Professional Documents
Culture Documents
100 SC Judgments of 2021
100 SC Judgments of 2021
Home
/
Top Stories
/
Top Stories
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
19 Dec 2021 4:51 AM GMT
x
Ad Free Content
Subscribe Now
Already a subscriber?
Login
As 2021 draws to a close, LiveLaw brings to you a round-up of the major
judgments of the Supreme Court of this year.
This year, in view of the huge number of significant judgments, the round-
up is done in three parts. This parts covers 52 major decisions from January
to June 2021. The second and third parts will cover the significant
judgments delivered during the second half of 2021.
January 2021
1. Supreme Court Upholds Centre's Plan For The Central Vista Project
by 2:1 Majority, Justice Khanna Dissents
[Case: Rajeev Suri v. DDA & Ors.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 1; Order dated
January 5, 2021]
The Supreme Court upheld the Central Government's plan for construction
of the Central Vista project and the government's proposal to construct a
new Parliament in Lutyen's Delhi. A Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar,
Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna pronounced the judgement, with
Justices Khanwilkar and Maheshwari forming the majority, and with Justice
Khanna pronouncing a separate judgement.
[Case : N.N. GLOBAL MERCANTILE PVT. LTD VS. INDO UNIQUE FLAME
LTD; CITATION: LL 2021 SC 13; Order dated January 13, 2021]
The bench also observed that the ground that allegations of fraud are not
arbitrable is a wholly archaic view, which has become obsolete, and
deserves to be discarded.
[Case: Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Abhishek Khanna; Citation: LL 2021
SC 14A; Order dated January 11, 2021]
The Court held thus while disposing an appeal filed by a Developer against
an order passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
directing it to refund of the amounts deposited by the Apartment Buyers on
account of the inordinate delay in completing the construction and
obtaining the Occupation Certificate.
In the facts of the case, the Court observed that Section 4 of the Act could
come to the aid of the accused as the offence committed, of which they have
been found guilty, is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
The court also added that since they were under 21 years of age on the date
of the offence and not on the date of conviction, Section 6 would not come
to their aid.
7. Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petitions Challenging Aadhaar
Verdict, Justice Chandrachud Dissents
The review petitions were not heard in open court, but 'by circulation'.
According to majority, a change in the law or subsequent decision/judgment
of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for
review. On the other hand, Justice Chandrachud opined that the review
petitions should be kept pending until the larger bench decides the
questions referred to it in Rojer Mathew.
February 2021
The court observed this while dismissing the appeal filed by NIA against an
order of the Kerala High Court granting bail to the accused in palm
chopping of Thodupuzha Newman College professor TJ Joseph in 2011.
In Surendra Mohan, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court had held that
stipulating a limit of 50% disability in hearing impairment or visual
impairment as a condition to be eligible for the post of a judicial officer is a
legitimate restriction. In the present case, the Supreme Court said, "The
principle of reasonable accommodation captures the positive obligation of the
State and private parties to provide additional support to persons with
disabilities to facilitate their full and effective participation in society."
"We have considered the earlier judicial pronouncements and recorded our
opinion that the Constitutional scheme comes with a right to protest and
express dissent but with an obligation to have certain duties. The right to
protest cannot be anytime and everywhere. There may be some spontaneous
protests but in case of prolonged dissent or protest, there cannot be continued
occupation of public place affecting rights of others," the Court said.
12. Supreme Court Closes Suo Moto Case Taken To Probe "Larger
Conspiracy" Behind Sexual Harassment Allegations Against Ex-CJI
Gogoi
The bench observed that enquiry panel headed by former SC judge Justice
AK Patnaik has submitted a report opining that a conspiracy behind the
sexual harassment allegations cannot be "ruled out". The report also
surmised that certain tough stances taken by ex-CJI Gogoi during his tenure
could have triggered the allegations. The report also referred to an
Intelligence Bureau input that several persons were unhappy with Justice
Gogoi for driving the Assam-NRC process.
March 2021
Case: P Mohanraj & Ors. v. M/s Shah Brothers Ispat Ltd.; Citation: LL 2021
SC 120]
The Supreme Court held that the declaration of moratorium under Section
14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code(IBC) covers criminal proceedings
for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act against the corporate debtor.
"We hold that a Section 138/141 NI Act proceeding against a corporate debtor
is covered by Section 14(1)(a) of the IBC", Justice RF Nariman said reading
out the operative portion of the judgment.
