STPL(Web) 248 SC

Criminal

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 201, 302, 34 –  Murder – Circumstantial Evidence  – Appeal against Conviction – Reversal of Acquittal by High Court – Circumstantial Evidence – Sufficiency of Evidence  – Limited scope of interference by the appellate court in appeals against acquittals. However, the Court clarified that the appellate court is not absolutely restricted from reviewing and reevaluating the evidence.

The judgment outlined the elaborate reasoning of the trial court, which meticulously analyzed the evidence and found the prosecution’s case unconvincing. It enumerated various discrepancies and contradictions in the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies, ultimately leading to the trial court’s acquittal of the appellants.

The Court criticized the High Court’s cursory treatment of the trial court’s detailed findings and reasoning. It pointed out the flaws in the High Court’s reliance on conjectures and surmises to reverse the acquittal, contrary to established legal principles. The judgment underscored that the High Court’s decision lacked a proper assessment of the evidence and amounted to unsustainable interference. Appeal allow Accused acquitted. (Para 14-23) Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund And Another Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh : 2024 STPL(Web) 222 SC

Indian Penal Code, 1860 –Section 302 – Murder – Conviction set aside – Witnesses tutored by police – Upon reviewing the evidence, the Court noted discrepancies in the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses, casting doubt on their reliability. It was revealed that these witnesses were tutored by the police a day before their testimony, undermining the integrity of the judicial process. The Court emphasized the necessity of independent witnesses, which the prosecution failed to produce. Consequently, adverse inference was drawn against the prosecution, leading to serious doubts about the genuineness of the case. The appellants were acquitted, and their bail bonds were cancelled. Additionally, the Court directed an inquiry into police misconduct and prescribed disciplinary action. (Para 8, 9, 10), Manikandan Vs. State By The Inspector Of Police: 2024 STPL(Web) 231 SC

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 – Murder – Motive – The lack of motive was inconsequential when direct evidence established the crime – The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of IPC for the daylight murder. The conviction and sentence were upheld by the High Court. The prosecution’s case rested on the testimony of PW-2, an eyewitness, who saw the appellant stabbing the deceased multiple times with a knife. The appellant was caught soon after the incident with the blood-stained knife, which was forensically matched to the blood of the deceased. The prosecution established the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defence argued that the prosecution failed to establish any motive for the appellant’s crime. However, the Court held that the absence of motive did not discredit the eyewitness testimony, which was reliable and conclusive evidence of the crime. The lack of motive was inconsequential when direct evidence established the crime.

The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the orders of the Trial Court and the High Court. The interim bail granted to the appellant was vacated, and he was directed to surrender before the Trial Court within four weeks to serve the remaining part of his sentence. (Para 4, 5),  Chandan Vs. State (Delhi Admn.): 2024 STPL(Web) 234 SC

Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 2010 – Section 37 – Foreign Contribution – Freezing of Account – Freezing of petitioners’ accounts – The CID Telangana State had frozen the accounts, prompting the petitioners to challenge this action. During proceedings, the respondent-State of Telangana sought clarification regarding the continuation of the freeze on the accounts. After hearing submissions from both sides, the Court granted liberty to the petitioners to utilize their accounts for salary and institutional expenses, subject to maintaining proper accounts audited by chartered accountants. The Court refrained from delving into the contempt petition, leaving it open for further consideration by the appropriate authorities. The petitioners were directed to provide quarterly statements of accounts to the investigating officer or the trial court. The Court clarified that its order was solely to ensure the smooth operation of the educational institutions and primary health centers run by the petitioners, without making any observations on the merits of the case.(Para3, 7) Operation Mobilization India & Ors. Vs. State Of Telangana & Ors.: 2024 STPL(Web) 235 SC

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 18B, 20, 38, 39 and 40 – Bail – Unlawful Activities – The Supreme Court, in this criminal appeal, addressed the appellant’s challenge against a High Court order disposing of her bail application with liberty to approach the Trial Court afresh. The appellant was detained in connection with an FIR related to violence at an event organized by Elgar Parishad.

