2021 SCC Vol. 5 Part 2

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 41 Rr. 27 to 29: Order for taking additional evidence in appeal without following procedure under Or. 41 Rr. 27, 28 and 29 is not permissible. Unless and until procedure under Or. 41 Rr. 27 to 29 is followed, parties to appeal cannot be permitted to lead additional evidence and/or appellate court is not justified to direct court from whose decree appeal is preferred or any other subordinate court, to take such evidence and to send it when taken to appellate court. [H.S. Goutham v. Rama Murthy, (2021) 5 SCC 241]

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — S. 2(1)(r) — Unfair trade practice — Terms of agreement between buyer and seller whether one-sided and the same constitutes unfair trade practice: In case, when agreement fastening liability on purchaser to pay simple interest @ 12% p.a. if he failed to pay instalments on time, whereas if seller failed to hand over possession on time he would have to pay compensation @ Rs 2 per square foot per month for period of delay, held, such condition is one-sided and constitutes unfair trade practice. [NBCC (India) Ltd. v. Shri Ram Trivedi, (2021) 5 SCC 273]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 319 — Object and purpose of S. 319: Principles reiterated regarding scope and ambit of powers of Magistrate under S. 319 and when additional accused may be added and “evidence” on basis of which may be added. [Sartaj Singh v. State of Haryana, (2021) 5 SCC 337]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 439(2) — Cancellation of bail: In this case, bail was obtained by pleading change in circumstances, but without disclosing factum of dismissal of earlier bail application. Conduct of appellant in not disclosing the fate of the earlier bail application not approved, but considering certain subsequent developments including grant of bail to co-accused, impugned cancellation order was set aside and appellant was directed to be enlarged on bail. [Jitendera Taneja v. State of U.P., (2021) 5 SCC 308]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 200 to 204 — Frivolous or vexatious complaints — Duty and powers of Magistrate/trial court in preventing abuse of court process: Trial courts have the power to not merely decide on acquittal or conviction of the accused person after the trial, but also the duty to nip frivolous litigations in the bud even before they reach the stage of trial by discharging the accused in fit cases. This would not only save judicial time that comes at the cost of public money, but would also protect the right to liberty that every person is entitled to under Art. 21 of the Constitution. In this context, the trial Judges have as much, if not more, responsibility in safeguarding fundamental rights, as the Supreme Court. [Krishna Lal Chawla v. State of U.P., (2021) 5 SCC 435]

Environment Law — Forests, Wildlife and Zoos —Afforestation/Reforestation/Diversion/Encroachment/Illegal activity/Intrusion into Forest land/Wildlife sanctuaries/parks: Diversion of forest land for carrying out certain public welfare projects in State of H.P., permitted with and without conditions, as per directions issued herein. [T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2021) 5 SCC 358]

Evidence Act, 1872 — S. 32(1) — Multiple dying declarations — Evidentiary value of — Duty of court in such cases: Each dying declaration has to be considered independently on its own merit as to its evidentiary value and one cannot be rejected because of contents of the other. Court has to consider each of them in its correct perspective and satisfy itself as to which one of them or which of them reflects true state of affairs, and accordingly adjudicate the matter. [Nagabhushan v. State of Karnataka, (2021) 5 SCC 222]

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 — S. 20 Expln. — Effect of: In terms of S. 20, in all cases where the accused was above 16 yrs but below 18 yrs of age on the date of occurrence, the proceedings pending in the court would continue and be taken to the logical end subject to an exception that upon finding the juvenile to be guilty, the court would not pass an order of sentence against him but the juvenile would be referred to the Board for appropriate orders under the 2000 Act. [Devilal v. State of M.P., (2021) 5 SCC 292]

MCI Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997 — Regn. 6 and Note 2: Migration from an unrecognised college to a recognised college, held, is impermissible. Migration cannot be permitted contrary to the Regulations. [Medical Council of India v. Anchal Parihar, (2021) 5 SCC 417]