16. Limitation Period For Filing 'Section 34' Petition Commences From
Date Of Receipt Of Signed Copy Of Arbitral Award By Parties: Supreme
Court
17. OBC Reservation Cannot Exceed 50%: Supreme Court Reads Down
Section 12(2)(c) Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act
The Supreme Court read down Section 12(2)(c) of the Maharashtra Zilla
Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 which provides reservation of
27 per cent of seats in the Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis.
[Case: Amway India v. Ravindranath Rao & Anr.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 133]
A bench comprising Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai held that a sole
proprietorship will fall under international commercial arbitration if the
proprietor is a habitual resident of a foreign country, notwithstanding the
fact that the proprietary concern is carrying out business in India.
The Bench set aside an order of the Delhi High Court appointing an
arbitrator in the case Amway India v. Ravindranath Rao, holding that the
High Court had no jurisdiction as the dispute was an international
commercial arbitration within the meaning of Section 2(1)(f) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
19. All Consumer Complaints Filed Before CPA 2019 Should Be Heard By
Fora As Per Pecuniary Jurisdiction Under CPA 1986: Supreme Court
[Case: Neena Aneja & Ors. v. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd.; Citation: LL 2021
SC 164]
The Supreme Court held that consumer complaints filed before the coming
into effect of the Consumer Protection Act 2019(CPA 2019) should continue
in the fora in which they were filed as per the pecuniary jurisdiction under
the previous Consumer Protection Act of 1986(CPA 1986).
20. Default Bail: State Cannot Take Advantage Of Filing One Charge
Sheet First And Seeking Time To File Supplementary Charge-sheets To
Extend The Time Limit U/S 167(2)
The Top Court has now held that delay beyond 90, 60 or 30 days for filing
appeals under Section 37, depending on the forum, can be condoned. But
the Court added a rider that such condonation of delay should be an
exception and not the norm, having regard to the objective of the
Arbitration Act for expeditious settlement of claims.
Also Read: Commercial Courts Act Does Not Exclude Application Of Section
5 Limitation Act: Supreme Court
The Court observed that there is no justification shown to restrict the relief
of not charging interest on interest with respect to the loans up to Rs. 2
crores only and that too restricted to the aforesaid categories.
[Case: Lt. Col Nitisha & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors; Citation: LL 2021 SC
181]
The top court held that the evaluation criteria adopted by the Army to
benchmark the women officers with the lowest credentials of their male
counter-parts and to freeze their ACR evaluation at the 5th or 10th years of
their services to be "arbitrary and irrational", causing women officers
"systemic discrimination".
Also Read: 'Not Enough To Proudly Say Women Are Allowed To Serve
Army When Their Service Conditions Tell A Different Story' : Supreme
Court In Permanent Commission Case
Also Read: Permanent Commission For Women Army Officers- Indirect
Discrimination Even Without Discriminatory Intent Must Be Prohibited:
Supreme Court
26. Call For Justice Not Hate Speech": Supreme Court Quashes FIR
Against Journalist Patricia Mukhim
The Court allowed the appeal filed by Mukhim challenging the Meghalaya
High Court order which had dismissed her plea to quash the FIR.
The Supreme Court refused to stay the release of the fresh set of electoral
bonds from April 1 for the assembly polls in West Bengal, Kerala, Tamil
Nadu, Assam and Puducherry.
Since the bonds were allowed to be released in 2018, 2019 and 2020 without
interruption, and sufficient safeguards are there, there is no justification to
stay the electoral bonds at present, held a bench comprising CJI SA Bobde,
Justice AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian,
28. Supreme Court Allows Tata Sons Appeal Against NCLAT Order To
Reinstate Cyrus Mistry As Chairman
[Case: Tata Sons Ltd v. Cyrus Mistry & Ors; Citation: LL 2021 SC 184]
In a big win for Tata Sons Ltd, the Supreme Court bench headed by CJI SA
Bobde allowed its appeal against the order of the National Company Law
Tribunal, which had ordered to reinstate the ousted Chairman Cyrus Mistry.
The Court held that the actions of Tata Sons board against Mistry did not
amount to oppression of minority shareholders or mismanagement. The
bench also said that it was open for Tatas and Mistry to work out their
separation terms.
April 2021
30. High Courts Shall Not Pass Order Of 'Not To Arrest' Or 'No Coercive
Steps' While Dismissing/Disposing Petition U/s 482 CrPC: Supreme
Court
It observed that when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy
and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High
Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest
or "no coercive steps to be adopted" and the accused should be relegated to
apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC before the competent
court.
