Administrative Law — Administrative Appeal, Review or Revision — Appeal to State Authorities — Right to appeal — Choice of forum: Party having right of appeal does not have corresponding right to insist upon consideration of appeal by forum no longer in existence, when such appeal can be duly heard by the new forum which had replaced the earlier forum, and validity of such new forum had not been challenged. [Abhyudaya Kumar Shahi v. Bharat Pradhan Filling Centre, (2022) 6 SCC 522]
Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 — Ss. 15(4)(a), (b) and (c) — Jurisdiction, powers and authority of AFT in appeal against court martial — Scope of interference: AFT would be justified in interfering with finding of court martial where its finding is legally unsustainable for any reason whatsoever or where wrong decision is rendered on question of law or where there is material irregularity in course of trial resulting in miscarriage of justice. [Union of India v. R. Metri, (2022) 6 SCC 525]
Army Rules, 1954 — R. 40 — Constitution/Composition of GCM: Members of court martial not to be lower in rank than that of delinquent officer. [Avadhesh Prakash v. Union of India, (2022) 6 SCC 559]
Army Rules, 1954 — R. 40(2) r/w R. 102 — Composition of GCM: In this case, reasons recorded for departure of requirement of members of GCM for trial of officer not to be below in rank than that officer, were held sufficient. [Union of India v. S.K. Sahni, (2022) 6 SCC 544]
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 7 R. 11: Approbation and reprobation by defendant applicant seeking rejection of plaint on ground of suit being barred under S. 257 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, held, cannot be permitted, when they had successfully made the case before the Revenue Authorities that the latter had no jurisdiction in the matter. Hence, held, application under Or. 7 R. 11 rightly rejected by trial court. [Premlata v. Naseeb Bee, (2022) 6 SCC 585]
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 100 [as it stood prior to its amendment in 1976] as applicable to Punjab and Haryana High Court r/w S. 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918: Principles summarised regarding scope of jurisdiction available to Punjab and Haryana High Court in second appeal as clarified by the five-Judge Bench in Pankajakshi,
Constitution of India — Art. 226 — Exercise of review jurisdiction — Proper mode of — Reasoned order — Necessity: It is necessary for reviewing Court to demonstrate the error(s) apparent on the face of the record which warranted the review, with reasons. [Ratan Lal Patel v. Dr Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, (2022) 6 SCC 540]
Consumer Protection — Services — Telecom Services — Jurisdiction of Consumer Forum in deciding disputes between a telecom company and a consumer: Jurisdiction under special and later statute i.e. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not ousted by the Telegraph Act, 1885. [Vodafone Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Agarwal, (2022) 6 SCC 496]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 439 — Grant of bail — Necessity of recording reasons: Though a court considering a bail application cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence and an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, but it has to indicate the prima facie reasons justifying the grant of bail. Hence, order granting bail bereft of any cogent reason(s) therefor, cannot be sustained. [Ishwarji Nagaji Mali v. State of Gujarat, (2022) 6 SCC 609]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Ss. 23 and 4 — Compensation — Market value — Determination of — Sale exemplar(s) — Consideration of: While considering sale exemplar, proximity in time to date of notification under S. 4 may be relevant factor but at the same time suitable adjustment, including for price escalation, may have to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-à-vis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. [Pramina Devi v. State of Jharkhand, (2022) 6 SCC 581]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 149 [Ss. 302/304/149]: In this case of assault by unlawful assembly resulting in death of deceased, there was defective framing of charge by not specifically charging respondent-accused herein under S. 149 IPC. It was held that ingredients for offence under S. 302 r/w S. 149 and S. 148 IPC were specifically brought to notice of accused, therefore, held, S. 464 CrPC is attracted. [State of U.P. v. Subhash, (2022) 6 SCC 508]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 34 — Common intention contemplated under — Need to establish prior concert — Prior concert — What is: Common intention contemplated by S. 34 IPC pre-supposes prior concert. It requires meeting of minds. It requires a prearranged plan before a man can be vicariously convicted for the criminal act of another. The criminal act must have been done in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused. In a given case, the plan can be formed suddenly. [Gadadhar Chandra v. State of W.B., (2022) 6 SCC 576]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 363 — Kidnapping — Ingredients of, in case of minor under 18 yrs of age: Kidnapping, held, would necessarily involve enticing or taking away any minor under 18 yrs of age, if a female, for offence under S. 363 IPC to be made out. [Mafat Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2022) 6 SCC 589]
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 302/149 and S. 148 — Eyewitnesses: In this case, presence of witness on spot found was doubtful and there were material contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in light of the abovesaid serious infirmities in the prosecution case, appellants, held, entitled to benefit of doubt. Hence, they were acquitted. [Subhash v. State of U.P., (2022) 6 SCC 592]
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 498-A and 304-B — Dowry death and cruelty — Duty of court while proceeding against relatives: The courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths and must keep in mind that relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. [Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599]
Service Law — Penalty/Punishment — Judicial review/Validity — Judicial review of punishment/penalty imposed by disciplinary authorities: In exercise of judicial review, Court does not act as appellate forum over findings of disciplinary authority and does not re-appreciate evidence on basis of which findings of misconduct have been arrived at in course of disciplinary enquiry. Further held, Court in exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether: (i) rules of natural justice have been complied with; (ii) finding of misconduct based on some evidence; (iii) statutory rules governing conduct of disciplinary enquiry were followed; (iv) findings of disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and (v) penalty disproportionate to proved misconduct. [State of Karnataka v. Umesh, (2022) 6 SCC 563]
Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 — S. 19 — Benefit of exemption from sales tax/works contract tax granted in terms of the BIFR Scheme: Benefit of exemption to tax must be traceable to powers conferred under the KGST Act and such benefits could not have been granted in terms of the BIFR Scheme dt. 17-1-2005 giving effect to the Government Order issued on 20-3-2004. Further, S. 10(1)(ii) of the KGST Act enables the State to grant exemption from sales tax only with respect to “any specific class of persons in regard to the whole or any part of their turnover” and since the 2004 Government Order benefited only a single unit i.e. the appellant, it was difficult to accept that the solitary industrial unit which was being revived under the BIFR Scheme, would form a class by itself. Further held, the tax exemption in the present matter was not given to a class of persons and the appellant was made the sole beneficiary and this was contrary to S. 10 of the KGST Act. In this case, even though the appellant was granted benefit of tax exemptions under the 2004 Government Order, this was ultra vires S. 10 of the KGST Act and such exemption cannot be continued for further assessment years, as that would amount to perpetuating and condoning a wrong, which is opposed to public policy. [Augustan Textile Colours Ltd. v. Director of Industries, (2022) 6 SCC 626]
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — S. 40 Pt. II and S. 54 — Agreement to sell or Loan agreement/Security document — Determination: On reading the document concerned as a whole, it was an agreement to sell, and not a loan agreement and/or security document as observed by trial court. Merely because in the said document the purpose of sale of property was stated to be for marriage expenses, that document would not become a loan agreement and/or security document. [Kirpal Kaur v. Ritesh, (2022) 6 SCC 620]