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Ss. 37, 67, 8, 9-A, 25-A, 23 and 29 — Limitations on grant of bail under NDPS Act: In this case, there was non-application of mind by High Court to rival submissions and, particularly, to seriousness of allegations involving offence punishable under NDPS Act. It was held that merely recording submissions of parties does not amount to indication of judicial, or, for that matter, judicious application of mind by High Court to basic question as to whether bail should be granted. Provisions of S. 37 of the NDPS Act provide legal norms which have to be applied in determining whether a case for grant of bail has been made out. Herein, there has been serious infraction by High Court of its duty to apply law. High Court misapplied law to facts in arriving at decision for grant of bail to respondent-accused. Consequently, bail granted by High Court to respondent, stood cancelled. [Union of India v. Prateek Shukla, (2021) 5 SCC 430]

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 — S. 16 proviso — Appeal — Delay — Condonation of — NGT’s refusal to exercise discretion — “Sufficient cause” not construed liberally by NGT — Legality: An appeal to NGT in matters like environmental clearance for construction of Greenfield international airport is no ordinary matter. It has potential of irrevocably changing environment with possibility of likely injury. Application of judicial mind by an independent tribunal in such cases, at first appellate stage, is almost a necessity. [Sridevi Datla v. Union of India, (2021) 5 SCC 321]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Ss. 139 and 118: Presumption in case of voluntarily signed blank cheque leaf as to legally enforceable debt, held, available against the accused even in case when he voluntarily signed and handed over a blank cheque leaf towards some payment. [Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian, (2021) 5 SCC 283]

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 — Ss. 2(r), 2(s), 2(zc), 2(y) and 20: Principle of reasonable accommodation, discussed. Intrinsic to individual dignity is recognising worth of every person as equal member of society, respect for dignity of others and fostering conditions in which every individual can evolve according to his capacities. Principle of reasonable accommodation acknowledges that if disability as a social construct must be remedied, conditions must affirmatively be created for facilitating development of disabled i.e. it is founded in norm of inclusion. Exclusion negates individual dignity and worth. Accommodation implies positive obligation to create conditions conducive to growth and fulfilment of disabled in every aspect of their existence. Accommodation which law mandates is “reasonable” since it has to meet requirement of each condition of disability. Expectations of disabled person are unique to nature of his disability and character of impediments encountered as its consequence. Reasonable accommodation determinations must be based on case-to-case basis in consultation with disabled person concerned. [Vikash Kumar v. UPSC, (2021) 5 SCC 370]

Service Law — Penalty/Punishment — Norms/Rules/Principles: Principles explained regarding determination of the applicable norms when there are conflicting requirements in the statutory Rules and statutory Regulations. Statutory Rules which are specifically applicable to service to which employee belongs vis-à-vis statutory Regulations which provide for a more general dispensation. Moreover, statutory provision providing for framing of such specifically applicable statutory Rules also contain non obstante clause. [U.P. Milk Union & Dairy Federation Centralised Services v. Jagpal Singh, (2021) 5 SCC 259]

Service Law — Recruitment Process — Norms/Principles/Rules applicable: Special rules for specialised post are valid. Rr. 5 and 10 of U.P. Police Motor Transport Unit Subordinate Officers Service Rules, 2015, relating to appointment for the Post of Head Constable Driver, Motor Transport which is highly technical, held valid. [Rajesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 5 SCC 421]

Service Law — Reinstatement/Back Wages/Arrears — Reinstatement — Parity: Direction to reinstate petitioners whose services were terminated because of errors in selection process finding that though they were beneficiaries of irregular select list, but petitioners were not responsible therefor and were appointed after completion of training and had worked for some time, held sustainable. [Anmol Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand, (2021) 5 SCC 424]

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — S. 43-A: In this case, Kerala journalist, namely, S was arrested in State of U.P. Permission to visit Kerala was sought by applicant S for seeing his mother lying in a critical condition and not likely to survive for long, the same was granted subject to certain conditions. [Kerala Union of Working Journalists v. Union of India, (2021) 5 SCC 311]

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 — S. 6 — Excess land — Point in time at which to be determined: As per S. 6 the determination of “excess land” is to be made considering the status of the land at the time of commencement of the principal Act, and not at the time of filing of the declaration. In this case, admittedly partition was affected after the commencement of the Act and it would not affect the validity of the determination of excess land owned by the joint family at the time of commencement of the Act. [U.A. Basheer v. State of Karnataka, (2021) 5 SCC 313]