Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi

Keywords: Civil Law, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TOPA), Supreme Court

Date of Judgement/Order – 02.06.2023

Bench Strength – 2 Judges

Composition of Bench – Justices Dipankar Datta and Pankaj Mithal

Case In Brief:

• A suit property situated in Delhi was owned by Mr. Ghanshyam (appellant).
• He entered into an agreement to sell the property with Mr. Yogendra Rathi (respondent) for the sale of the suit property and received the entire consideration from the respondent.
• A Will bequeathing the suit property to the respondent was made on the same day by the appellant.
• The appellant further executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the respondent.
• The possession of the suit property was handed over to the respondent, however, no sale deed was executed.
• The respondent permitted the appellant to occupy a portion of the suit property for 3 months as a licencee.
• After expiry of 3 months, the property was not vacated by the appellant.
• Thereafter a suit against the appellant was filed by the respondent seeking the latter’s eviction from the suit property and recovery of mesne profits.
• The Trial Court held that there was no manipulation of documents and thus the respondent is entitled to decree eviction and recovery of mesne profits.
• The appellant filed an appeal and thereafter a second appeal was filed before the High Court, and both were decided in favour of the Respondent.
• Hence, the present appeal was filed in the Supreme Court.

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court bench while placing reliance on the judgment of Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Anr., (2009) held that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondent has rightly been held to be entitled for a decree of eviction with mesne profits.
• The Bench therefore upheld the High Court’s decision that the Respondent is entitled to a decree for eviction with mesne profits.

Relevant Provision –

Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TOPA) – Sale

A sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised.

[Original Judgment]

Coal India Pvt. Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India

Keywords: Civil Law, Constitution of India, 1950, Supreme Court, Competition Act, 2002,

Date of Judgement/Order – 15.06.2023

Bench Strength – 3 Judges

Composition of Bench – Justices K.M. Joseph, B.V. Nagarathna and Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Case In Brief:

• The present Civil Appeal is directed against the order passed by the Competition Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.
• The principal bone of contention of the appellants was that Coal India Limited (CIL) the first appellant, being a monopoly created by a statute and the second appellant, Western Coalfields Limited, a subsidiary company of the first appellant cannot be bound by the Competition Act, 2002.
• The Competition Commission of India had opposed the plea.
• It was contended that whether CIL carries out any sovereign function.
• The Court noted that it is a Government Company, which was wholly owned by the Central Government and was contemplated under Section 5 of the Coal Mines Nationalization (Amendment) Act, 1976.
• The Court looked into whether the “enterprise” were involved with carrying out any of the sovereign functions.
• The Appellants clarified that they are not carrying any sovereign functions.
• Relying on the case of Tara Prasad Singh and Others v. Union of India and Others (1980), the Court stated that the purpose of vesting a body under the Coal Mines Nationalization Act, 1973 was to distribute the resource to subserve the common good and stated.

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court held that CIL would come under the purview of the Competition Act, 2002 despite being a Public Sector Undertaking.

Relevant Provisions –

Constitution of India, 1950

Article 39 - Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State — The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing—

(a) that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood;

(b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good;

(c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment;

(d) that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women;

(e) that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength;

(f) that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment.

Competition Act, 2002 – S. 4 - Abuse of dominant position

(2) There shall be an abuse of dominant position under sub-section (1), if an enterprise or a group—

(a) directly or indirectly, imposes unfair or discriminatory— (i) condition in purchase or sale of goods or service; or (ii) price in purchase or sale (including predatory price) of goods or service.

Explanation — For the purposes of this clause, the unfair or discriminatory condition in purchase or sale of goods or service referred to in sub - clause (i) and unfair or discriminatory price in purchase or sale of goods (including predatory price) or service referred to in sub-clause (ii) shall not include such discriminatory condition or price which may be adopted to meet the competition.

Section 27 - Orders by Commission after inquiry into agreements or abuse of dominant position - Where after inquiry the Commission finds that any agreement referred to in section 3 or action of an enterprise in a dominant position, is in contravention of section 3 or section 4, as the case may be, it may pass all or any of the following orders, namely:

(a) direct any enterprise or association of enterprises or person or association of persons, as the case may be, involved in such agreement, or abuse of dominant position, to discontinue and not to re-enter such agreement or discontinue such abuse of dominant position, as the case may be.

