Supreme Court: No Hearing of Petitions and No New Petitions Can be Filed Due to Covid-19

 Supreme Court of India has indefinitely extended the period of limitation on filing petitions, applications, suits, appeals, and other proceedings at courts and tribunals across the country in light of the present circumstance caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Addressing a writ petition, the court said it had taken suo moto cognizance of the challenges faced by the country on account of the existing limitations. Still, it has decided to extend the restriction period, which was declared on March 15, 2020.

A suo moto cognizance is a Latin term which means an action taken by a government agency, court, or other central authority based on their apprehensions if they receive information about the violation of rights or breach of duty through media or a third party’s notification.

For the renewable energy sector, just like all other sectors, there will be no hearing of any petitions across the board, and neither can new petitions be filed. For the renewable energy sector, it means, if any stakeholder who has appealed to the Appellate Tribunal For Electricity (APTEL) and is not satisfied with their order, they will not be able to file a new petition unless it is urgent.

Also, the Supreme Court has extended the period of limitation on filing petitions. This means if a petitioner decides to appeal to a higher court since they are not satisfied with the order or judgment of a lower court, generally, there is a period within which they can appeal to a higher court. The Limitation Act, 1963, provides the period of filing appeals. It states that the appeals against an order can be filed in a High Court within 90 days and other courts in 30 days from the date of the order. If an appeal is filed after the expiry of the time limit, it is struck by the law of limitation. So, for any appeal, if the limitation period falls when the courts are closed due to the Covid-19 pandemic, then this period is indefinitely extended.

It said that this was to ensure that lawyers and litigants did not have to physically be present to file proceedings in courts and tribunals across the country, thereby putting them and others at risk. It added that the limitation will stand extended until it issues further orders concerning the present proceedings.

The Supreme Court directed that its order must be brought to the notice of all high courts, and through them, it should be communicated to all subordinate courts and tribunals in their respective jurisdictions.

Considering the adverse impact of the Coronavirus pandemic on the global economy, the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) recently issued an official memorandum which states that the time extension in scheduled commissioning of renewable projects due to the disruption of supply chains will be treated as a ‘force majeure’ event.

Earlier, the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure Procurement Policy Division) issued a clarification that coronavirus will be covered in the force majeure clause (FMC) and should be considered as a case of natural calamity. Further, the ministry has stated that this clause can be invoked wherever appropriate.

https://mercomindia.com/supreme-court-no-hearing-petitions-covid-19/

R.SRINIVAS KUMAR V. R.SHAMETHA

R.SRINIVAS KUMAR V. R.SHAMETHA

SC-Allowing the application for divorce filed by the appellant-husband,the Hon’ble SC observed that the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife have been living separately for more than 22 years and it was not possible for the parties to live together.While protecting the interest of the respondent-wife to compensate her by way of lump sum permanent alimony, this is a fit case to exercise the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and to dissolve the marriage between the parties. It reiterated that inherent powers under Article 142 has been exercised for dissolution of a marriage where the Court finds that the marriage is totally unworkable, emotionally dead, beyond salvage and has broken down irretrievably, even if the facts of the case do not provide a ground in law on which the divorce could be granted. -Hon'ble Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.R. Shah[04-10-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/rsrinivas-kumar-vs-rshametha

#saketagarwal

KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M AND M) CORP LTD. V. P P SURESH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M AND M) CORP LTD. V. P P SURESH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

SC- The Hon’ble SC while allowing the appeal against the Kerala HC judgment, held that the decision taken by the Govt. in overriding public interest was a measure to strike a balance between the competing interest of the displaced Abkari workers and unemployed youth in the State of Kerala. The impairment of the fundamental rights of the Respondents due to the change in policy was not excessive and it cannot be said that the change in policy regarding re-employment of displaced abkari workers is disproportionate. If an announcement is made by the Govt. of a policy conferring benefit on a large number of people, but subsequently, due to overriding public interest, the benefits announced earlier are withdrawn, it is not expedient to provide individual opportunities to such innominate number of persons.-Hon'ble Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta [04-10-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/kerala-state-beverages-(m-and-m)-corp-ltd-vs-p-p-suresh-and-ors-etc-etc

