2020 SCC Vol. 9 Part 1

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — S. 6 [as substituted by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 w.e.f. 9-9-2005] — Daughter’s right in coparcenary property under substituted S. 6 of the HS Act, 1956: Daughter born before date of enforcement of the 2005 Amendment Act, held, has same rights as daughter born on or after the amendment. Non-requirement of coparcener father to be alive on date of coming into force of the said amendment, explained. [Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1]

Constitution of India — Art. 136 — Maintainability of SLP: SLP against order dismissing review on merits, when original order is not challenged, not maintainable. Law summarized on the matter. [T.K. David v. Kuruppampady Service Cooperative Bank Ltd., (2020) 9 SCC 92]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 167(2) and S. 437 — Default bail/statutory bail under S. 167(2): Indefeasible right to default bail/statutory bail under S. 167(2), once statutory period expires, discussed. Condition(s) if may be imposed as: (A) precondition(s) to release on default bail, and (B) conditions post release on default bail for cooperation in investigation, reporting to police station, etc., explained. This contrasted with position obtaining in regard to regular bail under S. 437. [Saravanan v. State, (2020) 9 SCC 101]

Constitution of India — Arts. 226 and 227 — Judicial Review — Exercise of Power — Limitations thereon: High Court purporting to take over role and function of Expert Committee, not permissible. When Government accepted decision of Expert Committee and no arbitrariness or settled vitiating ground was established thereagainst, held, High Court cannot venture to sit as an expert over and above Expert Committee, in absence of any arbitrariness or any other settled ground of interference in exercise of power of judicial review. [State of Kerala v. RDS Project Ltd., (2020) 9 SCC 108]

Stamp Act, 1899 — Ss. 40(1)(b) and 3 — Deficient stamp duty and penalty — Person who can be compelled to pay: Next purchaser or subsequent transferee of the property is liable to pay pending stamp duty and penalty. Furthermore, the same cannot be deposited through postdated cheque. [MSD Real Estate LLP v. Collector of Stamps, (2020) 9 SCC 113]

Supreme Court Rules, 2013 — Or. XLVII R. 1: Opening expression “Court may review its judgment or order” confers unfettered power on Court to entertain review petitions arising from judgments or orders passed in writ petitions filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution. Comma used after this expression has to be read disjunctively as separating it from remaining contents of R. 1, which provide exceptions in respect of civil or criminal proceedings. [Kantaru Rajeevaru (Right To Religion, In Re-9 J.) (2) v. Indian Young Lawyers Assn., (2020) 9 SCC 121]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 11 and 7: In case of two different arbitration clauses in two related agreements between the same parties, principles explained regarding determination of appropriate clause that will operate in the factual matrix. The same would depend on the nature of the dispute raised between the parties. To determine the same it would be necessary to examine the agreements and other documents on record which reveal the true nature of the dispute raised. [Balasore Alloys Ltd. v. Medima LLC, (2020) 9 SCC 136]

Consumer Protection — Consumer/Consumer Dispute/Locus Standi — Class Action/Representative Complaints/Consumer Association: S. 12(1)(c) of the CP Act applies to a situation where there are numerous consumers having same interest in the matter. In that case, a complaint may be filed in a representative capacity by one or more consumers, with the permission of District Forum, on behalf of or for benefit of all the consumers so interested. The test under S. 12(1)(c) is of the sameness of interest. Procedural requirements under Or. 1 R. 8 CPC are attracted in such case by virtue of provisions of S. 13(6) of the CP Act. [Vikrant Singh Malik v. Supertech Ltd., (2020) 9 SCC 145]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 207(v) & (iii) r/w provisos I and II & Ss. 173(5) and (6) — Supply to the accused of copy of police report and documents appended thereto: Magistrate can withhold only such document referred to in Cl. (v) of S. 207 which in his opinion is “voluminous”, and not for any other reason. In case of such voluminous document, however, accused can be permitted to take inspection of document concerned either personally or through his pleader in court. Thus, even if investigating officer appends his note in respect of any particular document regarding its exclusion from copies to be granted to accused, that will be of no avail as his power is limited to do so only in respect of statements referred to in S. 173(6) CrPC. [P. Gopalkrishnan v. State of Kerala, (2020) 9 SCC 161]

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Ss. 35 and 54 and Ss. 8(c)/20(b)(ii)(C) — Search and seizure: In this case there was recovery of contraband (ganja) from a house and conviction of accused under Ss. 8(c)/20(b)(ii)(C), was based on mere presumption of ownership of aforesaid house, without any finding of conscious possession of house with accused, so as to attribute presumption under NDPS Act against him with regard to recovery of contraband. As the guilt of accused was not established beyond reasonable doubt, conviction was reversed. [Gangadhar v. State of M.P., (2020) 9 SCC 202]

Service Law — Promotion — Upgradation of Post/Cadre — Promotion or Upgradation: In this case there was deployment of Telephone Operators as Radio Operators with higher pay scale. While determining that whether it was promotion or upgradation and consequent entitlement/non-entitlement to ACP Scheme, it was held that sometimes there is fine distinction between promotion and upgradation requiring holistic view to be taken considering factual matrix of each case. [Rama Nand v. State (NCT of Delhi),(2020) 9 SCC 208]

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — Ss. 2(1)(c) and (d): “Bank”/“Banking company” under SARFAESI Act, held, includes all cooperative banks, whether registered under State legislation or otherwise. [Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule v. Vishwasrao Patil Murgud Sahakari Bank Ltd., (2020) 9 SCC 215]