April Judgements (1) - 1
April Judgements (1) - 1
April Judgements (1) - 1
Criminal Appeal No 541 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No 1743 of 2022)
Bench: Justices DY. Chandrachud and Surya Kant
Issues: Whether the reasons which weigh Court in cancelling the bail to co accused would also apply in case of
bail preferred by another accused in relation to the same FIR and incident.
Ratio: Reasons which have weighed with this Court in cancelling the bail which was granted to the co-accused
would equally apply to the case of the first respondent which also arises out of the same first information report
and incident.
Provisions List: Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Judgment: As a matter of fact, the reasons which have weighed with this Court in cancelling the bail which was
granted to the co-accused would equally apply to the case of the first respondent which also arises out of the same
first information report and incident. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and
order of the High Court dated 9 November 2021 granting bail to the first respondent. The application for bail shall
accordingly stand dismissed and the first respondent shall surrender no later than within a week from the date of
this order.
M/S Shree Vishnu Construction v. The Engineer in Chief Military Engineering Services
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 5306/2022; 01-04-2022
Bench: Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna
Issues: Delay in the appointment of an Arbitrator will frustrate the object and purpose of the Arbitration Act?
Ratio: As per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11 - The arbitration applications for the
appointment of an Arbitrator are required to be decided and disposed of at the earliest, otherwise the object and
purpose of the Arbitration Act shall be frustrated.
Orbiter: It is a very sorry state of affairs that the arbitration application under Section 11 has been decided and
disposed of after a period of four years.
Provisions List: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 11
Judgment: The arbitration applications for the appointment of an Arbitrator are required to be decided and
disposed of at the earliest, otherwise the object and purpose of the Arbitration Act shall be frustrated. Even as per
the amended Arbitration Act, the arbitration proceedings are required to be disposed of within one year. If the
Section 11 application itself is not decided within one year, even the purpose and object of the amended Arbitration
Act shall also be frustrated. Under the circumstances, we direct the Registrar General of the High Court for the
State of Telangana at Hyderabad to submit a detailed report/statement before this Court on or before the next date
of hearing pointing out how many Section 11 applications are pending before the High Court and from which
year. Such report to be submitted on or before 19.04.2022.
Judgment: Companies Act, 2013; Section 170 - Companies Act, 1956; Section 394 (1)(a) - Amalgamation is
unlike the winding up of a corporate entity. In the case of amalgamation, the outer shell of the corporate entity is
undoubtedly destroyed; it ceases to exist. Yet, in every other sense of the term, the corporate venture continues –
enfolded within the new or the existing transferee entity. In other words, the business and the adventure lives on
but within a new corporate residence, i.e., the transferee company. It is, therefore, essential to look beyond the
mere concept of destruction of corporate entity which brings to an end or terminates any assessment proceedings
- Upon amalgamation, the cause of action or the complaint does not per se cease depending of course, upon the
structure and objective of enactment. The quest of legal systems and courts has been to locate if a successor or
representative exists in relation to the particular cause or action, upon whom the assets might have devolved or
upon whom the liability in the event it is adjudicated, would fall.
Judgment: It is a rule of law that nobody can be deprived of liberty or property without due process or
authorization of law - Rather than enjoying a wider bandwidth of lenience, the State often has a higher
responsibility in demonstrating that it has acted within the confines of legality, and therefore, not tarnished the
basic principle of the rule of law. There is a need for written consent in matters of land acquisition proceedings -
contention of 'oral' consent is baseless. Appeal against Himachal Pradesh HC judgment which disposed of a writ
petition challenging dispossession and seeking compensation - Allowed - In the absence of written consent to
voluntarily give up their land, the appellants were entitled to compensation in terms of law - State directed to treat
the subject lands as a deemed acquisition and appropriately disburse compensation to the appellants.
Haryana Urban Development, Karnal v. M/s Mehta Construction Co. & Anr.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2693 OF 2022 (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 6137 OF 2022)
(DIARY NO. 23287 OF 2020)
Corum: Justices Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna
Issue: Can an arbitral award be set aside merely on an erroneous application of law or misappreciation of
evidence?
Ratio: Under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 - Arbitral award can be set aside by the court if
the court finds the award is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the award. The award shall not be
set aside merely on the ground of erroneous application of law or by misappreciation of evidence.