33.'Amend Section 138 NI Act To Allow One Trial For Multiple Cases
From Single Transaction' : Supreme Court Issues Directions For
Expeditious Trial Of Cheque Cases
34. High Courts Are In A Crisis Situation': Supreme Court Lays Down
Time Line For Appointment Of High Court Judges
[Case: PLR Projects Ltd v. Mahanadi Coalfields Pvt Ltd; Citation: LL 2021 SC
223]
[Case: Lok Prahari v. Union of India & Ors.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 225]
It observed that this provision will attract as long as caste identity is one of
the grounds for the occurrence of the offence. To deny the protection of
Section 3 (2) (v) on the premise that the crime was not committed against
an SC & ST person solely on the ground of their caste identity is to deny how
social inequalities function in a cumulative fashion, the court said.
May 2021
Also Read: Supreme Court Directs Rajasthan Private Schools To Give 15%
Deduction In Annual School Fees; No Student To Be Debarred For Non-
Payment Of Fees
Also Read: Authorities Under Disaster Management Act Cannot Alter Fee
Structure Of Private Schools: Supreme Court
The Court also held that alteration of the content of state legislative power
in an oblique and peripheral manner would not constitute a violation of the
concept of federalism or basic structure of the Constitution.
Also Read: 'To Change 50% Reservation Limit Is To Have A Society Which
Is Not Founded On Equality But Based On Caste Rule': SC Refuses To Revisit
Indra Sawhney Judgment
Also Read: Reservation In Public Services Not The Only Method For
Improving Welfare Of Backward Classes; State Should Bring Other
Measures: Supreme Court
The bench was delivering its judgment in a petition filed by the Election
Commission of India seeking to restrain media from reporting oral remarks
made by judges, after the Madras High Court orally said that the ECI
"should probably be booked for murder" for being "singularly responsible
for COVID second wave" by allowing election rallies.
Also Read: No Question Of Expunging Judges' Oral Remarks Which Are Not
Part Of Judicial Record: Supreme Court In ECI Case
Also Read: Real Time Reporting Of Court Hearing In Social Media Not A
Cause Of Apprehension; A Virtual Extension Of 'Open Court': Supreme
Court
[Case: Lalit Kumar Jain vs. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India;
Citation: LL 2021 SC 257]
45. Phrase "Soon Before" Section 304B IPC Cannot Mean 'Immediately
Before': Supreme Court Issues Guidelines For Trial In Dowry Death
Cases
The bench observed thus while dismissing the appeal filed by accused who
were convicted under Section 304B IPC. Section 304B (1) provides that
'dowry death' is where death of a woman is caused by burning or bodily
injuries or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances, within
seven years of marriage, and it is shown that soon before her death, she
was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of
her husband, in connection with demand for dowry.
46. Centre's Policy Of Paid Vaccination For 18-44 Years Prima Facie
Arbitrary & Irrational : Supreme Court
Also Read: How Rs 35000 Crores Budget Allocation Spent For Vaccines?
Why Can't It Be Used To Vaccinate 18-44 Years Group? SC Asks Centre
A bench of Justices UU Lalit and Vineet Saran while quashing the FIR
against senior journalist Vinod Dua for sedition observed, "Every Journalist
will be entitled to protection in terms of Kedar Nath Singh , as every
prosecution under Sections 124A and 505 of the IPC must be in strict
conformity with the scope and ambit of said Sections as explained in, and
completely in tune with the law laid down in Kedar Nath Singh." In the case
of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar(1962), the Supreme Court had read
down Section 124A IPC and held that the application of the provision
should be limited to "acts involving intention or tendency to create
disorder, or disturbance of law and order; or incitement to violence".
Wide publicity should be given to the provisions of the JJ Act, 2015 and the
prevailing schemes of the Union of India and the State Governments/Union
Territories which would benefit the affected children, the Court added.
51. States Must Implement 'One Nation, One Ration Card' Scheme By
July 31; Run Community Kitchens For Migrants
Accordingly, the Apex Court directed the NDMA to come up with guidelines
for giving ex-gratia compensation to the family members of persons who
died due to COVID 19. The Court also directed that simplified guidelines be
framed for issuance of death certificates/ official documents stating the
exact cause of death - that is death due to COVID.
Read Part 2 here : 100 Major Supreme Court Judgments Of 2021 [Part 2,
Judgments 53-75]
Part 3 to be published.
Next Story
Similar Posts
+ View more
subscribe now
Home
/
Top Stories
/
Top Stories
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
22 Dec 2021 10:53 AM
x
This is the second part of the article. The first part covered 52 judgments
delivered from January to June. This part includes judgments(53-75)
delivered from July to October. The third part will cover judgments (76-100)
from October to December. Read the first part here.53. 'Delhi Can Ill-Afford
Another Riots; Role Of Facebook Must Be Looked Into': Supreme Court
Upholds Delhi...
