2022 SCC Vol. 6 Part 3

SCC Part


Consumer Protection — Services — Legal Services/Advocates — Services rendered by advocate — When may amount to deficiency in service: In each and every case where a litigant has lost on merits and there is no negligence on part of advocate(s), held, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service by the advocate(s) concerned. [Nandlal Lohariya v. Jagdish Chand Purohit, (2022) 6 SCC 456]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 167(2) — Default bail — Grounds on which may be claimed: (A) Charge-sheet submitted by investigating agency which did not have, or, had lost the jurisdiction to conduct the investigation. (B) Even if the investigating agency in question, had jurisdiction or retained its jurisdiction, charge-sheet submitted before court which had no jurisdiction in respect of the offence(s) concerned. Thus, default bail claimed on ground that as charge-sheet was not filed within the stipulated period by investigating agency which had jurisdiction to submit the same, and/or the charge-sheet was not submitted in a proper court entrusted with jurisdiction, the accused had indefeasible right to bail. [Naser Bin Abu Bakr Yafai v. State of Maharashtra, (2022) 6 SCC 308]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 167(2) — Default bail: For extension of time for completing investigation from 90 to 180 days in respect of UAPA offences, competent authority is not the Magistrate, but “the Court” under S. 43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA. [Sadique v. State of M.P., (2022) 6 SCC 339]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 319 — Caution in exercise of power: Principles reiterated regarding exercise of power under the section. Strong and cogent evidence against person(s) concerned sought to be added as accused under S. 319 is necessary. [Sagar v. State of U.P., (2022) 6 SCC 389]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 438 — Anticipatory bail: In this case, application for anticipatory bail by appellant-accused herein apprehending arrest in connection with crime registered pursuant to FIR lodged under Ss. 376/328/506/313 IPC was dismissed by High Court. However, considering entirety of situation, appellant was held entitled to relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, while setting aside High Court’s order, necessary directions were issued regarding it. [Abhishek Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2022) 6 SCC 399]

Government Contracts and Tenders — Remedies/Relief — Public Law/Writ Remedies/Interim relief — Scope of judicial review: General principles/restraints for exercise of, particularly with respect to the contracts/projects funded by the foreign countries and with respect to mega national projects, summarized. Foreign funded contract and ordinary Government funded contracts funded from Consolidated Fund of India, distinguished between, regarding scope of judicial review. [National High Speed Rail Corpn. Ltd. v. Montecarlo Ltd., (2022) 6 SCC 401]

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — S. 31(1) r/w Ss. 13 and 15: Claims of Government/Revenue against corporate debtor which are not lodged before resolution professional, after issuance of public notices under Ss. 13 and 15, and not forming part of approved resolution plan, as such, on the date on which the resolution plan was approved by the NCLT, all claims stood frozen, and no claim, which is not a part of the resolution plan, would survive. [Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (2022) 6 SCC 343]

Insurance — Contract of Insurance/Policy/Terms/Cover Note — Privity/Third Party Liability/Third Party Insurance: There is necessity of proper and specific communication of the terms and conditions of insurance policy linked with banking services, where the insurance is provided by third party insurer such insurance policy, to the beneficiary. [Anju Kalsi v. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2022) 6 SCC 394]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Ss. 10, 78 and 82 r/w Ss. 3, 4, 8, 9, 15, 16, 118(g), 131 and 131-A: Payment to a person other than holder/holder in due course, when does not amount to a valid discharge, explained. [Pradeep Kumar v. Postmaster General, (2022) 6 SCC 351]

Sales Tax and VAT — Concession/Exemption/Incentive/Rebate/Subsidy — Exemption from payment of purchase tax: Exemption from payment of purchase tax can be denied for violating eligibility criteria/conditions. Principle of promissory estoppel is not applicable when contradictory to statute. [State of Gujarat v. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel (India) Ltd., (2022) 6 SCC 459]

Service Law — Termination of service — Natural justice: Compliance with natural justice when mandatory and termination without holding enquiry, when permissible, explained. It is necessary to determine true nature of employment of employee concerned and whether the employment in substance a regular appointment, though on its face it was a contractual appointment. [K. Ragupathi v. State of U.P., (2022) 6 SCC 346]

Water, Rivers, Canals, Dams and Waterways — Canals, Dams/Barrages and Irrigation — Safety and Maintenance: Directions and clarifications issued regarding safety of Mullaperiyar Dam and issues concerning its surveillance, inspection, operation and maintenance. [Joe Joseph v. State of T.N., (2022) 6 SCC 384]

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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