Provisions: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34, Section 43 Section 21,
Orbiter: No plausible explanation could be given by the objector, for filing the objections at a belated stage.
Judgment: As per sub-section (3) to Section 34 of the Act, an application for setting aside an award is to be made
within three months from the date on which a party filing objections under sub-section (1) to Section 34 has
received the arbitral award; or, if a request has been made under Section 33, from the date on which that request
has been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal. However, the proviso states that the court may condone the delay of
a period of up to thirty days in filing of the objections if it is satisfied that the applicant is prevented by sufficient
cause from making an application under Section 34(1) of the Act.
Neetu Tripathi v State of UP & Anr
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3997/2021
Chairman cum Managing Director Fertilizer Corp of India Ltd. v. Rajesh Chandra Srivastava
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2260 OF 2022 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(C) NO. 26844 OF 2016)
Judgment: Mere plea of inconvenience is not enough to attract the constitutional inhibition. The Courts ought
not to adopt a doctrinaire approach in construing the amended provisions and undermine the legislative intent of
strengthening the regulatory mechanism concerning foreign contribution. There is intrinsic evidence to indicate
that the change effected by the amendments is to serve the legitimate Government purpose and has a rational
nexus to the object of the Principal Act and the amendments and that the preamendment dispensation (unamended
Section 7) was not sufficient to effectively regulate the acceptance and utilization of foreign contribution as
predicated by the Principal Act. Assuming that some inconvenience is likely to be caused to few applicants, the
constitutionality of a statute cannot be assailed on the basis of fortuitous circumstances and more so when it being
only a one-time exercise to ensure the inflow of foreign contribution through one channel only, being a
precondition for grant of permission.
Cases Referred:
1. Soman v. State of Kerala, (2013) 11 SCC 382- Courts ought to base sentencing decisions on various
different rationales — most prominent amongst which would be proportionality and deterrence.
2. Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648- One of the prime objectives of the
criminal law is imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentence commensurate with
the nature and gravity of crime and the manner in which the crime is done.
3. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Udham, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 300- Sentencing for crimes has to be
analysed on the touchstone of three tests viz. crime test, criminal test and comparative proportionality
test.
4. Satish Kumar Jayanti Lal Dabgar v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 359-
Judgment: Merely because a long period has lapsed by the time the appeal is decided cannot be a ground to award
the punishment which is disproportionate and inadequate. The High Court has not at all adverted to the relevant
factors which were required to be while imposing appropriate/suitable punishment/sentence. As observed
hereinabove, the High Court has dealt with and disposed of the appeal in a most cavalier manner. The High Court
has disposed of the appeal by adopting shortcuts. The manner in which the High Court has dealt with and disposed
of the appeal is highly deprecated. In cases, like the present one, the accused did not press any challenge to the
conviction and prayed for reduction in sentence and the same is considered and an inadequate and inappropriate
sentence has been imposed without assigning any further reasons and without adverting to the relevant factors
which are required to be considered while imposing appropriate punishment/sentence. We deprecate such practice
of 15 disposing of criminal appeals by adopting shortcuts.
Cases Referred:
1. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 740- every disorder does not meet the threshold of
a disturbance to public order, unless it affects the community at large.
2. Banka Sneha Sheela v. State of Telangana, (2021) 9 SCC 415 - while such an apprehension may be a
ground for considering the cancellation of bail to an accused, it cannot meet the standards prescribed for
preventive detention unless there is a demonstrable threat to the maintenance of public order.
3. Sama Aruna v. State of Telangana, (2018) 12 SCC 150- a preventive detention order that is passed
without examining a live and proximate link between the event and the detention is tantamount to
punishment without trial.
4. Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 2 SCC 427- while the ordinary procedural
hierarchy among courts must be respected, the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 extends
to protecting the personal liberty of persons who have demonstrated that the instrumentality of the State
is being weaponised for using the force of criminal law.