[Original Judgment]

M/s Trinity Infraventures Ltd. & Ors. v. M.S. Murthy & Ors.

Keywords: Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Supreme Court

Date of Judgement/Order – 15.06.2023

Bench Strength – 2 Judges

Composition of Bench – Justices V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal

Case in Brief:

• Hyderabad was a Princely State until it came to be annexed to the Union of India on 18.09.1948.
• The Nizam of Hyderabad had the practice of granting certain lands Known as “Paigah Estate” for the purpose of supply and maintenance of Armed Forces.
• The dispute is this case relates to a Paigah granted to a person by name Khurshid Jah and the grant came to be known as Khurshid Jah Paigah.
• In the year 2019, the Division Bench of the Telangana High Court had ruled that the appellants had failed to establish that the land in Hydernagar village is the Mathruka property of Khurshid Jah Paigah, from whom they were claiming title under a preliminary decree passed by the High Court of Hyderabad in 1963.
• The Division Bench held that the title to the land had been passed on to the cultivating Ryots before 1948 itself, who had validly conveyed title to their successors i.e., the respondents.
• The judgment of the Division Bench was challenged by the appellants before the Supreme Court.

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Telangana High Court, upholding the title of successors of Ryot Cultivators over the “Paigah lands” in Hydernagar, Telangana.
• The claim of title raised by rival claimants/appellants, including M/s Trinity Infraventures Ltd, was dismissed on the ground that the land was a Mathruka property of the late Nawab Khurshid Jah, who was granted a Paigah by the Nizam of Hyderabad.
• The Court added that in a simple suit for partition, the parties cannot assert title against strangers, even by impleading them as proforma respondents.

Relevant Provision -

Order VI Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Particulars to be given where necessary

In all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default, or undue influence, and in all other cases in which particulars may be necessary beyond such as are exemplified in the forms aforesaid, particulars with dates and items if necessary) shall be stated in the pleading.

Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 of CPC

Rule 97 - Resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property —

(1) Where the holder of a decree for the possession of immovable property or the purchaser of any such property sold in execution of a decree is resisted or obstructed by any person in obtaining possession of the property, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such resistance or obstruction.

(2) Where any application is made under sub-rule (1), the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions herein contained.

Rule 98 - Orders after adjudication—

(1) Upon the determination of the questions referred to in rule 101, the Court shall, in accordance with such determination and subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), —

(a) make an order allowing the application and directing that the applicant be put into the possession of the property or dismissing the application; or

(b) pass such other order as, in the circumstances of the case, it may deem fit.

(2) Where, upon such determination, the Court is satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was occasioned without any just cause by the judgment-debtor or by some other person at his instigation or on his behalf, or by any transferee, where such transfer was made during the pendency of the suit or execution proceeding, it shall direct that the applicant be put into possession of the property, and where the applicant is still resisted or obstructed in obtaining possession, the Court may also, at the instance of the applicant, order the judgment-debtor, or any person acting at his instigation or on his behalf, to be detained in the civil prison for a term which may extend to thirty days.

Rule 99 - Dispossession by decree-holder or purchaser —

(1) Where any person other than the judgment debtor is dispossessed of immovable property by the holder of a decree for the possession of such property or, where such property has been sold in execution of a decree, by the purchaser thereof, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such dispossession.

(2) Where any such application is made, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions herein contained.

Rule 100 - Order to be passed upon application complaining of dispossession—

Upon the determination of the questions referred to in rule 101, the Court shall, in accordance with such determination, —

(a) make an order allowing the application and directing that the applicant be put into the possession of the property or dismissing the application; or

(b) pass such other order as, in the circumstances of the case, it may deem fit.

Rule 101- Question to be determined—

All questions (including questions relating to right, title or interest in the property) arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under rule 97 or rule 99 or their representatives, and relevant to the adjudication of the application, shall be determined by the Court dealing with the application and not by a separate suit and for this purpose, the Court shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, be deemed to have jurisdiction to decide such questions.

