Supreme Court Weekly Round Up - Judgments [September 5-10, 2022]

[Mahakali Caves] The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal on grounds of it being devoid of merits, as the respondent authorities were held to have validly exercised its powers under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act (MMC Act) to direct the acquisition of the Appellants’ land for connecting the Mahakali Caves with the Central Industrial District. "The need stems from the traffic congestion caused on the route from the Mahakali Caves to the Central MIDC. The lack of a direct linkage requires detours to be taken that significantly increase commuting time and cause inconvenience to the general public",
noted the Court.
Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Abhay S. Oka
Case Title: Abraham Patani of Mumbai vs. State of Maharashtra
Click here to read more
[IBC] The Supreme Court has held that if the Resolution Plan ignores the statutory demands payable to any State Government or a legal authority, altogether, the Adjudicating Authority is bound to reject the Resolution Plan. Court has further held that if a company is unable to pay its debts, which should include its statutory dues to the Government and/or other authorities and there is no plan which contemplates dissipation of those debts in a phased manner, uniform proportional reduction, the company would necessarily have to be liquidated and its assets sold and distributed in the manner stipulated in Section 53 of the IBC.
Bench: Justices Indira Banerjee and AS Bopanna
Case Title: STATE TAX OFFICER (1) vs. RAINBOW PAPERS LIMITED
Click here to read more
[Section 411 IPC] Supreme Court has held that the disclosure statement of one accused cannot be accepted as a proof of the another accused having knowledge of receiving stolen goods as given under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Noting that the key ingredient for a crime is 'mens rea', the top court has held that to establish that a person is dealing with stolen property, the "believe" factor of the person is of stellar import.
Bench: Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy
Case Title: Shiv Kumar vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Click here to read more
[Appointment on Compassionate Grounds] Supreme Court has reiterated that compassionate appointment cannot be provided on superannuation/retirement, but only to the heirs of the deceased Class-IV employees.
Bench: Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna
Case Title: Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika vs. Ahmednagar Mahanagar Palika Kamgar Union
Click here to read more
[Central Excise Act] The Supreme Court on Monday, September 5th, held that a claim for refund of the excise duty on the basis of considering rejected goods as raw material is not possible under Section 173L of the Central Excise Act and the Rules, 1944.
"...for the purpose of considering the value for refund under Section 173L what is required to be considered is the value of the returned goods. As per explanation to clause (v) of Section 173L, 'value' means the market value of the excisable goods and not the ex-duty value thereof", held the Top Court while refusing to accept the submission that returned goods may be treated as raw material and therefore their value be considered for the purpose of determining the refund under Section 173L.
Bench: Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari
Case Title: M/s Peacock Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors.
Click here to read more
[CIRP] Top Court has reiterated that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) can be initiated against the Corporate Guarantor without proceeding against the principal borrower. Court noted, "Under Section 7 of the IBC, CIRP can be initiated against a Corporate entity who has given a guarantee to secure the dues of a non-corporate entity as a financial debt accrues to the corporate person, in respect of the guarantee given by it, once the borrower commits default. The guarantor is then, the Corporate Debtor."

Bench: Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari
Case Title: K. PARAMASIVAM vs. THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD. & ANR.
Click here to read more
[Valid Arbitration Agreement] The Supreme Court while deciphering whether a clause given in an agreement between the parties for construction of an apartment complex would constitute a valid arbitration agreement, relied on three recitals, namely,
clear enunciation of the mandatory nature of reference to arbitration, the method of appointing the third arbitrator being clearly mentioned wherein the two selected arbitrators were to appoint a third arbitrator and the governing law was chosen by the parties to be the Arbitration Act.
Bench: Justices Surya Kant and Abhay S Oka
Case Title: Babanrao Rajaram Pund vs. M/s. Samarth Builders & Developers & Anr.
Click here to read more
[Compensation Amount] Supreme Court has set aside an order passed by the NCDRC enhancing the amount of compensation awarded to a complainant while holding that such an order could not be passed by the Commission without discussing the disability suffered by the complainant. "Merely because in some cases, the amount of compensation has been enhanced, in other cases, the amount of compensation cannot be enhanced. While enhancing the amount of compensation to Rs. 10 lakhs as such, the learned National Commission has not at all discussed the disability suffered by the complainant. Therefore, also, the impugned judgment and order passed by the National Commission enhancing the amount of compensation to Rs. 10 lakhs is unsustainable",
a division bench observed.
Bench: Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari
Case Title: Chandigarh Nursing Home and Anr. vs. Sukhdeep Kaur
Click here to read more

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up - Judgments [September 5-10, 2022]

Articles