Service Law — Appointment — Criteria for appointment: Requisite educational qualifications of the candidate need not be possessed in one certificate, and certificates obtained by candidate can be considered cumulatively. [Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi v. State of U.P., (2020) 2 SCC 167]
Service Law — Reservation/Concession/Exemption/Relaxation and Affirmative Action: Revised requisition dt. 20-8-2014 and OM dt. 12-10-2014 by State of U.P. notifying revised vacancies in different categories of a particular subordinate service was held valid since it was only intended to rectify wrongful calculation of number of vacancies in different categories and to comply with requisite percentage of quota of reservation in different categories as per 1994 Act. [Anupal Singh v. State of U.P., (2020) 2 SCC 173]
Rent Control and Eviction — Arrears of Rent/Default/Tender of Rent/Striking off Defence — Default in payment of rent — Disputed questions of fact: In this case, there was remand to Rent Controller to decide the disputed questions of fact based on evidence. The Supreme Court fixed provisional rent to be paid pending final disposal of proceedings by Rent Controller. Tenant also directed to furnish tangible security to Rent Controller, so that if case is decided against tenant, landlord does not have to run after him to collect money. [Espire Infolabs (P) Ltd. v. Sadhana Foundation, (2020) 2 SCC 214]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 228 — Framing of charge: At time of framing charges, only prima facie case is to be seen and whether case is beyond reasonable doubt, is not to be seen at such stage. Court has to see if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against accused. While evaluating materials, strict standard of proof is not required; only prima facie case against accused is to be seen. Judge is not required to record detailed reasons as to why such charge is framed. On perusal of record and hearing of parties, if Judge is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for presuming that accused has committed offence triable by Court of Session, he shall frame charge against accused for such offence. [Bhawna Bai v. Ghanshyam, (2020) 2 SCC 217]
Consumer Protection — Consumer/Consumer Dispute/Locus Standi — Subrogation/Assignment of Consumer Claims: Complaint filed by insurer as a subrogee of consumer, held, maintainable. Further held that the hotel-owner cannot contract out of liability for its negligence or that of its servants in respect of a vehicle of its guest in any circumstance and once possession of vehicle is handed to hotel staff or valet, there is an implied contractual obligation to return vehicle in a safe condition upon direction of owner. However, it would not be proper to impose a standard of strict liability upon hotel owners i.e. hotel cannot be made strictly liable for safety of vehicles, in all situations without proof of negligence on its part. Thus, in cases where such a bailment relationship is found to exist between hotel and its guest, prima facie liability rule should be applied in respect of vehicles so bailed to the hotel. [Taj Mahal Hotel v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 2 SCC 224]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 397 — Dacoity — Circumstantial evidence: In this case of dacoity, evidence as to alleged incriminating conduct of accused, was held not reliable and recovery of stolen articles was also found doubtful. The fingerprints report was not reliable and co-accused was granted acquittal. Hence, acquittal of appellant was restored. [Nagaraja v. State of Karnataka, (2020) 2 SCC 257]
Consumer Protection — Consumer/Consumer Dispute/Locus Standi — “Commercial purpose”: Law clarified regarding what is “commercial purpose”. The principles for determination of “commercial purpose, also summarized. Negative test that every transaction which does not fall within ambit of “earning livelihood by means of self-employment” would necessarily be for a commercial purpose, held, not the correct approach. Rather, correct approach is to see whether purchaser of goods and services, be it a commercial entity or not, has purchased the same for their own personal use and consumption or for the personal use and consumption of some other beneficiary, and such purchase does not have a close and direct nexus to ordinary profit-generating activities of the purchaser nor dominant intention or purpose of transaction was profit generation for the purchaser and/or their beneficiary. [Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust v. Unique Shanti Developers, (2020) 2 SCC 265]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 19 r/w S. 34: Non-granting of opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses is not a ground to set aside the award, when parties had agreed to such procedure. There is estoppel against challenging agreed upon procedure and raising contention of misconduct on part of arbitrator for having following agreed upon procedure. [Jagjeet Singh Lyallpuri v. Unitop Apartments & Builders Ltd., (2020) 2 SCC 279]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 228 and 227 — Framing of charge: Principles to be followed by court for framing of charge, summarized. There must be appreciation of material available on record at the stage of framing of charge. Grave suspicion, reiterated, is enough for framing of charges. [State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Charan Bansal, (2020) 2 SCC 290]
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (1 of 1972) — S. 50 — Employees’ dues recoverable as arrears of land revenue — Non-priority of, over charge of secured creditor: Merely by virtue of being recoverable as arrears of land revenue, the employees’ dues, in respect of which a recovery certificate had been issued by the Industrial Court, cannot be treated as a paramount charge in terms of S. 169(1) of the Land Revenue Code and under S. 169(2) they would take precedence only over unsecured claims. [Maharashtra State Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Babulal Lade, (2020) 2 SCC 310]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 319 and 173 — Summoning a person as additional accused — Effect of protest petition not having been filed at S. 173 stage by complainant/informant: The fact that a protest petition had not been filed by appellant complainant when the report was submitted under S. 173 CrPC did not render court powerless to exercise its powers under S. 319 CrPC on the basis of evidence which had emerged during trial. The exercise of discretion by trial Judge to summon second respondent fulfilled the requirements of S. 319 CrPC and was consistent with the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court. Thus, order passed by trial Judge, allowing application and issuing summons to second respondent under S. 319 CrPC, restored. [Saeeda Khatoon Arshi v. State of U.P., (2020) 2 SCC 323]