Despite allegations, the Court found no prima facie evidence linking her to the offenses under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“1967 Act”). Analysis of various statements and evidence revealed no direct involvement in terrorist activities or fundraising for such acts. The Court emphasized that the appellant’s age, medical condition, and the delay in charge framing warranted bail. It stressed that its observations were prima facie and subject to future evidence and defense. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and directed the appellant’s release on bail, subject to conditions.(Para 41), Shoma Kanti Sen Vs. State Of Maharashtra & Anr., 2024 STPL(Web) 236 SC

Code of Criminal Procedure,1974- Section 482 – Quashing of FIR – Set aside- The State contended that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR, arguing that the property indeed belonged to the State and the allegations warranted investigation. Conversely, the Respondents argued that the civil and revenue proceedings established their title to the property, thus making the criminal proceedings vexatious.

The Supreme Court reviewed the principles governing the quashing of FIRs under Section 482 of the CrPC. It concluded that the High Court erred in assuming the State failed to prove its title to the property. The reliance on revenue records to establish title was deemed misplaced, as only civil courts can determine property rights.

The Court emphasized that the dispute, though originating from civil proceedings, evolved into a criminal matter, justifying investigation. It rejected the argument that the FIR was a misuse of legal process, as the allegations warranted scrutiny.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s order. It directed the State to proceed with the investigation in accordance with the law. The Court clarified that its observations were limited to assessing the correctness of the High Court’s order and would not affect any subsequent criminal proceedings.(Para 11, 12), State Of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Shilpa Jain & Ors.: 2024 STPL(Web) 237 SC

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974, Section 239 – Discharge in Criminal Case – Valid – Discharge under Sections 420 and 120B IPC by trial court – The charges were related to allegedly obtaining approval from the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) through deceitful means for setting up educational institutions. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad set aside the discharge order, leading to the present appeal.

The Court noted that the essence of the offence under Section 420 IPC is inducing another person to deliver property by deceit. It observed discrepancies in the applications filed by the appellants regarding the mortgaged land, but highlighted that the AICTE had granted approval despite the disclosure of the mortgage in the initial application. Furthermore, no AICTE official was implicated in the alleged wrongdoing. The Court emphasized that the AICTE itself did not claim to have been deceived.

The Court analyzed the legal provisions and precedent regarding cheating and criminal conspiracy, emphasizing the need for fraudulent intention and inducement. It found no evidence of deliberate deception or conspiracy on the part of the appellants.

Regarding procedural objections, the Court held that the CBI should have initially pursued the statutory remedy of revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C., instead of filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after the expiration of the limitation period.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the discharge order passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, thereby discharging the appellants of the alleged offences under Sections 420 and 120B IPC. (Para 2, 16, 23), Vipin Sahni And Another Vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation, 2024 STPL(Web) 238 SC

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 – Section 98(2) – Release of Vehicle – Proper Course –  When property is seized during the course of investigation, it is incumbent upon the concerned Criminal Court to pass appropriate orders for custody pending trial. However, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India directly before the High Court, without approaching the criminal court under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C, is not the proper course of action.

Provisions under Section 98 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act deal with the confiscation of articles when an offence under the Act is committed. Sub-section (2) of Section 98 imposes an embargo against the release of conveyances used for carrying seized liquor exceeding prescribed quantities until the final judgment of the court.

Section 451 of the Cr.P.C empowers the criminal court to make orders for the proper custody and disposal of property pending inquiry or trial. This provision operates independently of Section 98 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act and should be invoked when property is produced before the jurisdictional court.

The second part of sub-section (2) of Section 98 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, though not ideally worded, operates differently from Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. Harmonious interpretation of these provisions is essential for proper legal application.

Dismissal of Appeal: The appellant’s direct approach to the High Court without first seeking custody through the criminal court, coupled with the absence of factual material regarding the production of the vehicle before the concerned court, warrants the dismissal of the appeal. (Para  6, 7, 8, 15, 16), Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala Vs. State Of Gujarat: 2024 STPL(Web) 243 SC

Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 20(b)(ii)(c), 25, 29 – NDPS – Conviction Set aside – Non compliance of section 41(2) and 42 regarding search and seizure – Confessional Statements under Section 67 has no evidentiary value – Conviction set aside – Accused acquitted (Para 25, 26, 30, 40, 67), Smt. Najmunisha Sole Vs. State Of Gujarat: 2024 STPL(Web) 246 SC

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 21 – Constitutional Mandate of Fair Trial – Balancing Act  Article 21 of the Constitution of India emphasizes a just and fair trial as a fundamental right. It underscores the need for prosecution actions to uphold the rights of the accused for a fair trial, balancing the welfare of individuals with that of the community. (Para 24), Smt. Najmunisha Sole Vs. State Of Gujarat: 2024 STPL(Web) 246 SC

Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – 41(2), 42 – Section  – NDPS – Compliance with Provisions – Section 42 mandates officers to record information or grounds of belief before conducting a search or seizure. Non-compliance or irregularities in complying with this provision impact the legality of actions taken under the Act. Section 41(2) requires officers to have reason to believe, either from personal knowledge or information taken down in writing, before conducting searches or arrests. Discrepancies or failures to adhere to this provision affect the legality of actions taken., (Para 25,26, 30, 40), Smt. Najmunisha Sole Vs. State Of Gujarat: 2024 STPL(Web) 246 SC

Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 67 – NDPS – Evidentiary Value of Confessional Statements under Section 67 –  Confessional statements recorded under Section 67 are not admissible as evidence against the accused under the NDPS Act. The powers conferred under Sections 41 and 42, along with Section 67, are limited and do not authorize investigations., (Para 50), Smt. Najmunisha Sole Vs. State Of Gujarat: 2024 STPL(Web) 246 SC

Indian Penal Code, 1860 –Section 34, 302 – Murder – Conviction set aside – The appellants, a father and son, were initially acquitted by the Sessions Court for the offence of murder The State of Gujarat appealed against the acquittal, and the High Court reversed it, convicting the appellants.

The Court examined the prosecution’s case, primarily relying on the testimony of PW-1 and PW-4, eyewitnesses to the incident. However, discrepancies and doubts arose regarding the presence of PW-4 at the scene and the timing of his injuries, as noted by the Trial Court.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court failed to address crucial aspects, such as the plausibility of the Trial Court’s view and the burden of proof. The Court reiterated the principle that an order of acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence, and interference with it is justified only if the Appellate Court finds the acquittal perverse.

Finding flaws in the High Court’s reasoning and considering the Trial Court’s plausible findings, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and restoring the acquittal by the Trial Court. Consequently, the appellants’ conviction was overturned, and they were ordered to be released forthwith, with the cancellation of bail bonds for one of the appellants.(Para 10), Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda & Anr. Vs. State Of Gujarat: 2024 STPL(Web) 250 SC

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 201, 302 – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction set aside – The prosecution’s case relied on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of a knife, last seen together, medical opinion on the cause of death, and the deceased’s habit of drinking with the appellant.

The Court analyzed the evidence and submissions presented. It noted that while the circumstances suggested suspicion, they failed to meet the stringent criteria outlined in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116] for establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence. The recovery of the weapon at the appellant’s instance was not adequately proved, weakening a crucial link in the chain of circumstances. Additionally, evidence suggesting alternative explanations, such as the possibility of the deceased’s injury being caused by a motorcycle accident, raised doubts about the prosecution’s narrative.

Considering these factors, the Court concluded that the prosecution had not conclusively established the appellant’s guilt. The circumstances were not consistent solely with the hypothesis of the appellant’s guilt, and there were reasonable doubts regarding the prosecution’s case. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgments, and acquitted the appellant of all charges. (Para 12, 13) Arun Shankar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh: 2024 STPL(Web) 252 SC

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Murder – Conviction set aside – Circumstantial evidence. The appellants were accused of strangulating the deceased to death and disposing of his body in a pond.

The prosecution’s case primarily relied on the memorandum statements of the accused recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, claiming that these statements led to the discovery of the deceased’s body. The Court emphasized the principles established in the case law regarding conviction based on circumstantial evidence, highlighting that suspicion alone cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt.

However, upon examining the evidence, the Court found serious deficiencies in the prosecution’s case. It noted inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses and highlighted that the discovery of the dead body was not solely based on the information provided by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

The Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish that the dead body was discovered solely based on the accused’s statements and that nobody had prior knowledge of its existence. The Court also critiqued the Investigating Officer’s failure to explain the information provided by the accused that led to the discovery of the body.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove any incriminating circumstances against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore, the appeals were allowed, and the convictions and sentences were set aside.(Para 22 to 28), Ravishankar Tandon Vs. State Of Chhattisgarh: 2024 STPL(Web) 254 SC

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302, 326 – Murder – Conviction Upheld – Appeal against conviction – Appreciation of evidence – The incident stemmed from a dispute over a blocked pathway, leading to a confrontation between the complainant’s family and the accused. The prosecution presented evidence from multiple witnesses, including eyewitnesses and medical experts, establishing the sequence of events and the injuries sustained by the victims.