Judgment: A mere apprehension of a breach of law and order is not sufficient to meet the standard of adversely
affecting the “maintenance of public order”. Callous exercise of the exceptional power of preventive detention by
the detaining authorities and the state - Respondents directed to take stock of challenges to detention orders
pending before the Advisory Board, High Court and Supreme Court and evaluate the fairness of the detention
order against lawful standards. In this case, the apprehension of a disturbance to public order owing to a crime
that was reported over seven months prior to the detention order has no basis in fact. The apprehension of an
adverse impact to public order is a mere surmise of the detaining authority, especially when there have been no
reports of unrest since the detenu was released on bail on 8 January 2021 and detained with effect from 26 June
2021. The nature of the allegations against the detenu are grave.
Judgment: It is the duty of the Court to put the parties in the same position they would have been but
for the interim order of the court, unless the order granting interim stay or final order dismissing the
proceedings specifies otherwise. On the dismissal of the proceedings or vacation of the interim order, the
beneficiary of the interim order shall have to pay interest on the amount withheld or not paid by virtue
of the interim order.
Cases Referred:
Scope of Appeal filed against the Acquittal
1. Mohan @Srinivas @Seena @Tailor Seena v. State of Karnataka, [2021 SCC OnLine SC 1233], N.
Vijayakumar v. State of T.N., [(2021) 3 SCC 687]- While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking
Section 378 of the Cr.PC, the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed
as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed.
Delay in sending the (FIR) First Information Report to the Magistrate
2. Shivlal v. State of Chhattisgarh, Rajeevan v. State of Kerala, State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, The
Magistrate has a role to play under Section 159 of Cr.PC.
Delay in Recording the Statement under Section 161 Cr.PC
3. Shahid Khan v. State of Rajasthan, Ganesh Bhavan Patel v. State of Maharashtra, A long, unexplained delay
in Recording the Statement under Section 161 Cr.PC, would give room for suspicion.
Recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act
4. Kusal Toppo v. State of Jharkhand, Navaneethakrishnan v. State, Navaneethakrishnan v. State, Aghnoo
Nagesia v. State of Bihar, K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of A.P, Section 27 is an exception to Sections
24 to 26 meant for a specific purpose and thus be construed as a proviso.
Judgment: Section 27 of the Evidence Act is an exception to Sections 24 to 26. Admissibility under Section 27
is relatable to the information pertaining to a fact discovered. Therefore, Section 27 is an exception to Sections 24
to 26 meant for a specific purpose and thus be construed as a proviso. The onus is on the prosecution to prove the
fact discovered from the information obtained from the accused. The Court will have to be conscious of the
witness's credibility and the other evidence produced when dealing with a recovery under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC, the Appellate
Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence
on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in
favour of the accused. As per Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 159 - Mere delay to send FIR to
jurisdictional magistrate cannot be sole factor to reject prosecution's case. An inordinate and unexplained delay
in recording Statement under Section 161 CrPC may be fatal to the prosecution's case but only to be considered
by the Court, on the facts of each case. However, nonexamination of the witness despite being available may call
for an explanation from the Investigating Officer.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. UB Engineering Ltd. SLP(C) Nos. 24912-24913 of 2013
Bench: M.R. SHAH; B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ
Issue: Can Arbitral Tribunal grant post award interest on interest component included in the sum of the award?
Ratio: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 31(7) - Arbitral tribunal can grant post-award interest on
the sum of the award which also includes the interest component. The word sum used under Section 31(7) includes
the interest awarded on the substantive claims, therefore, the post award interest would be on both the amount
awarded in respect of the substantive claims and the interest awarded on such claims.
Provisions: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 31(7)
Cases Referred:
1. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited vs. Governor, State of Orissa, (2015) 2 SCC 189- the amount awarded
under Section 31(7)(a) of the Act, whether with interest or without interest, constitutes a "sum" for which
the award is made.
2. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited vs. Globe Hi-fabs Limited (2015) 5 SCC 718- Judges cannot legislate
or amend the law by judicial decisions. They have to maintain judicial discipline and give their decisions
in accordance with law. Hence the lesser rate of interest cannot be awarded because that would be
amending the law which is not within the powers of the judiciary.
Judgment: In that view of the matter even the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court reducing
the interest @ 9% from that of 18% p.a. from the date of award till the actual payment is also unsustainable and
the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. The award passed by the learned Arbitrator is hereby restored.
ONGC v. Discovery Enterprize CA 2042 of 2022
Coram: Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath
Issue: Whether group of companies doctrine can be applied to bind non signatory to an arbitration agreement?
