2018 SCC Vol. 7 August 28, 2018 Part 3

SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 — Regns. 2(c), 2(e)(i), 2(e)(ii), 2(h), 2(ha) and 3 — Insider trading: Regn. 2(e)(i) is in two parts; first part has reference to any person who is connected with company or is deemed to be connected with company and the second part being that such person must reasonably be expected to have access to unpublished price sensitive information by virtue of such connection in respect of securities of a company. Giving the word “and” its ordinary meaning and in a conjunctive sense, second limb of Regn. 2(e)(i) is also to be satisfied. Further, under second part of Regn. 2(e)(i), connected person must be “reasonably expected” to have access to unpublished price sensitive information and expression “reasonably expected” cannot be a mere ipse dixit. There must be material to show that such person can reasonably be so expected to have access to unpublished price sensitive information. [Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju v. SEBI, (2018) 7 SCC 443]

Insurance — Payment of claim — Currency exchange rate — Relevant date for conversion of currency in an action to recover an amount payable in foreign currency — Determination of, as per insurance contract: Six dates compete for fixing rate of exchange at which foreign currency amount has to be converted into currency of the country in which action for recovery has been commenced and decided, namely, (1) date when amount became due and payable; (2) date of commencement of action; (3) date of decree; (4) date when Court orders execution to issue; (5) date when the decretal amount is paid or realised; and (6) where decree is passed in terms of award made in a foreign currency, then date of the award. [Meenakshi Saxena v. ECGC Ltd., (2018) 7 SCC 479]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — S. 23 — Compensation — Computation of — Exemplar sales deeds — When to be relied on: In this case, Reference Court, as well as High Court, have not considered sale deeds produced on behalf of State, which reveals prima facie value of certain lands as being in middle of acquired land, in close proximity to and adjoining land acquired under notification of present case. No reason was given as to why High Court, while coming to its conclusion, has not referred to sale statistics. If sale statistics are to be ignored, High Court should have furnished reasons for doing so. Method of granting compensation on basis of cumulative increase as done in Ashrafi case was not permissible on facts, in view of sale deeds produced. Compensation without considering evidence on record cannot be said to be justifiable. Land in Ashrafi case was acquired in 1995 and was very small and was for a commercial purpose, however, land in question now was acquired in 2005. There being a gap of about 10 yrs between two acquisitions, relying on such an acquisition of a decade ago may be unsafe. Present case involves more than 229 acres of land. Court cannot lose sight of facts and documents. Moreover, land in question is acquired mainly for a residential colony, and about 5% commercial area to cater to needs of such residential colony will also be built. Since reasons assigned by High Court while coming to conclusion were assigned solely based on Ashrafi case, and as evidence on record adduced by both parties was not considered, much less properly considered, matter, needs reconsideration by High Court inasmuch as High Court in such matters would be last Court to decide matter on facts. Impugned judgment passed by High Court set aside, and matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law, to decide first appeals on merits as early as possible, keeping in mind that land was acquired in 2005. [Loveleen Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2018) 7 SCC 492]

Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 228-A, 376 and 342 — Rape case: Use of name of victim all through in judgments of both trial court and High Court is not consistent with S. 228-A, though Expln. makes exception in favour of superior court judgments. Nonetheless, every attempt should be made by all courts not to disclose identity of victim in terms of S. 228-A. [Lalit Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2018) 7 SCC 499]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Ss. 100, 99, 104 and Chs. V and VI — State Transport Undertaking (STUs) — State monopoly of notified routes in public Interest: A temporary permit cannot be issued to a private stage carriage operator to traverse on the notified route which is being served by the State Transport Undertaking, in excess of the permissible distance provided under the scheme. [Kerala SRTC v. Baby P.P., (2018) 7 SCC 501]