[Original Judgment]

A. Srinivasulu v. State of Rep. by the Inspector of Police

Keywords: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), Indian Penal Code, 1860, Supreme Court

Date of Judgment - 15.06.2023

Bench Strength - 2 Judges

Composition of Bench - Justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal

Case in Brief:

• These criminal appeals arise out of a common Judgment passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court (HC).
  • The HC confirmed the conviction of the appellants herein for various offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1982 (PC Act).
• The case of the prosecution was that A-1 (A herein is used for Accused) to A-7 entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat BHEL in the matter of award of contract for the construction of desalination plants.
• The allegation was that four public servants (A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4), including the executive director (A-1) and the deputy general manager (DGM) (A-2, later turned approver) colluded with the proprietor (A-5) of the firm.
  • According to the prosecution, A-1 dictated the names of four bogus firms along with the name of M/s Entoma Hydro Systems represented by its proprietor A-5, for inviting limited tenders.
• The collusion was done to confer an unfair and undue advantage and cheat the centrally owned public sector undertaking (PSU) i.e., BHEL.
• During the pendency of the trial, the A-5 and A-6 passed away, while the others except for the DGM (turned approver) were found guilty under various provisions.
• The executive director was charged under IPC and PC Act where other two were charged under IPC only.
• The question arose whether any previous sanction was available to the accused under Section 197 of the CrPC as he was a public servant.

Verdict:

• The court held that sanction is required not only for acts done in the discharge of official duty but also required for any act purported to be done in the discharge of official duty and/or act done under colour of or in excess of such duty or authority.
• Even in a case when a public servant has exceeded his duty, if there is reasonable connection it will not deprive him of protection under Section 197 CrPC.
• The court said that the prosecution ought to have taken previous sanction in terms of Section 197(1) of the Code, for prosecuting him for offences under IPC.

Relevant Provision -

Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Prosecution of Judges and public servants.

(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction-

(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;

(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government: Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression “State Government” occurring therein, the expression “Central Government” were substituted.

[Original Order]

Station Superintendent & Anr. v. Surender Bhola

Keywords: Consumer Law, Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Supreme Court

Date of Judgment - 15.06.2023

Bench Strength - 2 Judges

Composition of Bench - Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Case In Brief:

• The respondent raised a claim before the District Consumer Forum stating that while he was travelling in a train and was carrying Rs.1 lakh in cash in a belt tied around his waist.
• The same got stolen and as such the Railways should reimburse the said loss.
• The District Consumer Forum allowed his claim by awarding Rs.1 lakh to be paid by the appellant(s).
• The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the appeal(s) and upheld the order of District Consumer Forum.

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court said that if the passenger is not able to protect his own belongings, the Railways cannot be held responsible.
• Hence, the court concluded that the theft cannot be held any way a deficiency in service by the Railways.

Relevant Provision -

Section 2 (11) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Deficiency of Service

any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service and includes

(a) any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person to the consumer and

(b) deliberate withholding of relevant information by such person to the consumer

[Original Order]

Mohd. Muslim v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Now Uttarakhand)

Keywords: Indian Penal Code, 1860, Supreme Court

Date of Judgment - 15.06.2023

Bench Strength - 2 Judges

Composition of Bench - Justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal

Case in Brief:

• The deceased Altaf Hussain had some land dispute with the accused appellants.
• Altaf Hussain died on 4th August 1955, when the accused appellants assaulted him with “tabal” and “axe”.
• In the year 1998, the Sessions Court convicted the appellants under Section 302 of the IPC for committing the murder of Altaf Hussain. The Appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each.
• The High Court on appeal upheld the conviction and sentence.
• In 2011, the appellants filed an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging their conviction.
• The appeal stood abated against the Appellant No. 2 on 16th August 2021.
• The Appellant No.1 is now aged about 79 years and has undergone six years of incarceration. He has been on bail since 2013.
• The Supreme Court accorded the benefit of doubt to the appellant as there is an absence of any credible eyewitness to the incident and the presence of the accused appellants at the place of incident is also not well established.

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court has acquitted the appellants and set aside the order of conviction of the Session Court, which was affirmed by the High Court.
• The acquittal has been granted based on benefit of doubt and the failure of prosecution to prove that the appellants have committed the offence beyond any reasonable doubt.

Relevant Provision -

Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Punishment for murder —

Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.

[Original Judgment]