Ratio: According to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 2(h), 7, 8, 16 that deals with group of
companies doctrine, an arbitration agreement entered into by a company within a group of companies, can bind
its non-signatory affiliates or sister concerns if the circumstances demonstrate a mutual intention of the parties to
bind both the signatory and affiliated, non-signatory parties.
Orbiter: In the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction, the court must have due deference to the grounds which have
weighed with the tribunal in holding that it lacks jurisdiction having regard to the object and spirit underlying the
statute which entrusts the arbitral tribunal with the power to rule on its own jurisdiction
Provisions: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 2(h), 7, 8, 16, 34, 37
Cases Referred:
Group of Companies Doctrine- an arbitration agreement entered into by a company, being one within a group
of companies, can bind its nonsignatory affiliates or sister or parent concerns, if the circumstances demonstrate
that the mutual intention of all the parties was to bind both the signatories and the non-signatory affiliates.
1. Indowind Energy Ltd. v. Wescare (I) Ltd. & Anr.
2. Chloro Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. & Ors.
3. Ameet Lalchand Shah & Ors. v. Rishabh Enterprises & Anr.
4. Cheran Properties Ltd. v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd. & Ors.
5. Duro Felguera v. Gangavaram Port Limited.
6. Reckitt Benckiser (India) P Ltd. v. Reynders Label Printing
7. MTNL v. Canara Bank & Ors.
Judgment: A non-signatory may be bound by the arbitration agreement where: (i) There exists a group of
companies; and (ii) Parties have engaged in conduct or made statements indicating an intention to bind a non-
signatory. In deciding whether a company within a group of companies which is not a signatory to arbitration
agreement would nonetheless be bound by it, the law considers the following factors: (i) The mutual intent of the
parties; (ii) The relationship of a non-signatory to a party which is a signatory to the agreement; (iii) The
commonality of the subject matter; (iv) The composite nature of the transaction; and (v) The performance of the
contract. An appeal lies to the Court from the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal that it lacks jurisdiction - Parliament
has not specifically constricted the powers of the court while considering an appeal under clause (a) of sub-section
(2) of Section 37 by the grounds on which an award can be challenged under Section 34. As per Section 16, Party
taking the plea of absence of jurisdiction is required to establish the grounds on which it set about to establish its
plea.
Cases Referred:
1. Sampuran Singh Vs. Niranjan Kaur- The suit was decreed by the trial Court. Such decree was affirmed
by the First Appellate Court as well but in Second Appeal, the suit was dismissed relying upon the
judgment.
2. Ram Kishan & Ors. Vs. Sheo Ram & Ors.- once a usufructuary mortgage is created, the mortgagor has
a right to redeem the mortgage at any point of time on the principle that once a mortgage always a
mortgage.
3. Singh Ram (Dead) Through Legal Representatives Vs. Sheo Ram & Ors.- once a usufructuary mortgage
is created, the mortgagor has a right to redeem the mortgage at any point of time on the principle that
once a mortgage always a mortgage.
Judgement: After the judgment was rendered by the Single Judge Bench, the Full Bench of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in ‘Ram Kishan & Ors. Vs. Sheo Ram & Ors.’ reported in AIR 2008 P&H 77 held that once
a usufructuary mortgage is created, the mortgagor has a right to redeem the mortgage at any point of time on the
principle that once a mortgage always a mortgage. Such judgment was affirmed by this Court in ‘Singh Ram
(Dead) Through Legal Representatives Vs. Sheo Ram & Ors.’ reported in (2014) 9 SCC 185.
Invest Asset Securitization & Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. v. Girnar Fibers Ltd. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3033
OF 2022; April 25, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose; JJ.
Issue: Whether Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is for money recovery proceedings?
Ratio: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The provisions of the Code are essentially intended to bring the
corporate debtor to its feet and are not of money recovery proceedings as such.
Orbiter: However, in the interest of justice, it does appear appropriate and hence observed that if any other
proceedings have been or are taken up by the appellant, the same shall be dealt with and proceeded on their own
merits and in accordance with law.
Provision: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 7
Judgment: Time and again, it has been expressed and explained by this Court that the provisions of the Code are
essentially intended to bring the corporate debtor to its feet and are not of money recovery proceedings as such.