U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 (32 of 1961) — S. 15(12) r/w S. 15(1) — Notice of no-confidence motion against Pramukh — Validity of: The conditions precedent for stipulation of the period of one year after the expiration from the date of the meeting are dependent on three situations, namely, (i) if the motion is not carried out as contemplated under S. 15(11), (ii) if the meeting would not be held for want of the quorum, and (iii) the notice of no-confidence motion should be in respect of the same Pramukh. [Kiran Pal Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 7 SCC 521]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Ss. 23 and 54 — Compensation — Computation of — Capitalisation method: In this case it was held that High Court, while discussing material on record to arrive at conclusion based on a capitalisation method, had overlooked ample material on record. Though, High Court, while observing that plantation of about 325 orange trees was done in 1981-1982, as was apparent from Ext. 27, as well as relying upon report of Tahsildar, disclosing about 300 to 325 plants of oranges, had strangely refused to grant compensation for orange trees solely on ground that these orange trees were not fruit-bearing trees. Except referring to aforementioned factor, no other factor was discussed by High Court while erroneously coming to conclusion on grant of compensation based on capitalisation method. [Bilquis v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 7 SCC 530]

Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 302 and 324 — Murder trial: In this case there was fight between accused and deceased and assault was alleged by appellant-accused on head of deceased with a wooden log, resulted in his death. As there were material variations/ contradictions in testimonies of witnesses and serious lacunae in prosecution case, accused was entitled to benefit of doubt. Hence, conviction of accused reversed. [Kumar v. State, (2018) 7 SCC 536]

Income Tax Act, 1961 — S. 11: Setting off, of excess expenditure incurred by the trust/charitable institution in earlier assessment year against income of subsequent years. [CIT v. Subros Educational Society, (2018) 7 SCC 548]

Representation of the People Act, 1951 — S. 151-A proviso (a) — Holding of bye-election within six months from date of occurrence of vacancy — Conditions for: When election petition is pending against election of Member then even if he/she tenders resignation and same accepted by Speaker, bye-election cannot be held. [Pramod Laxman Gudadhe v. Election Commission of India, (2018) 7 SCC 550]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Ss. 149(2), (1), 66(1), (3), 2(28), (31), (47) and 166 — Defences available to insurer: Having regard to S. 66(1) of MV Act, 1988 which prescribes that no owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority, held, use of a vehicle as a transport vehicle in public place without a permit is a fundamental statutory infraction. Though S. 66(3) of MV Act, 1988 carves out certain exceptions to S. 66(1), in order to invoke those exceptions the same must be pleaded and proved. Said exceptions cannot be taken aid of in the course of argument to seek absolution from liability. [Amrit Paul Singh v. Tata AIG General Insurance Co Ltd., (2018) 7 SCC 558]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 154 and 460 — General Diary: Non-maintenance of General Diary prior to preliminary enquiry not per se illegal though an irregularity. Consequences of non-maintenance depend on merits of case, a matter of trial. It is for trial court to decide effect and find out whether it causes any prejudice and not High Court. Moreover, aim of preliminary enquiry is to check false prosecution against public servants by misusing process of law for personal vengeance. [State v. H. Srinivas, (2018) 7 SCC 572]

Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 463, 465 & 464 and Expln. 2 to S. 464 — Conviction for making of false document — When sustainable: S. 463 defines offence of forgery, while S. 464 substantiates the same by providing answer as to when a false document could be said to have been made for the purpose of committing offence of forgery under S. 463. Therefore, S. 464 defines one of ingredients of forgery i.e. making of false document. Charge of forgery cannot be imposed on/sustained against a person who is not the maker of false document in question. Making of a document is different than causing it to be made. As Expln. 2 to S. 464 further clarifies, for constituting offence under S. 464, it is imperative that a false document is made and accused person is maker of the same, otherwise accused person is not liable for offence of forgery. [Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj, (2018) 7 SCC 581]

Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 — Ss. 3, 4, 13, 14, 15 Sch. II Para 29 — Object — Socio-economic legislation: As delay in payment of wages and compensation to beneficiaries; and reduction in person days and consequent reduction in allocation of funds from projections made by State Governments and UTs have been alleged, directions issued to remedy the situation. [Swaraj Abhiyan (VI) v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 591]

Government Contracts and Tenders — Remedies/Relief — Restitutionary remedies — Recompense for benefit conferred — Recovery of Money Paid/Interest/Profit Earned — Revival of Super Bazar at New Delhi: In this case there was termination of arrangement of revival and the investment made by the bidder (WPL) was refunded along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Denial of interest on investment brought in by way of share capital by bidder and adjustment of losses incurred in Super Bazar from the amount to be refunded to bidder, not proper. [Writers And Publisher (P) Ltd. v. A.K. Mishra, (2018) 7 SCC 608]