The appellants claimed the right of private defense, alleging provocation by the deceased and his family. However, the court found no evidence supporting this claim.Witness testimonies indicated a brutal and unprovoked attack by the appellants, using weapons like a stick, chopper, and stones, resulting in the death of Mahadevappa and injuries to others.

The court cited legal principles regarding the intention to cause bodily harm, emphasizing that once proven, the offense is murder regardless of the intent to cause death. After thorough consideration, the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court and Trial Court, dismissing the appeal and recalling the bail granted to the appellants.

Based on the evidence presented and legal principles applied, the Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences imposed by the lower courts, finding no grounds for interference. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were directed to surrender before the Trial Court within four weeks. (Para 34 to 37), Subhash @ Subanna & Ors. Vs. State Of Karnataka Ministry Of Home Affairs, 2024 STPL(Web) 257 SC

Dishonor Of Cheque

Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, Section 138 – Dishonor Of Cheque – Relationship between civil and criminal proceedings – Appeal against conviction in complaint of dishonor of cheque – Conflict between Civil Court and Criminal Court Judgments – Conviction in Criminal Case while recovery suit based on same cheque dismissed –  The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that decisions of civil courts are binding on criminal courts, but not vice versa, as per M/s. Karam Chand Ganga Prasad & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1970) 3 SCC 694] and subsequent cases.

The Court emphasized that conflicting decisions between civil and criminal courts are generally irrelevant, except for specific purposes such as sentence or damages, as per K.G. Premshanker vs. Inspector of Police & Anr [(2002) 8 SCC 87] and Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs. Daya Sapra (Smt.) [(2009) 13 SCC 729].It held that since the criminal court imposed both sentence and damages, it must respect the civil court’s declaration of the cheque as a security. Therefore, the criminal proceedings were deemed unsustainable, and the appellant’s appeal was allowed. (Para 9, 12, 13) Prem Raj Vs. Poonamma Menon & Anr.: 2024 STPL(Web) 220 SC

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138,139 – Dishonour of Cheques – Presumption Rebutted  – Acquittal valid – Burden of Proof – Appeals against acquittal – Petitioner filed complaints against respondent for dishonour of cheques – Complaints dismissed by Trial Court, upheld by First Appellate Court and High Court – Petitioner contended cheques issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt – Respondent denied issuance of cheques, claimed they were procured illegally – Prosecution failed to establish existence of debt – Presumption under Section 139 of the Act rebutted by respondent – Concurrent findings of Appellate Courts based on evidence – No perversity in findings – No interference warranted – Petitions dismissed.(Para11), M/S Rajco Steel Enterprises Vs. Kavita Saraff And Another: 2024 STPL(Web) 245 SC

Election

Representation of the People’s Act, 1951- Sections 83(1)(a) and 83(1)(b)  – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VII, Rule 11 – Election Petition – Rejection of – Allegations of corrupt practices and improper acceptance of nomination – Election to Legislative Assembly of Assam – Appellant filed nomination papers as candidate of All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF) – Respondent filed Election Petition questioning appellant’s election – Appellant sought rejection of Election Petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – High Court dismissed appellant’s application – Appeal before Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court observed that the Election Petition lacked concise statement of material facts and full particulars of alleged corrupt practices as required under Sections 83(1)(a) and 83(1)(b) of the Representation of the People’s Act, 1951. The Court emphasized that mere bald and vague allegations without basis were insufficient to constitute a cause of action. It further held that the Election Petition failed to demonstrate how the appellant’s actions constituted undue influence or how the improper acceptance of nomination materially affected the election result.

Citing precedents, the Court reiterated that a charge of corrupt practice required precise, specific, and unambiguous pleadings, failing which the Election Petition was liable to be rejected. Omission of a single material fact leading to an incomplete cause of action warranted dismissal of the Election Petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Sections 83 and 87 of the Representation of the People’s Act, 1951.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the Election Petition. (Para16, 18, 19, 20, 25), Karim Uddin Barbhuiya Vs. Aminul Haque Laskar & Ors.: 2024 STPL(Web) 240 SC

Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Sections 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i) and 100(1)(d)(iv) – Election – Invalidation set aside – The election petition alleged non-disclosure of assets and liabilities, including the ownership of vehicles, by Karikho Kri in the affidavit filed with his nomination. The High Court framed nine issues, including issues related to non-disclosure of assets, submission of ‘No Dues Certificate,’ and its impact on the election result.