Ad Free Content
Subscribe Now
Already a subscriber?
Login
This is the second part of the article. The first part covered 52 judgments
delivered from January to June. This part includes judgments(53-75)
delivered from July to October. The third part will cover judgments (76-100)
from October to December. Read the first part here.
The Supreme Court refused to quash the summons issued to Facebook India
Managing Director Ajit Mohan by the Peace and Harmony committee of the
Delhi Assembly Committee seeking his appearance in an enquiry related to
Delhi Riots. A Bench comprising of Justice S.K. Kaul, Justice Dinesh
Maheshwari and Justice Hrishikesh Roy held that the Delhi Assembly's
enquiry cannot encroach into "prohibited domains" of law and order and
criminal prosecution, as they are subjects under the domain of the Union
Government. Therefore, the Court held that any representative of the
petitioner can deny answering any question by the committee if it falls
within the prohibited domains.
The Madras Bar Association had filed the writ petition in the Supreme
Court challenging the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalization and
Conditions of Service) Ordinance 2021, to the extent it amends Sections
184 and 186 of the Finance Act 2017. Delivering its judgment in the writ
petition filed by the Madras Bar Association challenging the Ordinance, the
majority stated that its provisions will not apply to appointments made
prior to February 4, 2021( the date when the Ordinance was notified).
Also Read: 'Law Can't Be Struck Down Merely For Being Contrary To
Court's Guidelines': Justice Hemant Gupta's Dissent In Tribunals Case
The Supreme Court has observed that religious sentiments are subservient
to the fundamental right to life and health while adjudicating in the suo
motu case taken against the decision of the Uttar Pradesh government to
allow the Kanwar Yatra pilgrimage amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The
Bench comprising Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai observed that the
State of Uttar Pradesh cannot go ahead with the Kanwar Yatra, especially so
when the Union Government has taken a stand against holding the same.
"We are of the view that this is a matter which concerns everyone of us as
citizens of India, and goes to the very heart of Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, which has a pride of place in the fundamental rights Chapter of our
Constitution. The health of the citizenry of India and their right to "life" are
paramount .All other sentiments, al beit religious, are subservient to this
most basic fundamental right", the Bench observed in the order.
The Court also made similar observations in the case regarding the
lockdown relaxations announced by the Kerala Government ahead of the
Bakrid festival. If the relaxations announced by the Kerala Government
lead to any "untoward spread of COVID-19 disease", action will be taken
against those responsible, warned the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court upheld a 2013 judgment of the Gujarat High Court
which struck down the provisions of the Constitution(97th Amendment) Act
2011 to the extent it introduced Part IX B in the Constitution to deal with co-
operative societies. A 3-judge bench comprising Justices Rohinton
Nariman, KM Joseph and BR Gavai dismissed the appeals filed by the
Union of India against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court. The bench
unanimously held that the 97th Constitutional Amendment required
ratification by at least one-half of the state legislatures as per Article 368(2)
of the Constitution, since it dealt with a entry which was an exclusive state
subject (co-operative societies). Since such ratification was not done in the
case of the 97th Constitutional amendment, it was liable to be struck down.
There was a split in the bench on the point whether Part IX B will survive
with respect to multi-state co-operative societies. While the majority
comprising Justices Nariman and Gavai upheld those provisions of Part IX B
which deal with multi-state co-operative societies by applying the doctrine
of severability, Justice Joseph dissented on this count. Justice Joseph held
that the doctrine of severability was not applicable and struck down the
entire amendment.
The Supreme Court has observed that the power of Governor under Article
161 of the Constitution to commute sentence or to pardon will override the
restrictions imposed under Section 433-A of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Even if the prisoner has not undergone 14 years or more of actual
imprisonment, the Governor has a power to grant pardons, reprieves,
respites and remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the
sentence of any person, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and
AS Bopanna observed.
59. State Cannot Plead Financial Burden To Deny Salary For Legally
Serving Doctors
The Supreme Court has observed that the state cannot be allowed to plead
financial burden to deny salary to legally serving doctors. Allowing such an
excuse raised by the state would amount to violation of fundamental rights
under Articles 14(right to equality) , 21(right to life) and 23 (right against
bonded labour) of the Constitution. "
The Supreme Court has observed that a judgment and/or decree for money
in favour of the Financial Creditor, or the issuance of a Certificate of
Recovery in its favour, would give rise to a fresh cause of action for the
Financial Creditor, to initiate proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC for
initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. Such
judgment/decree may be passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, or any
other Tribunal or Court, and in such cases Insolvency Resolution Process
can be initiated, within three years from the date of the judgment and/or
decree or within three years from the date of issuance of the Certificate of
Recovery, if the dues of the Corporate Debtor to the Financial Debtor, or any
part thereof remained unpaid, the court held.
