The Supreme Court fortnightly: 15 important judgments - February 1 to 14

In this series, Bar & Bench will bring you 15 top judgments delivered by the Supreme Court of India every two weeks. Below are our picks for the first two weeks of February 2022..1. Courts should show restraint in cases requiring interpretation of tender documents: Supreme CourtCase Title: Agmatel India Private Limited v. Resoursys Telecom and Others, [Civil Appeal 786 of 2022]A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath in its recent decision has held that the constitutional courts have to show restraint in matters which require interpretation of tender documents.The Court has noted that the author of the tender document is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements, and technical evaluation or comparison of such documents by the court is impermissible.“Even if the interpretation given to the tender document by the person inviting offers is not as such acceptable to the Constitutional Court, that, by itself, would not be a reason for interfering with the interpretation given,” the Court has observed.2. Dying declaration can be sole basis for conviction without corroboration: Supreme CourtCase Title: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Veerpal and Another [Criminal Appeal 34 of 2022]A Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna in its recent decision has held that a dying declaration can be acted upon and be the basis of conviction even without corroboration.Pertinently, the Court also relied upon precedents to hold that the mere fact that there is more than one dying declaration, cannot be a ground to reject all dying declarations.“It was observed and held that when there are multiple dying declarations the case must be decided on the facts of each case and the court will not be relieved of its duty to carefully examine the entirety of the material on record as also the circumstances surrounding the making of the different dying declarations,” the Court has stated in its order.3. Rules made to exercise powers of State Legislature constitute “law” under Article 13: Supreme CourtCase Title: Ashish Shelar v. Maharashtra Legislative Assembly [Writ Petition(Civil) No. 797 of 2021]A three-Judge Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar held that rules made to exercise the powers and privileges of State legislatures constitute "law" within the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution.The Court observed that Rules framed by Legislative Assembly under Article 208 are “procedure established by law” for the purpose of Article 21 of the Constitution.This observation came as a part of the ruling by a Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar setting aside the one-year suspension of 12 Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLAs from the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly for allegedly abusing and manhandling Speaker Bhaskar Jadhav.4. Lok Adalat award cannot be basis for re-determination of compensation under Section 28A of Land Acquisition Act: Supreme CourtCase Title: New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) v. Yunus [Civil Appeal 901 of 2022]A Division Bench of Justices KM Joseph and P Narasimha held that an award passed by a Lok Adalat under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 cannot form the basis for re-determination of compensation contemplated under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.It further observed that the only basis for invoking Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act for re-determination of the compensation is an adjudication by the Court as defined in the Act."What Section 28A indeed insists is on decision by a Civil Court as defined in Section 2(l). In other words what is made the only basis for invoking Section 28A of the Act is an adjudication by the Court as defined in the Act," the Court has said in its decision.5. Wakf Board is “State” under Article 12; land dedicated for religious purposes not immune from vesting with State: Supreme CourtCase Title: State of Andhra Pradesh v. Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board & Others [Civil Appeal 10770 of 2016]A Division Bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian held that a Wakf Board is “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, and therefore remains open to challenge under writ jurisdiction.It further observed that the Wakf Board’s decisions are subject to writ jurisdiction and the land dedicated for pious and religious purpose is not immune from its vesting with the State."The Wakf Board is a statutory authority established under the Act and is a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. A constitution Bench of this Court in a judgment reported as Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur v. Mohan Lal & Ors held “that the expression “other authorities” in Article 12 will include all constitutional or statutory authorities on whom powers are conferred by law," the Court has stated in its order.6. [POCSO] Inserting finger into vagina of minor girl is penetrative sexual assault: Supreme CourtCase Title: Nawabuddin v. State of Uttarakhand [Criminal Appeal 144 of 2022]A Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna held that the act of inserting a finger into the vagina of a minor girl would amount to an offence of 'penetrative sexual assault' under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) 2012.The top Court therefore, upheld the conviction of a 75-year-old man who was accused of inserting his finger into the vagina of a 4-year-old."It has been established and proved that the accused penetrated his finger in the vagina and because of that the victim girl felt pain and irritation in urination as well as pain on her body and there was redness and swelling around the vagina found by the doctor. We are of the opinion that therefore the case would fall under Section 3(b) of the POCSO Act and it can be said to be penetrative sexual assault and considering Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act as such penetrative sexual assault was committed on a girl child aged four years (below twelve years) the same can be said to be ‘aggravated penetrative sexual assault’ punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act," the Court has observed in its decision.7. Filing of chargesheet enough to comply with Section 167 CrPC; accused cannot claim default bail: Supreme CourtCase Title: Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi [Criminal Appeal 185-186 of 2022]A Division Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai ruled that filing of a chargesheet would amount to sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and an accused cannot demand release on default bail under Section 167(2) on the ground that cognisance has not been taken before the expiry of 60 days.The only issue before the Court was: Whether an accused is entitled for statutory bail under Section 167(2), CrPC on the ground that cognizance has not been taken before the expiry of 60 days or 90 days, as the case may be, from the date of remand?The Court said that the "indefeasible right of an accused to seek statutory bail under Section 167(2), CrPC arises only if the charge-sheet has not been filed before the expiry of the statutory period."8. Murder or not? Supreme Court explains factors to determine intention for Section 302 offenceCase Title: State of Uttarakhand v. Sachendra Singh Rawat, Criminal Appeal 143 of 2022A Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna threw light on the factors/ circumstances from which the intention of an accused to cause death of someone can be gathered, in order to determine whether an offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is made out.The Court relied upon its's 2006 judgment in Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh wherein the Court had held that the intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a combination of the following, among other, circumstances:nature of the weapon used;whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot;whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body;the amount of force employed in causing injury;whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all fight;whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any premeditation;whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger;whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation;whether it was in the heat of passion;whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner;whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows..9. Supreme Court orders reinstatement of ex-Madhya Pradesh District Judge who resigned alleging sexual harassment by High Court judgeCase Title: X v. