#JudgmentReserved: Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre authored seven of the 31 judgments delivered last week

Prompt delivery of judgments, once they are reserved, is the norm in the Supreme Court; delay is an exception. Last week (April 17-21), fourteen Judges authored 31 judgments, all delivered promptly, after they were reserved..Of them, Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, has the distinction of having authored seven of them. Justice Sapre retires on August 27, 2019. His distinction last week may well be explained by serendipity..Justice NV Ramana comes second with four judgments to his credit. Justices Navin Sinha and Mohan M Shantanagoudar authored three each. Justice Kurian Joseph authored three non-reportable judgments. Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman and Ashok Bhushan authored two each. Justices R Banumathi, Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Arun Mishra, Ranjan Gogoi, J Chelameswar, Deepak Gupta and S Abdul Nazeer authored one each..A key highlight.Which judgment out of the 31 stands out in terms of having received extensive reporting and commentary in the media? Undoubtedly, it is State Through CBI v Shri Kalyan Singh (Former CM of UP) & Ors. .Bar & Bench found at least one aspect of this case, which was missed by the entire media. It was how the case was argued before the Bench, by the respondents, the BJP leaders, who were accused of conspiracy to demolish the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992..Strange as it may seem, the BJP leaders, through their Senior Counsel, KK Venugopal, relied on a legal strategy successfully adopted by the late Congress leader, AR Antulay. But the strategy did not yield similar results to the BJP leaders..So, what was the strategy which Antulay adopted and succeeded, yet failed to help those accused of conspiracy in Babri Masjid’s demolition?.In 1984, the former Maharashtra Chief Minister, AR Antulay was facing trial for the charge that a trust floated by him in 1980 – Indira Gandhi Pratibha Pratishthan – to encourage talented people in the field of literature and fine arts, earned crores of rupees through donations by cheques. He had to resign as the Chief Minister, following the controversy, in 1982..A five-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court first transferred Antulay’s trial from the special judge to the High Court in order to expedite its hearing..In 1988, the Supreme Court’s seven-Judge Bench considered this five-Judge Bench’s decision to transfer his trial as unjust, illegal and unconstitutional under Article 21 of the Constitution. Reason – Had the transfer not taken place, Antulay could have availed of one appellate remedy from the trial court to the High Court; the abrupt transfer of his case to the High Court apparently to expedite the trial, extinguished this remedy. The Supreme Court interpreted the right to seek appellate remedy as part of Article 21..This legal strategy helped Antulay to get a honourable acquittal from the charges..How did this strategy give hope to those who allegedly conspired to demolish Babri Masjid?.Venugopal argued that if the transfer of their case is made from the Rae Bareilly court (where the conspiracy cases were being heard) to the Special Court in Lucknow, which is hearing the cases against those charged with actual demolition, the conspiracy-accused would be deprived of one right of appeal. As Rae Bareilly court is a Magistrate Court, and the Lucknow Special Court is a Court of Sessions, it was argued that the accused could have availed of one extra appellate remedy, before they could avail a similar one in the High Court..Justice Nariman answered this by stating that the High Court could have transferred the case pending at Rae Bareilly and/or at Lucknow to itself under Section 407 (1) and (8) of Code of Criminal Procedure. He held that even a right of appeal from a Magistrate to the Sessions Court, and from the Sessions Court to the High Court could be taken away under the procedure established by law, that is, by virtue of Section 407 (1)(8) of CrPC. Under Section 407 CrPC, even if two tiers of appeal are done away with, there is no infraction of Article 21, as such taking away of the right of appeal is expressly contemplated by the CrPC, he held..Moreover, he held that in the Antulay case, the right of a substantive appeal from a Special Judge to the High Court was taken away by an order of transfer, contrary to the non obstante clause in Section 7(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952. In the absence of a similar non obstante clause to halt the transfer in the present case, he held that the Antulay judgment would not apply to the facts of the Babri case..Those that were reserved.The following 23 judgments were reserved during last week. Six of them have been delivered in the following week..SLP [Civil].Ramesh Chand & Ors. v M/s Tanmay Developers Pvt Ltd. and Ors, 15383/2015, Land Acquisition & Requisition Matter – Matter challenging compensations, reserved by the Bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Mohan M Shantanagoudar on April 17. The case arose out of impugned judgment dated February 4, 2015, passed by Punjab and Haryana High court. The judgment in this case was delivered on April 26.Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Tanjore & Ors v G.Thambidurai & Anr, 35755/2015, Ordinary civil matter, reserved by Justices Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy, on April 18. The case is an appeal against the judgment of the Madras High Court at Madurai on April 16, 2015.Union of India & Anr v M/s Kumho Petrochemicals Co Ltd and Anr. etc., 29268-29269/2014, Indirect Tax matter – Anti Dumping Duty, Heard along with four other similar SLPs, reserved by Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, on April 18. The case arose out of a Delhi High Court judgment dated July 11, 2014.Rajasthan Wakf Board v Devki Nandan Pathak & Ors, 13251/2014, Religious & Chairtable Endowments – Wakf Board Matter, reserved by Justices RK Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, on April 20. The case is an appeal against the impugned judgment dated January 30, 2014, passed by the Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur.Srinivasaiah v H.R.Channabasappa (D) Tr.LRS.