Non-disclosure of Assets: The High Court held against Karikho Kri for non-disclosure of vehicles registered in the names of his wife and son. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, noting that the vehicles were transferred before the nomination filing date and thus could not be considered his assets. [Para 25-28]

Impropriety in Nomination Acceptance: The High Court held Karikho Kri’s nomination acceptance improper due to non-disclosure of assets and non-submission of a ‘No Dues Certificate’ related to government accommodation. The Supreme Court clarified that not every defect in nomination constitutes impropriety and must be of a substantial nature to affect the election result materially. It found Karikho Kri’s non-disclosures were not substantial defects. [Para 39-42]

Non-compliance with Election Rules: The High Court held Karikho Kri’s nomination acceptance improper based on non-compliance with election rules, linking it to Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act of 1951. However, the Supreme Court found insufficient pleading and proof of material non-compliance, thus rejecting this ground. [Para 45-48]

The Supreme Court allowed Karikho Kri’s appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and affirming his election as the returned candidate. It held that the High Court erred in finding grounds for invalidating the election under Sections 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i), and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act of 1951. [Para 50-51], Karikho Kri Vs. Nuney Tayang And Another : 2024 STPL(Web) 247 SC

Family

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 9 – Evidence Act,  1872, Section 45 -Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Potency test of Husband – The appellant moved interim applications seeking a potency test under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and referring the respondent for fertility and psychological tests. The Trial Court granted the applications, but the High Court set aside this order, prompting the present appeal. The appellant argued that his willingness to undergo the potency test should have been considered, while the respondent contended that she cannot be compelled to undergo any test.

It is held that the Trial Court’s order directing the appellant to undergo a potency test should be maintained. It found no reason to set aside this aspect of the order when the appellant was willing to undergo the test. The Court modified the High Court’s order accordingly, upholding the Trial Court’s direction for the appellant’s potency test within four weeks. The report was to be submitted within two weeks thereafter.(Para 5, 8, 9) Deep Mukerjee Vs. Sreyashi Banerjee: 2024 STPL(Web) 229 SC

Insurance

Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 103, 106 – Insurance – Suppression of material fact – Burden of proof – Life insurance – Suppression of information about other life insurance policies – Appeal against National Commission order rejecting the complaint by overturning State Commission order – Held: Before the NCDRC, the respondent again provided the aforesaid tabulation of policies of the insured-deceased. The respondents in their affidavit stated that the insured-deceased had taken multiple insurance policies before taking the policy from them. The NCDRC however accepted the averment of the respondents, without demanding corroborative documentary evidence in support of the said fact. The NCDRC, on the contrary, also held that the fact about multiple policies was not dealt with by the appellant in her complaint or evidence affidavit and this therefore proved that the insured had indeed taken the policies from multiple companies as claimed by the respondents.

The aforesaid approach adopted by the NCDRC is, in our view, not correct. The cardinal principle of burden of proof in the law of evidence is that “he who asserts must prove”, which means that if the respondents herein had asserted that the insured had already taken fifteen more policies, then it was incumbent on them to prove this fact by leading necessary evidence. The onus cannot be shifted on the appellant to deal with issues that have merely been alleged by the respondents, without producing any evidence to support that allegation.

Supreme Court also held on the facts of this case having regard to the nature of queries in Query Nos.6.1 and 6.2, there was no suppression of any material fact as per our earlier discussion based on the contra proferentem rule.

Appeal allowed – Insurer to pay claim with interest (Para 49, 50, 52, 53), Mahakali Sujatha Vs. Branch Manager, Future Generali India Life Insurance Company Limited & Another: 2024 STPL(Web) 255 SC

Insurance – contra proferentem rule  – Certain clauses in the policy of insurance could be interpreted in light of the contra proferentem rule as against the insurer. In order to seek specific information from the insured, the proposal form must have specific questions so as to obtain clarity as to the underlying risks in the policy, which are greater than the normal risks. (Para 31), Mahakali Sujatha Vs. Branch Manager, Future Generali India Life Insurance Company Limited & Another: 2024 STPL(Web) 255 SC