The intent of the appellant had only been to invoke the provisions of the Code so as to enforce recovery against
the corporate debtor. We find no fault in the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal having declined the prayer of
the appellant. However, in the interest of justice, it does appear appropriate and hence observed that if any other
proceedings have been or are taken up by the appellant, the same shall be dealt with and proceeded on their own
merits and in accordance with law.
Waqf Board Rajasthan v. Jindal Saw Ltd. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2788 & 2789 OF 2022 (ARISING OUT
OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 16196 & 17334 OF 2021)
Corum: Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian
Issue: Under the Waqf Act, whether dilapidated structure be recognised as a religious place for offering Namaaz
without proof of dedication?
Ratio: Under Waqf Act, 1995; Section 3(r) which deals with the definition of waqf, there ought to be proof of
dedication or user or grant to qualify as waqf - in the absence of any proof of dedication or user, a dilapidated wall
or a platform cannot be conferred a status of a religious place for the purpose of offering prayers / Namaaz.
Provision: Waqf Act, 1995; Section 3(r)
Judgement: Still further, there is no evidence at any given point of time that the structure was being used as a
mosque. There is no allegation or proof of either of dedication or user or grant which can be termed as a waqf
within the meaning of the Act. In the absence of any proof of dedication or user, a dilapidated wall or a platform
cannot be conferred a status of a religious place for the purpose of offering prayers/Namaaz.
Atbir v. State of NCT of Delhi CrA 714 OF 2022
Coram: Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose
Issue: Whether prisoner has right to seek furlough even if he is not eligible for sentence remission?
Ratio: Under Delhi Prison Act, 2000; Section 2(h) that deals with Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. Rule 1222-1223
states that getting remission is not a pre-requisite for obtaining furlough.
Orbiter: Furlough means release of a prisoner for a short period of time after a gap of certain qualified numbers
of years of incarceration by way of motivation for maintaining good conduct and to remain disciplined in the
prison. This is purely an incentive for good conduct in the prison.
Provisions: Delhi Prison Act, 2000; Section 2(h) - Delhi Prison Rules, 2018; Rule 1222-1223
Cases referred:
1. Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: (2017) 15 SCC 55- There is a subtle distinction between parole and
furlough. A parole can be defined as conditional release of prisoners i.e. an early release of a prisoner,
conditional on good behaviour and regular reporting to the authorities for a set period of time.
2. State of Gujarat & Anr. v. Narayan: (2021) SCCOnLine SC 949- Although furlough can be claimed
without a reason, the prisoner does not have an absolute legal right to claim furlough.
3. W.P. (Crl.) No. 682 of 2019: Chandra Kant Jha v. State of NCT of Delhi- Unless the sentencing Court
while stipulating the condition of no remission specifies debarment of any particular kind of remission,
all kinds of remissions shall be barred to a prisoner.
4. Union of India v. V. Sriharan & Ors.: (2016) 7 SCC 1- “when a remission of the substantive sentence is
granted under Section 432, then and then only giving credit to the earned remission can take place and
not otherwise” cannot mean that furlough could be availed by the appellant only if his case is considered
for premature release.
Judgement: Even if a prisoner is not to get any remission in his sentence and has to serve the sentence of
imprisonment throughout his natural life, neither the requirements of his maintaining good conduct are whittled
down nor the reformative approach and incentive for good conduct cease to exist in his relation. Thus, if he
maintains good conduct, furlough cannot be denied as a matter of course. Depriving of even the concession of
furlough and thereby taking away an incentive/motivation for good conduct would not only be counter-productive
but would be an antithesis to the reformative approach otherwise running through the scheme of Rules of 2018.
The eligibility requirement to obtain furlough is of '3 Annual good conduct reports' and not '3 Annual good conduct
remissions'. The expressions employed in Clause (I) of Rule 1223 of the Rules of 2018 are that the prisoner ought
to maintain 'Good conduct in the prison and should have earned rewards in last 3 Annual good conduct report' and
further that he should continue 'to maintain good conduct'. Even these expressions cannot be read to mean that the
prisoner ought to earn 'good conduct remissions' - It cannot be said that earning rewards is equivalent to earning
remissions.