& Ors, 9582-9583/2013, Ordinary Civil Matter- Others, reserved by the bench of Justices RK Agrawal and Sapre, on April 19. The case arose out of a judgment of Karnataka High Court at Bangalore on July 25, 2011. The judgment in this case was delivered on April 25.Union of India v Board of Control for Cricket in India, 4574-4575/2015, Ordinary Civil Matter- Others, reserved by Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha, on April 20. The case arose out of a judgment of the Delhi High Court on February 4, 2015.State of Haryana v Ved Kaur, 21622/2015, Service Matters-Others, reserved by Justices Adarsh Kumar Goel and Uday Umesh Lalit, on April 21. The case arose out of the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment dated August 25, 2014.Gurnam Singh (D) Thr. Lrs & Ors v Gurbachan Kaur (D) by Lrs., 26798/2011, Matter relating to specific performance of contract, reserved by Justices RK Agrawal and Sapre, on April 20. The case arose out of the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on May 18, 2010. In the High Court, the case was registered in 1985. Justice Sapre authored and delivered the judgment on April 27..Criminal Appeals.Brijendra Singh & Ors v State of Rajasthan, 763/2017, reserved by Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan. This arose out of a judgment of Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur, dated January 11, 2016.Pawan Kumar v State of Himachal Pradesh, 775/2017, reserved by Justices Dipak Misra, AM Khanwilkar, and Mohan M Shantanagoudar, on April 20. The case arose out of a judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court, dated June 30, and July 7, 2016. The judgment in this case was delivered on April 28.State of Haryana v Bira @ Bhira, 1581/2013, Matters filed by State against acquittal, reserved by Justices NV Ramana and Prafulla C Pant, on April 18. The judgment, authored by Justice Pant, was delivered on April 24. The Supreme Court dismissed the Haryana Government’s appeal against the acquittal by the Punjab and Haryana High Court of the accused in the murder of the deceased.State of Jharkhand through S.P., CBI, Ranchi v Sajal Chakraborty, 393/2017, Matter under Prevention of Corruption Act, reserved by Justices Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy, on April 20..SLP (Criminal).Bibi Parwana Khatoon & Parwana Khatoon and Anr., v State of Bihar, 6630/2016, reserved by Justices N.V.Ramana and Pant. The SLP arose out of the judgment of Patna High Court dated February 9, 2016..Civil Appeals.Bishan Devi Tr.LRS. v Delhi Development Authority & Ors, 8903/2012, reserved by Justices Kurian Joseph and R Banumathi, on April 18.Commissioner of Income Tax IV Ahmedabad v Shree Rama Multi Tech. Ltd, 6391/2013, reserved by Justices RK Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, on April 18..Hill View Colony & Ors. v State of Nagaland & Ors., Ordinary Civil Matter, 6022/2012, reserved by Justices Agrawal and Sapre, on April 18. Judgment, authored by Justice Sapre, was delivered on April 21. The case arose out of a judgment of Gauhati High Court dated August 5, 2011. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, and restore the writ petition, to its file, and requested the writ Court to decide it afresh on merits in accordance with law. The challenge is to orders issued by the State authorities in relation to Census.Municipal Board, Sumerpur v Kundanmal & Ors, 460/2008, Ordinary Civil Matter – Others, reserved by Justices Agrawal and Sapre on April 18. The judgment, authored by Justice Sapre, was delivered on April 21.Raj Talreja v Kavita Talreja, 10719/2013, Family law matter – Other Divorce Matter, reserved by Justices Adarsh Kumar Goel and Deepak Gupta, on April 18. Judgment in the case was authored by Justice Deepak Gupta, and delivered on April 24. The bench decreed divorce and declared the wife to be entitled to permanent alimony of Rs.50 lakh and a residential flat of the value of Rs.1 crore.Assam State Electricity Board & Ors, v Buidworth Pvt Ltd., 484/2008, Arbitration Matter, reserved by the Chief Justice J.S.Khehar, and Justices DY Chandrachud, and Sanjay Kishan Kaul on April 20.M/s Ushakiron Movies v State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors, 3683/2007, Indirect Tax Matter-Sales Tax Act (Central & Various States), reserved by Justices J Chelameswar and S Abdul Nazeer, on April 20. Two other Civil Appeals were heard along with this. Senior counsel, P Chidambaram appeared for Tata Sons Ltd, while Arvind Datar appeared for the State of Telengana, in this case. Other senior counsel, who argued in the matter, representing different parties include SK Bagaria, KV Vishwanathan, and N Venkataraman. The case arose out of a judgment dated June 30, 2006 delivered by the then Andhra Pradesh High Court, Hyderabad.Chilamkurti Bala Subrahmanyam v Samanthapudi Vijaya Lakshmi & Anr, 5988/2007, Ordinary Civil Matter-Others, reserved by Justices Agrawal and Sapre, on April 20.M/s Palam Gas Service v Commissioner of Income Tax, 5512/2017, Direct Tax Matter – Other Matters under Income Tax Act, 1961, reserved by Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan on April 21. This arose out of a judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court on June 25, 2014.Mumbai Port Trust v M/s Shri Lakshmi Steels and Ors. etc., 771-772/2017, Indirect Tax Matters – Interpretation of the Custom Act, Rules & Regulations, reserved by Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta, on April 21. The case arose out a judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court on December 23, 2016.