The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of e-commerce giant Amazon in its
dispute with Future Retail Limited(FRL) over the latter's merger deal with
Reliance group. The top court held that that Emergency Award passed by
Singapore arbitrator stalling FRL-Reliance deal is enforceable in Indian law.
"It is wholly incorrect to say that Section 17(1) of the Act would exclude an
Emergency Arbitrator's orders", the Court said in the judgment. A Bench
comprising Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai opined, "We declare that
full party autonomy is given by the Arbitration Act to have a dispute decided
in accordance with institutional rules which can include Emergency
Arbitrators delivering interim orders, described as "awards". Such orders are
an important step in aid of decongesting the civil courts and affording
expeditious interim relief to the parties. Such orders are referable to and are
made under Section 17(1) of the Arbitration Act."
This means that the Supreme Court has approved the enforcement of the
the Singapore Emergency Arbitrator (EA) award, passed at the instance of
Amazon, restraining the Rs 24,731 crore amalgamation deal between
Future Retail and Reliance Industries Group(Mukesh Dirubhai Ambani
Group). Also, the top court has upheld the order of the single bench of the
Delhi High Court which had ruled in favour of the enforcement of the
Emergency Award and has held that single judge's order was not
appealable to the division bench of the High Court under Section 37(2) of
the Arbitration Act.
[Case: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila Shukla; Citation: LL 2021
SC 359]
The Supreme Court has observed that the judgment in Pranay Sethi does
not limit operation of a statutory provision granting greater benefits in the
matter of Motor Accident Compensation. "If a statutory instrument has
devised a formula which affords better or greater benefit, such statutory
instrument must be allowed to operate unless the statutory instrument is
otherwise found to be invalid", the bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and
Ajay Rastogi observed.
The Supreme Court has observed that deposit of fine amount cannot be
made a condition precedent for hearing revision petition under Section 397
of the Criminal Procedure Code.In this case, the accused was convicted for
the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
The Supreme Court expressed exasperation at the delay on the part of the
Union Government in filling up the mounting vacancies of judges in High
Courts across the country. In an order passed on August 9, the Top Court
had observed that the "recalcitrant attitude" of the Government in not
appointing High Court judges even years after the Supreme Court collegium
has cleared the recommendations is causing delay in adjudication of cases.
The Supreme Court has observed that there is no residual equity based
jurisdiction in the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Authority while
dealing with the resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors.
The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah reiterated that these
authorities can not enter into the commercial wisdom underlying the
approval granted by the CoC to the resolution plan.
`
The right to shelter does not mean right to government accommodation, the
Supreme Court observed while setting aside a Punjab and Haryana High
Court order allowing a retired Intelligence Bureau Officer to retain
Government accommodation. The court observed that government
accommodation is meant for serving officers and officials and not to the
retirees as a benevolence and distribution of largesse. The bench of Justices
Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna added that compassion howsoever
genuine does not give a right to a retired person from continuing to occupy
a government accommodation
The Supreme Court has observed that, while accepting charge-sheet, the
Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of
summons and not warrant of arrest. The bench comprising Justices Sanjay
Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh also observed that, if an accused in a non-
bailable offence has been enlarged and free for many years and has not
even been arrested during investigation, it would be contrary to the
governing principles for grant of bail to suddenly direct his arrest merely
because charge sheet has been filed.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. that it
does not impose an obligation on the Officer-in-charge to arrest each and
every accused at the time of filing of the charge sheet.
The Supreme Court has observed that adjudicatory function of the National
Green Tribunal cannot be assigned to committees. "The discharge of its
functions cannot be obviated by tasking committees to carry out a function
which vests in the tribunal", the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, MR
Shah and Hima Kohli observed
The Supreme Court has held that until and unless the railways provide
evidence and explain the late arrival of a train to establish and prove that
delay occurred because of the reasons beyond their control, they would be
liable to pay compensation for such delay. "Therefore, unless and until the
evidence is laid explaining the delay and it is established and proved that
delay occurred which was beyond their control and/or even there was some
justification for delay, the railway is liable to pay the compensation for delay
and late arrival of trains", a bench of Justice MR Shah and Justice
Aniruddha Bose observed.
Read the first part here : 100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of
2021 [Part 1, 52 judgments]
Part 3 to be published.
Next Story
Similar Posts
+ View more
Live Law subscriptions starting
₹ 599 +GST
X
subscribe now