Labour Law

Industrial Disputes Act, 1948 – Section 2(s) – Industrial Dispute – Workmen – Mere absence of power to appoint, dismiss or hold disciplinary inquiries against other employees, would not and could not be the sole criterion to determine that person in managerial/Supervisory Position is a workmen. Holding otherwise would lead to incongruous consequences, as the same would, illustratively, mean that, employees in high-ranking positions but without powers to appoint, dismiss or hold disciplinary enquiry would be included under the umbrella of “workman” under Section 2(s), ID Act. (Para 25) M/S Bharti Airtel Limited Vs. A.S. Raghavendra: 2024 STPL(Web) 225 SC

Industrial Dispute – Jurisdiction of High Court in judicial review – Revision of pay scales and allowances – Application of industry-cum-region test – Financial capacity of employer – Remand to Industrial Tribunal. The present case involves appeals arising out of a judgment of the High Court of Bombay, which directed wage revisions for workmen of VVF India Limited (“the employer”) in two units at Sewree and Sion.

The Supreme Court held that while the High Court has jurisdiction to review tribunal awards, it should not substitute its findings on facts. The industry-cum-region test, comparing with similar units, must consider the financial capacity of the employer. The Court noted the High Court’s failure to adequately analyze evidence and ordered a remand to the Industrial Tribunal for fresh examination. All appeals were disposed of accordingly.(Para 11, 15), Vvf Ltd. Employees Union Vs. M/S. Vvf India Limited & Anr., 2024 STPL(Web) 258 SC

Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 14 – Limitation – Exclusion of time spent in prosecuting a proceeding in a court without jurisdiction. This provision applies when the prior proceeding is prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith but fails due to a defect of jurisdiction or a similar cause. The purpose of Section 14 is to advance the cause of justice and prevent the abortion of proceedings due to technicalities.

The issue before the court was whether the time spent pursuing execution before the Tehsildar should be excluded from the computation of limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act It held that the time spent before the Tehsildar should be excluded from the limitation period, as the proceedings were pursued with due diligence and in good faith. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the lower courts and restoring the execution application to the Munsiff Court for fresh consideration.(Para 25, 32, 40) Purni Devi & An Vs. Babu Ram & Anr.: 2024 STPL(Web) 221 SC

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section – 5 – Condonation of Delay – Reasonable diligence – Appeal arising from an order of the High Court of Bombay, which declined to condone a delay of 12 years and 158 days in filing an application for restoration of a writ petition.

Condonation of the delay primarily on the basis of the merits of the case. The respondent’s counsel opposed the appeal, contending that no sufficient cause was presented for condoning the lengthy delay Supreme Court emphasized the need for a balanced approach, weighing the interests of both parties and ensuring justice without undue prejudice.

Concluding that the High Court committed no error in its decision and finding that the appellants failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It ordered no costs and disposed of any pending applications accordingly. [Para 29, 35, 36-37] Union Of India & Anr. Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) Through His LR: 2024 STPL(Web) 223 SC

Limitation Act, 1963 – Sections 3 and 5 – Condonation of Delay – Not allowed –  – Discretionary power to condone delay – Principles governing condonation of delay – Public policy underlying limitation laws – Sufficient cause for condoning delay – Judicial discretion – Balance between substantial justice and strict adherence to limitation laws.

High Court’s refusal to condone delay – Interference by Supreme Court – No Due diligence of parties – Acceptance of reference court’s decision – Lack of procedural review – Justification for High Court’s decision – Dismissal of Special Leave Petition. [Para 33-34], Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By L.Rs. & Ors. Vs. Special Deputy Collector (La):2024 STPL(Web) 239 SC

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order IX, Rule 9 – Condonation of Delay – Not allowed – Delay in Filing Application under Order IX, Rule 7 of CPC – Exercise of Discretionary Power by Courts:

The primary question addressed in the appeal pertained to the permissibility of condoning a delay of almost 14 years in filing the application under Order IX, Rule 7 of the CPC. The Court emphasized the necessity of interpreting the term “sufficient cause” liberally to ensure the dispensation of substantial justice. It underscored that the discretionary power of courts to condone delay must be exercised judiciously, without negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides on the part of the litigant.

Absence of Satisfactory Explanation for Delay: Upon scrutiny of the appellant’s application and accompanying affidavit seeking condonation of delay, the Court found no satisfactory or reasonable ground explaining the 14-year delay. It observed that the appellant’s admission of knowledge about the ex-parte order in 2011, with the application filed only in 2017, lacked justification. Furthermore, the appellant’s explanation regarding negligence of appointed advocates lacked substantiation from records, indicating gross negligence on the appellant’s part.

Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s order, dismissing the appellant’s petition under Article 227. It upheld the decisions of the lower courts, emphasizing the correctness of dismissing the belated claim in light of the appellant’s gross negligence. The appeal was dismissed accordingly. (Para 9, 12), K.B. Lal (Krishna Bahadur Lal) Vs. Gyanendra Pratap & Ors. : 2024 STPL(Web) 242 SC

Practice and Procedure

Practice and Procedure – Disposal of Writ Petition by High Court – The key issue before the Court was whether the High Court could have disposed of the writ petition merely based on statements made by counsels for the parties, allowing the revival of the initial tendering process despite findings of irregularities and illegalities.

The Court criticized the High Court’s disposal of the petition without due consideration of the findings of the Independent Committee and the observations made in earlier orders. It noted collusion between HIMUDA and the respondent no. 2, leading to a misuse of legal processes to cover up irregularities.

Given the lack of proper application of mind and failure to address cogent reasons for disregarding earlier findings, the Supreme Court quashed the impugned order. The appeal was allowed with heavy costs imposed on HIMUDA, with liberty granted to initiate a fresh tender process in accordance with the law. (Para 4, 8, 14) , Level 9 Biz Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Himachal Pradesh Housing And Urban Development Authority & Another: 2024 STPL(Web) 219 SC

Service Law

Service Law – Dispute over Date of Birth – The appellant initially recorded the respondent’s date of birth as 27.12.1948 based on his oral declaration, which he later sought to change to 12.03.1955. However, the change was made without documentary proof. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (CGIT) awarded the respondent 50% back wages based on the revised date of birth. The High Court upheld this decision.

The appellant contended that the respondent’s attempt to change his date of birth after a significant period and without documentary proof was unjustified. It argued that the initial declaration was made to gain employment and allowing a change later would lead to double advantage. The respondent argued that the initial error in recording the date of birth was the fault of the appellant, and the subsequent correction was justified. It maintained that the respondent should not suffer for the appellant’s mistake. [Para 14]

The Court observed that the respondent’s initial declaration of date of birth was made consciously and to secure employment. The delay in seeking a change raised doubts about the genuineness of the claim. Moreover, the respondent would have been underage for employment if the corrected date of birth was considered. The Court applied principles of estoppel, holding that the respondent’s initial declaration should be upheld. It cited precedents emphasizing the importance of timely and genuine declarations in employment matters. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the CGIT’s award and the High Court’s judgment. The respondent’s retirement date was upheld based on the initial date of birth. The direction to award 50% back wages was also set aside. (Para 4-7, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 22) General Manager, M/S Barsua Iron Ore Mines Vs. Vice President United Mines Mazdoor Union And Ors. 2024 STPL(Web) 224 SC

Service Law – Natural Justice – Cancelation of appointment – Non joining as party – Breach of law of Natural Justice – divergent views expressed – Matter set to Chief Justice for constitution of larger  bench – Meanwhile interim order passed shall remain in operation. Krishnadatt Awasthy Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.: 2024 STPL(Web) 226 SC

Constitution of India, Article 14 – Service Law – Regularization of Appointment, University Grants Commission (UGC), Regular Selection Process, Tenure Posts, Merger of Teaching Posts, Disciplinary Enquiry. The Supreme Court of India held that the appointments of the appellants, made through a regular selection process initiated based on an advertisement dated 12th July 2016, were in accordance with the University Statutes and UGC Regulations. Despite being appointed to tenure posts, the appellants should have been continued after the merger of teaching positions into the regular establishment of the University, as permitted by the UGC.

The Court emphasized that the appointments were substantive and should be treated as such, as long as the incumbents fulfilled the necessary qualifications and selection procedures. The University’s decision to initiate a fresh selection process for the merged posts was deemed unjust and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the Court directed the reinstatement of the appellants to their respective posts within three months, with continuity in service and other consequential benefits, excluding pay and allowances for the period not worked. The Court also noted the possibility of disciplinary enquiry against the appellants, subject to just objections, and clarified that any subsequent appointments made by the University on the relevant posts were subject to the outcome of the present petitions.(Para 17, 22, 26, 29, 30, 31, and 32), Meher Fatima Hussain Vs. Jamia Milia Islamia & Ors., 2024 STPL(Web) 259 SC

 ——