Cases ReportedSupreme Court Cases

In this part read a very important matter, wherein a relative committed rape on the prosecutrix and none of the family members believed her and in fact beat her up when she narrated the incident, Supreme Court found it unfortunate that even the sister-in-law (Jethani) and mother-in-law though being women did not support the prosecutrix.[Phool Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1153]

Short Notes: 6


Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 25: In this case, transfer petition was filed by the wife. Transfer petition was allowed with directions for an attempt for securing an amicable settlement through mediation. [Deepa Mohan Naik v. Chandra Bhusan Pal, (2022) 2 SCC 54]

Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 — S. 11 — Cancellation of coal mine allotments — Effect of, on contracts between allottees whose allotments stood cancelled and their contractors (“prior contractors”): Entitlement of such prior contractors under such contracts, to mine coal and perform the said contracts, against subsequent allottees of the coal mines is discretionary in nature i.e. dependent upon the discretion of the subsequent allottee, even in cases where the allotment is again conferred on the same allottee post cancellation. [Punjab State Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Emta Coal Ltd., (2022) 2 SCC 1]

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Ss. 107, 106, 34, 47 and 58: Repeal of 1986 Act/Enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of Consumer Forums by virtue of new enactment i.e. 2019 Act does not affect pending proceedings. Proceedings instituted before the commencement of the 2019 Act, held, shall continue before the Consumer Forums corresponding to those under the 1986 Act. [Neena Aneja v. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd., (2022) 2 SCC 161]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 439 — Forum shopping to obtain bail: In this case, accused was charged under special Act and IPC. Vires of special Act under which accused was charged, was challenged and quashment of the proceedings was sought before High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution, upon failure to obtain bail as per law. By impugned order, respondent was released on bail by High Court, that too by way of interim relief, without at all considering seriousness of offences alleged against respondent, and other settled parameters for grant of bail in such cases. High Court did not at all even consider allegations with respect to offences under IPC. Such order, held, wholly impermissible. Hence, impugned order was quashed and respondent directed to surrender forthwith to face trial. [State of Maharashtra v. Pankaj Jagshi Gangar, (2022) 2 SCC 66]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 218 to 223(a) to (g) and S. 223 proviso — Trial whether to be joint or separate — Charging accused and trying them together: Law summarised regarding principles to be applied by trial court for determination of joint trial/separate trial/retrial. [Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab, (2022) 2 SCC 89]

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 — Ss. 1(4) proviso, 90, 87, 2(12), 2(14-AA) and 75 — Power to grant exemption: In respect of factory belonging to local authority, unless power of exemption is exercised by Government, it would be covered by provisions of S. 1(4) and liable to pay contribution. The power to grant exemption vests only with appropriate Government which can be done only after consulting Corporation and following the prescribed procedure. Said power cannot be availed by Insurance Court while deciding application under S. 75. [ESI Corpn. v. Kakinada Municipality, (2022) 2 SCC 56]

Penal Code, 1860 — S. 306 r/w Ss. 107 and 34 — Abetment of suicide — Essence of abetment — What is: Principles summarized regarding factors to determine abetment of suicide. [Mahendra K.C. v. State of Karnataka, (2022) 2 SCC 129]

Penal Code, 1860 — S. 376 — Rape: Principles summarised regarding when conviction of accused on sole testimony of victim/prosecutrix, with or without corroboration is warranted.  [Phool Singh v. State of M.P., (2022) 2 SCC 74]

Service Law — Appointment — Compassionate appointment: For appointment on compassionate ground, policy prevalent at time of death of deceased employee only is required to be considered and not subsequent policy. [State of M.P. v. Ashish Awasthi, (2022) 2 SCC 157]

Service Law — Appointment — Tenure appointment: In absence of any statutory bar under the applicable Rules, a tenure appointment made through direct recruitment by following due procedure cannot be termed as contrary to law. In a direct recruitment, appointment on a regular or tenure basis is at discretion of employer, especially when the applicable Rules do not prohibit. Therefore, there is no arbitrariness involved in not considering extension of tenure of appointee. Definition of direct recruitment would mean recruitment through a process stipulated under the applicable Rules. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, can one interpret that all direct recruitments are to be made by regular employment in absence of any statutory bar under the applicable Rules. [Union of India v. N. Murugesan, (2022) 2 SCC 25]

Service Law — Promotion — Incentive Scheme/Financial Upgradation — Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP Scheme) — Entitlement to benefit of — Requirements of: In this case, OM dt. 9-8-1999 offering Assured Career Progression was intended as “safety net” to deal with problem of genuine stagnation and hardship faced by employees due to lack of adequate promotional avenues. OM dt. 9-8-1999 subsequently clarified by OM dt. 18-7-2001 providing that an employee who refuses regular vacancy-based promotion offered before grant of ACP Scheme benefit would become ineligible to grant of ACP Scheme benefits. Thus, S and M not entitled to benefit of ACP Scheme since it was not a case of lack of promotional opportunities but an employee opting to forfeit offered promotion. As far as K and V are concerned since they were not offered regular promotion but conditional promotion on officiating basis subject to reversion, their refusal to accept officiating promotion cannot deprive them of benefits of ACP Scheme. Since K and V had superannuated in meantime, consequential relief under instant order directed to be made available to them within stipulated period. [Union of India v. Manju Arora, (2022) 2 SCC 151]