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Writ Petition(Civil) 1137 of 2018A Division Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai ordered reinstatement to service of a former Madhya Pradesh District judge who had resigned from service in 2014 alleging sexual harassment by a High Court judge.It further observed that resignation tendered by the judge was not voluntary but under coercion."The petitioner was a Judicial Officer and a mother too. The Judicial Officer in her must have been battling with the mother in her. On one hand, was her career as a Judicial Officer; on the other hand, was the possibility of her daughter’s educational prospects and career coming into jeopardy, if she shifted to the place of posting at Sidhi. A possibility of her mind engrossed with a feeling, that she was subjected to injustice by the very Institution of Judiciary, cannot be ruled away." the Court has stated in its decision.10. Entire service record should be considered before passing premature retirement order: Supreme CourtCase Title: Central Industrial Security Force v. HC Om Prakash [Civil Appeal 5428 of 2012]A Division Bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian ruled that entire service record of an employee should be considered before passing an order of premature retirement of the employee, even though recent reports would carry their own weight.It further held that the entire service record to be considered towards premature retirement includes the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) prior to any recent promotion.11. Post offices, banks vicariously liable for fraud, wrongs by employees during employment: Supreme CourtCase Title: Pradeep Kumar And Another v. Postmaster General And Others, [Civil Appeal 8775 of 2016]A three-Judge Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna and BR Gavai in its recent decision held that a post office can be held vicariously liable for the acts of its employees done during the course of their employment.The Court further observed that post office shall be entitled to proceed against the defaulter officers for the loss caused due to the fraud or wrongful act, but this would not absolve them from their liability."Employees, as individuals, are capable of being dishonest and committing acts of fraud or wrongs themselves or in collusion with others. Such acts of bank/post office employees, when done during their course of employment, are binding on the bank/post office at the instance of the person who is damnified by the fraud and wrongful acts of the officers of the bank/post office,” the Court has observed in its decision.12. Consent decree cannot be modified unless mistake is patent or obvious: Supreme CourtCase Title: Ajanta LLP vs Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha d/b/a Casio Computer Company Limited [Civil Appeal 1052 of 2022]A Division Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai ruled that a consent decree cannot be modified/altered even if there is a mistake in the same unless the mistake is a patent or obvious one."Even assuming there is a mistake, a consent decree cannot be modified/ altered unless the mistake is a patent or obvious mistake. Or else, there is a danger of every consent decree being sought to be altered on the ground of mistake/ misunderstanding by a party to the consent decree," the Court has said in its decision.It further held that judgment by consent is intended to stop litigation between the parties just as much as a judgment resulting from a decision of the Court at the end of a long-drawn-out fight.13. [Section 33C ID Act] Labour Court cannot adjudicate on questions of employer-employee relationship: Supreme CourtCase Title: M/s Bombay Chemical Industries v. Deputy Labour Commissioner and Another, Civil Appeal 813 of 2022A Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna in its recent decision has held that under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (ID Act), 1947, it is not open for the Labour Court to entertain disputed questions and adjudicate upon the employer-employee relationship.It further observed that under Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act, the Labour Court's jurisdiction is like that of an executing court and it can only interpret the award or settlement on which the claim is based."As per the settled proposition of law, in an application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction and cannot adjudicate dispute of entitlement or the basis of the claim of workmen. It can only interpret the award or settlement on which the claim is based," the Bench has stated in its decision.14. Consumer complaint cannot be transferred to High Court: Supreme CourtCase Title: YES Bank Limited v. 63 Moons Technologies Limited and Others, Transfer Petition(Civil) 968-971 of 2020A Division Bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian held that it cannot transfer consumer complaints filed under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to High Court.The Court also observed the same while rejecting a bunch of transfer petitions moved by YES Bank seeking transfer of consumer complaints pending before certain District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Delhi to Bombay High Court."We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at some length and find that the consumer complaints are filed under the Consumer Protection Act, therefore, such consumer complaints cannot be transferred to the High Court exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the request for transfer of the consumer complaints is declined," the Court stated in its dismissal order.15. Insurance company cannot deny claim on ground of delay in intimation of theft: Supreme CourtCase Title: Jaina Construction Company v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another [Civil Appeal 1069 of 2022]A Division Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi in its recent decision held that insurance company cannot repudiate a claim merely on the ground of delay in intimation of theft of an insured vehicle.The Court relied on its 2020 decision in Gurshinder Singh, where it was held that when an insured has lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of a vehicle and when the police after investigation have lodged a final report, then mere delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of the theft cannot be a ground to deny the claim of the insured."When the complainant had lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of the vehicle, and when the police after the investigation had arrested the accused and also filed challan before the concerned Court, and when the claim of the insured was not found to be not genuine, the Insurance Company could not have repudiated the claim merely on the ground that there was a delay in intimating the Insurance Company about the occurrence of the theft," the Court has stated in its decision.