Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 96, Or. 41 Rr. 31 and 33: Principles summarised regarding powers and duty of first appellate court in deciding an appeal under S. 96 CPC r/w Or. 41 R. 31. Cryptic and cursory approach of High Court as first appellate court is not sustainable. Remand to first appellate court to determine the matter afresh, when unwarranted, explained. [Somakka v. K.P. Basavaraj, (2022) 8 SCC 261]
Court Fees Act, 1870 — S. 7(iv)(d) and provisos thereto — Valuation of court fees: Market value of immovable property involved in litigation might have its relevance depending on nature of relief claimed but, ultimately, valuation of any particular suit has to be decided primarily with reference to relief/reliefs claimed. It remains trite that it is nature of relief claimed in plaint which is decisive of question of suit valuation. As a necessary corollary, market value does not become decisive of suit valuation merely because an immovable property is subject-matter of litigation. [Bharat Bhushan Gupta v. Pratap Narain Verma, (2022) 8 SCC 333]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 145 — Dispute concerning land or water likely to cause breach of peace: In this case, according to the petitioner, findings on title and possession had been recorded in the order passed by the Magistrate on 1-4-2010, and they would prejudice the petitioner in all judicial proceedings. Keeping in mind the mandate contained in S. 145(4) CrPC, held, that the determination of the Magistrate is without reference to merits of the claims of any of the parties. In this case, clarified that the observations recorded by the Magistrate in the order dt. 1-4-2010, will not be treated as a binding determination on the issues pertaining to possession and title. The interests of the petitioner were fully protected by High Court, by relegating the petitioner to seek the redressal of its grievance, before a competent civil court. [Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd. v. Inspector of Police, (2022) 8 SCC 238]
Environment Law — General Principles of Environmental Law — Polluter Pays Principle and Remedial/Compensatory/Punitive Measures: Owners of demolished flats illegally constructed are not entitled to recover interest from builders/promoters/persons/officers responsible for raising illegal constructions, on principal amount paid by evicted flat owners. [Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority v. Maradu Municipality, (2022) 8 SCC 240]
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — S. 12-A: Grant of withdrawal of CIRP proceedings, after constitution of Committee of Creditors (CoC), in exercise of power under Art. 142 of the Constitution, when warranted, explained. Relevance of settlement between homebuyers-applicants and corporate debtor, and, protection of homebuyers’ interest, also explained. [Amit Katyal v. Meera Ahuja, (2022) 8 SCC 320]
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — S. 9: Withdrawal of company petition/corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) proceedings, before constitution of Committee of Creditors (CoC), upon settlement between the parties, permissible. [Kamal K. Singh v. Dinesh Gupta, (2022) 8 SCC 330]
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (30 of 1999) — S. 23 r/w Ss. 2(1)(d), 2(1)(e), 2(1)(f), 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) and 18 — Sanction or prior approval for prosecution under MCOCA: Having regard to the stringent provisions of MCOCA, its provisions need to be very strictly interpreted and, thus, the Court has to consider as to whether the basic and threshold requirements, as per combined reading of cls. (d), (e) and (f) of S. 2(1), are fulfilled. If they are not so fulfilled, mere use of the expressions of the statute in the sanction order would be of no effect but, on the other hand, if the requirements are fulfilled, mere want of any expression or word in a particular passage in the sanction order would not take away the substance of the matter. Scope of “organised crime” under MCOCA, explained. [Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra, (2022) 8 SCC 282]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 302 — Murder trial: In this case, appellant-accused herein after sprinkling chilli powder into eyes of deceased, stabbed him with knife on his chest and abdomen, resulting in grievous injuries to him, leading to his death in hospital. Guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt, hence conviction was confirmed. [Mekala Sivaiah v. State of A.P., (2022) 8 SCC 253]
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 409 and 420 r/w S. 120-B — Cheating and misappropriation: Principles summarized regarding interference with conviction in revisional jurisdiction in the case of cheating and misappropriation, when permissible. [Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2022) 8 SCC 204]
Registration Act, 1908 — Ss. 32 to 35 — Registration: Three essential steps comprising registration, explained. Proper forum for challenging the same at each step, clarified. [Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd. v. S.P. Velayutham, (2022) 8 SCC 210]
SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 — Regns. 9 and 10 r/w Regns. 3(b), (c), (d), 4(1) and 4(2)(e), (f), (k) and (r) — Disclosure of investigation report: A quasi-judicial authority has a duty to disclose the material that has been relied upon at the stage of adjudication. Further, an ipse dixit of the authority that it has not relied on certain material would not exempt it of its liability to disclose such material if it is relevant to and has a nexus to the action that is taken by the authority. In all reasonable probability, such material would have influenced the decision reached by the authority. Thus, the actual test is whether the material that is required to be disclosed is relevant for purpose of adjudication; if it is, then the principles of natural justice require its due disclosure. [T. Takano v. SEBI, (2022) 8 SCC 162]
Securities, Markets and Exchanges — Manipulative/Fraudulent, Unfair trade practices and Market abuse — Penalty for engaging in manipulative trades as per the provisions of the SEBI Act and the relevant SEBI Regulations — Quantum of: Penalty by way of bar from trading in proprietary account, for a period of four years not considered as arbitrary, harsh or distinctly disproportionate to the nature of the violation. Relevance of wider consequences of action on the securities market, as opposed to quantum of gain made, explained. [MBL & Co. Ltd. v. SEBI, (2022) 8 SCC 273]
Service Law — Recruitment Process — Eligibility criteria/conditions — All-India Services — Physical fitness: R. 7(a)(vii), Appendix III of the CSE Rules, 2014 envisaging that candidate declared “temporarily unfit” must apply for re-medical examination “ordinarily” not exceeding six months at “maximum”. Here, word “ordinarily” must be conjointly read with word “maximum” during which candidate declared “temporarily unfit” has to approach for re-medical examination from date of uploading of medical examination report on website of Department which indicates outer limit of six months. [Union of India v. K. Rajashekhara Reddy, (2022) 8 SCC 246]
