2022 SCC Vol. 4 Part 2

SCC Part

In 2022 SCC Volume 4 Part 2, read this very pertinent matter of the Supreme Court wherein it was decided whether culpable homicide tantamounts to murder or not. Read the full Judgment here: [State of Uttarakhand v. Sachendra Singh Rawat, (2022) 4 SCC 227]

Short Notes: 4


Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 34 — Delay beyond the period of 3 months plus 30 days: If a petition is filed under S. 34 beyond the prescribed period of three months, the Court has the discretion to condone the delay only to an extent of thirty days, provided sufficient cause is shown. Further, S. 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed under S. 34(3). [Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. v. Maheshbhai Tinabhai Rathod, (2022) 4 SCC 162]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 34: Amended S. 34, i.e. as amended by Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 is not applicable to S. 34 proceedings commenced prior to 23-10-2015. [Ratnam Sudesh Iyer v. Jackie Kakubhai Shroff, (2022) 4 SCC 206]

Armed Forces — Penalty/Punishment — Substitution of punishment of dismissal with compulsory retirement: Due to peculiar circumstances of the case, punishment of dismissal substituted with compulsory retirement. [Brijesh Chandra Dwivedi v. Sanya Sahayak, (2022) 4 SCC 189]

Constitution of India — Art. 227 — Supervisory jurisdiction of High Court: Principles summarised regarding nature and scope of supervisory jurisdiction of High Court. [Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022) 4 SCC 181]

Constitution of India — Arts. 341 and 342 — SCs/STs: Implication of “for the purposes of this Constitution … in relation to that State”, is that benefit of status as SC/ST or OBC is granted only in relation to a State on the basis of ordinary and permanent residence of the castes/classes of persons concerned in that State. Benefit of status of SC/ST or OBC in one State is thus not automatically nor ordinarily transferable to another State upon migration. [Bhadar Ram v. Jassa Ram, (2022) 4 SCC 259]

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — S. 13 — Delay in filing written statement, beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30: The 5-Judge Bench in Hilli case did not make a distinction between applications for condonation which had been decided and those which were pending on the date of the decision. Thus, applications for condonation of delay that were pending or decided before 4-3-2020 would both equally be entitled to the benefit of the position in Mampee, (2021) 3 SCC 673 which directed Consumer Fora to render a decision on merits. [Diamond Exports v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2022) 4 SCC 169]

Education Law — Professional Colleges/Education — Medical and Dental Colleges — Reservation of seats/Quota/Exemption/Priority in Medical/Dental Institutions — Criteria for reservation: In this case, it was held that as per reservation scheme of UT, first priority was given to candidates whose parents were domiciles of UTs and candidate had studied in institutions of the UTs for specified classes, that is, 8 to 12. But petitioner had studied only primary classes in the UTs, due to which High Court by a well-reasoned judgment denied relief to her. Decision of High Court, affirmed, and not interfered with. In another judgment, relief had been given but that was because of the peculiar circumstances of that case and because the candidate had studied from Classes 9 to 12 in the UTs. [Muskan Samir Modasia v. Union of India, (2022) 4 SCC 225]

Environment Law — General Principles of Environmental Law — Precautionary Principle/Sustainable Development/Inter-Generational Equity Principle — Delhi Metro — Providing effective transportation vis-à-vis ecology — Phase IV of MRTS Project: Earlier phases of project had already resulted in loss of vegetation as well as flora and fauna in certain areas. Phase IV of MRTS Project may be a further threat to the ecology of NCT of Delhi/NCR. Effectuation of precautionary principle as well as principle of sustainable development, by ensuring citizens’ participation in the preservation of the environment and ecology, emphasized. Directions issued regarding role, involvement and collective responsibility of civil society without ignoring importance of governmental responsibility for reafforestation. [T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad, In re v. Union of India, (2022) 4 SCC 289]

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Ss. 14(1) & (2) and S. 30: A restricted estate can be created by a will in favour of a female, so long as it is a new and independent right and does not amount to the recognition of a pre-existing right as per the principles laid down in V. Tulasamma, (1977) 3 SCC 99. Objective of S. 14(1) is to create an absolute interest in case of a limited interest of wife where such limited estate owes its origin to the law as it stood then. Objective cannot be that a Hindu male who owned self-acquired property is unable to execute a will giving a limited estate to a wife if all other aspects including maintenance are taken care of. If it is held so it would imply that if wife is disinherited under will it would be sustainable but if a limited estate is given it would mature into an absolute interest irrespective of intent of testator. That cannot be objective of S. 14(1). [Jogi Ram v. Suresh Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 274]

Income Tax Act, 1961 — S. 40(a)(ii-b) (as inserted by Finance Act, 17 of 2013) — Income chargeable under head “profits and gains of business or profession” — Amount levied exclusively on State-owned undertaking: Claim as deduction in books of State-owned undertaking is not permissible and same is liable to income tax. Gallonage fee, licence fee and shop rental (kist), held, are in the nature of fees imposed under Abkari Act of 1902. These are fees payable for licences granted in favour of State-owned undertakings. Aspect of “exclusivity” under S. 40(a)(ii-b), held, has to be viewed from nature of undertaking on which levy is imposed and not on number of undertakings on which levy is imposed. Hence, held, S. 40(a)(ii-b) applicable to all of the abovesaid fees. [Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing & Marketing Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT, (2022) 4 SCC 240]

Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 299 and 300 — Whether culpable homicide tantamounts to murder or not: Principles reiterated regarding how to determine whether culpable homicide tantamounts to murder or not. [State of Uttarakhand v. Sachendra Singh Rawat, (2022) 4 SCC 227] 

Public Sector, Government Companies and Statutory Corporations — Employment and Service matters — Pension: Employees of autonomous bodies cannot claim, as a matter of right, same service benefits on a par with government employees merely because such autonomous bodies might have adopted Government Service Rules and/or in Governing Council there may be representative of Government and/or merely because such institution is funded by State/Central Government, more so, when such employees are governed by their own Service Rules and service conditions. State Government and autonomous Board/body cannot be put on a par. [State of Maharashtra v. Bhagwan, (2022) 4 SCC 193] 

Railways and Metros — Financing, Construction and Operation of Projects — Phase IV of Delhi Metro Project: Duties, liabilities and obligations of State Government and Central Government, regarding bearing of operational loss, repayment of loan and sharing of land cost, clarified. [M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2022) 4 SCC 317]

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.