Supreme Court weekly round up - Judgments [February 14-19, 2022]

Read Time: 18 minutes

  1. Keywords: Limitation, COVID-19, Written statements, extension of limitation period, suo motu, commercial suits, Limitation Act
    [Suo Motu Extension applies to written statements] The Supreme Court has clarified that the suo motu (at its own behest) limitation extension which was ordered due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the shutting down of courts does apply to the period prescribed for filing the written statement in commercial suits. In effect, the top court has said that the limitation extension order(s) shall apply to the filing period prescribed vis-à-vis written statement in commercial suits.
    Bench: Justices Dinesh Maheshwari & Vikram Nath
    Case Title: Prakash Corporates v. Dee Dee Projects Ltd
    Click here to read more

  2. Keywords: Juvenile Justice Act, claim of juvenility, beneficial legislation, unreliable documents, birth certificate, family register, matriculation certificate, ossification test
    [Juvenile Justice Act] The Supreme Court has said that the though the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 is a beneficial Act, if the benefit of the juvenility is sought placing reliance on a document not reliable or dubious in nature, then the same cannot be granted. Relying on its dictum in Babloo Pasi v. State of Jharkhand and Anr., the bench added that the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act are to be interpreted liberally but the benefit cannot be granted to the appellant who has approached the Court with untruthful statement.
    Bench: Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramaniam
    Case Title: Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary v. State of Haryana & Anr
    Click here to read more

  3. Keywords: Gender cap, orchestra bars, Maharashtra, women safety, stereotypical view, women dancers, women artists, Bar license, protection of women 
    [Gender Cap in Bars] The Supreme Court has held that the condition allowing a bar licensee in the State of Maharashtra to keep only four women singers/artists and four male singers/artists to remain present on permitted stage was void. It was held that the impugned gender-cap appeared to be the product of a stereotypical view that women who perform in bars and establishments, like the appellants, belong to a certain class of society. The Court held that the justification provided by the State of Maharashtra, to sustain the restriction, in so far as they claim to protect the women, lay it open to the charge of entombing their aspirations.
    Bench: Justices KM Joseph and S Ravindra Bhat
    Case Title: HOTEL PRIYA, A PROPRIETORSHIP v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
    Click here to read more

  4. Keywords: Bonus Marks, Rajasthan, Nurse Compounder Junior Grade exam, National Health Mission scheme, National Rural Health Mission scheme, intelligible differentia
    [Grant of Bonus Marks] While deciding an appeal filed by candidates who had applied for the position of Nurse Compounder Junior Grade exam, the Supreme Court has decided to uphold the validity of a policy decision by the state of Rajasthan to grant bonus marks only to those candidates who have worked under the National Health Mission scheme (“NHM”) and National Rural Health Mission scheme (“NRHM”) in the state of Rajasthan.  "It is trite that the Courts would be slow in interfering in the policy matters, unless the policy is found to be palpably discriminatory and arbitrary. This Court would not interfere with the policy decision when a State is in a position to point out that there is intelligible differentia in application of policy and that such intelligible differentia has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved...", held the court.
    Bench: Justices L Nageshwar Rao and BR Gavai
    Case Title: Satya Dev Bhagaur & Ors v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
    Click here to read more

  5. Keywords: Delhi High Court, Supreme Court, unwarranted remarks, Prime Minister of India, Atmanirbhar Bharat
    [Unwarranted remarks by High Courts] "We advise the High Courts not to make general observations which are not warranted in the case. The High Courts shall refrain from making sweeping observations which are beyond the contours of the controversy and/or issues before them...", remarked the Top Court recently. With this view, the court ordered that the observations made by the Delhi High Court with regard to the Prime Minister and the government's policies in its order be expunged/set aside from the order passed by the High Court.
    Bench: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna
    Case Title: Union of India v. Bharat Fritz Werner Limited & Another
    Click here to read more

  6. Keywords: Partnership Act, minor partners, attaining majority, past dues, partnership firm, sales tax
    [S. 30(5) Partnership Act] The Supreme Court has held that sub-Section (5) of Section 30 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 shall not be applicable to a minor partner who was not a partner at the time of his attaining the majority and, thereafter, he shall not be liable for any past dues of the partnership firm when he was a partner being a minor. The bench held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, sub-Section (5) of Section 30 shall not be applicable at all. "Sub-Section (5) of Section 30 shall be applicable only in a case where a minor was inducted as a partner and thereafter at the time of attaining the majority he continued as a partner in that case such a partner who has been continued is required to give six months’ notice as provided under sub-Section (5) of Section 30....", said the bench.
    Bench: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna
    Case Title: State of Kerala & Ors etc etc v. Laxmi Vasanth etc etc
    Click here to read more

  7. Keywords: NCDRC, Award amount, compensation, Consumer Protection Act 2019, Appeal, amendment, deposition of 50% award amount
    [Appeal against NCDRC order] The Supreme Court clarified that the onerous condition of payment of 50% of the amount awarded, in order to challenge an order passed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) will not be applicable to the complaints filed prior to the commencement of the 2019 Act. In terms of Section 67 of the 2019 Act, no appeal against the order of National Commission shall be entertained by the Supreme Court unless the person has deposited fifty per cent of the amount required to be paid. Whereas, under the 1986 Act, by virtue of a proviso inserted vide Central Act 62 of 2002 w.e.f. March 15, 2003, the condition was that no appeal shall be entertained by the Supreme Court unless the person who is required to pay the amount deposits fifty per cent of the amount or fifty thousand, whichever is less.
    Bench: Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V Ramasubramaniam
    Case Title: ECGC Limited v. Mokul Shriram EPC JV
    Click here to read more

  8. Keywords: desertion, cruelty, divorce, Hindu Marriage Act, intentional abandonment, consummation of marriage, peculiar facts, reasonable cause
    [Desertion] While remarking that the reasons for a dispute between husband and wife are always very complex and every matrimonial dispute is different from another, a division judge bench of the Supreme Court has held, "Whether a case of desertion is established or not will depend on the peculiar facts of each case. It is a matter of drawing an inference based on the facts brought on record by way of evidence." Relying on its decision in Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena @ Mota, the court said that desertion means the intentional abandonment of one spouse by the other without the consent of the other and without a reasonable cause.
    Bench: Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka 
    Case Title: DEBANANDA TAMULI v. SMTI KAKUMONI KATAKY
    Click here to read more

  9. Keywords: criminal proceedings, accused, FIR, CBI, Central Bureau of Investigation, locus standi, quashing of FIR, relief, unnamed in FIR
    [Quashing of criminal proceedings] "...petitioners not being named as accused in the said crime or the case now registered by the CBI on the basis of the said crime, cannot be permitted to ask for quashing of the proceedings concerning some other persons", remarked the Supreme Court. A petition was filed by one Hukum Chand Garg and another for quashing of Case Crime No. 540 of 2019 registered at P.S. Hazratganj, District Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. Noting that the petitioners had not been named as accused in the said crime, the court said, "If the petitioners have not been named as accused in the said crime, the question of quashing of stated FIR or the case now under investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) arising from the said crime, does not arise as the petitioners will have no locus to seek such a relief."
    Bench: Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar 
    Case Title: HUKUM CHAND GARG & ANR. v THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
    ​​​​​​​Click here to read more