Read Time: 12 minutes

1. Keywords: Writ of mandamus, Article 226, specific performance of contract, work order, civil suit, COVID-19, cancellation of work order, loss, damage, Bombay High Court
   [Article 226] The Supreme Court on Monday held that no writ of mandamus can be issued virtually by a High Court granting the writ for Specific performance of the contract/work order in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The bench added that the original writ petitioners, in such a case, should be relegated to file a civil suit for appropriate relief of losses/damage, if any, sustained. The Municipal Council, Gondia had approached the top court in appeal challenging an order passed by the Bombay High Court whereby the High Court had quashed and set aside the action on the part of the Municipal Council in cancelling the work order, holding that the respondents were entitled to make the supply in pursuance of the said work order and to receive the payments as per the terms of the work order.
   Bench: Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna
   Case Title: Municipal Council Gondia v. Divi Works & Suppliers, HUF & Ors.
   Click here to read more
    
2. Keywords: confiscation order, cow slaughter, criminal proceedings, animal cruelty, right to property, Article 300A, deprivation of property
   [Confiscation of vehicle] The Supreme Court while setting aside a confiscation order relating to a truck loaded with 17 cow progeny, held that since the said truck was confiscated on account of the criminal proceedings alone, therefore, under the applicable law, the vehicle could not be withheld and then confiscated by the State, when the original proceedings had culminated into acquittal. It was further noted that once an order of acquittal was passed as evidence was missing to connect the accused with the charges, the confiscation of the truck when the accused was acquitted in the Criminal prosecution, amounted to arbitrary deprivation of his property and violates the right guaranteed to each person under Article 300A.
   Bench: Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy
   Case Title: ABDUL VAHAB v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
   Click here to read more
    
3. Keywords: excise duty, alcoholic liquor, waste of liquor, distillation, human consumption, industrial use, central list, state list
   [Excise Duty]  While relying on a three judge bench decision of State of U.P. and others v. Modi Distillery and others, the Supreme Court on Thursday reiterated that the State is only empowered to levy excise duty on alcoholic liquor for human consumption and thus it has no power to levy excise duty on wastage of liquor after distillation.  The top court further noted that Section 27(1) read with Section 2(6) of the erstwhile Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915, which governed the field at the relevant time, clarified the said position.
   Bench: Justices L Nageshwar Rao and BR Gavai 
   Case Title: State of Orissa & Ors v. M/s Utkal Distilleries Ltd
   Click here to read more
    
4. Keywords: Murder, Section 304, Indian Penal code, eye-witness, multiple accused, multiple injuries, nature of injuries, stabbed to death
   [Excessive number of injuries and involvement of more people] While noting that excessive number of injuries will not lead to an inference about involvement of more than one person, the Top Court last week refused to set aside conviction of one Suresh Yadav, who got enraged when he saw the his girlfriend talking to another boy; and caused multiple injuries to her by a pointed knife, leading to her death. "Excessive number of injuries do not ipso facto lead to an inference about involvement of more than one person; rather the nature of injuries and similarity of their size/dimension would only lead to the inference that she was mercilessly and repeatedly stabbed by the same weapon and by the same person...", held the top court.
   Bench: Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath 
   Case Title: SURESH YADAV @ GUDDU v. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
   Click here to read more
    
5. Keywords: property dispute, title to property, sale deed, permanent injunction, trial court, true owner, possession
   [Title Dispute] Dealing with a case pertaining to permanent injunction from a property, the Supreme Court has held that, "Once the dispute with respect to (the property) title is settled and it is held against the plaintiff, in that case, the suit by the plaintiff for permanent injunction shall not be maintainable against the true owner." "In such a situation, it will not be open for the plaintiff to contend that though he/she has lost the case so far as the title dispute is concerned, the defendant – the true owner still be restrained from disturbing his/her possession and his/her possession be protected....", added the court.
   Bench: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna
   Case Title: Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (Deceased) Through L.R.s v. Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) Through L.R.s and Ors.
   Click here to read more
    
6. Keywords: Auction, Highest bidder, Article 226, judicial review, auction process, public auction, right of bidder, provisional bid, confirmation of bid
   [Auction] Noting that while it is settled law that the highest bidder has no vested right to have the auction concluded in his favour, the Top Court has held that under the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court is not supposed to interfere in the opinion of the executive who were dealing on the subject, unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable. Relying on the scheme of Chapter III of Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) 2 Rules, 1976, the bench found it to be apparent and explicit that even if the public auction had been completed to the highest bidder, no right was accrued till the confirmation letter was issued to him as the acceptance of the highest bid is provisional, subject to its confirmation by the competent authority.
   Bench: Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka
   Case Title: State of Punjab & Ors. v. Mehar Din 
   Click here to read more