#saketagarwal

PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOW GLADA) V. VIDYA CHETAL

SC-The Hon’ble SC overruled the case of HUDA vs. Sunita, (2005) 2 SCC 479,with the finding that it was rendered without considering any of the previous judgments of this Court and the objects of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.It opined that the determination of the dispute concerning the validity of the imposition of a statutory due arising out of a “deficiency in service”, can be undertaken by the consumer fora as per the provisions of the Act. Not all statutory dues/exactions are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum, rather only those exactions which are exacted for a service rendered, would be amenable to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.-Hon'ble Justices N.V.Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Ajay Rastogi[16-09-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/punjab-urban-planning-and-development-authority-(now-glada)-vs-vidya-chetal

#saketagarwal

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL NEEMUCH V. MAHADEO REAL ESTATE

SC-Setting aside the Madhya Pradesh HC order,the Hon’ble SC held that the HC while exercising its powers of judicial review of administrative action, could not have interfered with the decision unless it suffers from the vice of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. The Commissioner, instead of blindly accepting the directions contained in the communication, acted in larger public interest so that the Municipal Council earns a higher revenue by enlarging the scope of the competition and the State Government has re-examined and reconsidered the issue and authorised the Commissioner to pass appropriate orders directing initiation of fresh tender process and so such orders were not illegal, improper or irrational.-Hon'ble Justices Arun Mishra,M.R. Shah and B.R. Gavai [17-09-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/municipal-council-neemuch-vs-mahadeo-real-estate

#saketagarwal
#plclaws #prathamalawchambers

UNION OF INDIA V. SANDEEP KUMAR

SC-Finding that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction while setting aside the order of conviction passed by the DCM,the Hon’ble SC held that Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 confers wide power on the Tribunal so as to allow an appeal against conviction by a Court Martial where the finding of the Court Martial is legally not sustainable due to any reason; the finding involves wrong decision on a question of law or there was a material irregularity in the course of the trial resulting in miscarriage of justice but such wide powers do not confer jurisdiction to the Tribunal to reverse the findings merely because it finds that different view is possible.-Hon'ble Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta[13-09-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/union-of-india-vs-sandeep-kumar

#saketagarwal

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE I V. M/S MOTOROLA INDIA LTD.

SC-Remitting the matter back to the HC,the Hon’ble SC held that the Karnataka HC was not justified in holding that the appeals are not maintainable under Section 130 of the Customs Act but are tenable before this Court under Section 130E of the Customs Act. The only question is as to whether the assessee has breached the conditions which are imposed by the notification for getting exemption from payment of the customs duty or not. The appeals do not involve any question of law of general public importance which would be applicable to a class or category of assessees as a whole. The question is purely inter-se between the parties and is required to be adjudicated upon the facts available.-Hon'ble Justices Arun Mishra,M.R. Shah and B.R. Gavai [05-09-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/commissioner-of-customs,-bangalore-i-vs-ms-motorola-india-ltd

#saketagarwal

P. CHIDAMBARAM V. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

SC-While dismissing the appeal against the Delhi HC order, the Hon’ble SC opined that the grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant will hamper the investigation and it is not a fit case for exercise of discretion to grant anticipatory bail.Having regard to the nature of allegations and the stage of the investigation,the investigating agency has to be given sufficient freedom in the process of investigation and such Grant at the stage of investigation may frustrate the  agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation.-Hon'ble Justices R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna[05-09-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/p-chidambaram-vs-directorate-of-enforcement

NCLT – Understanding National Company Law Tribunal and its power

National Company Law Tribunal is the outcome of the Eradi Committee. NCLT was intended to be introduced in the Indian legal system in 2002 under the framework of Companies Act, 1956 however, due to the litigation with respect to the constitutional validity of NCLT which went for over 10 years, therefore, it was notified under the Companies Act, 2013. It is a quasi-judicial authority incorporated for dealing with corporate disputes that are of civil nature arising under the Companies Act. However, a difference could be witnessed in the powers and functions of NCLT under the previous Companies Act and the 2013 Act. The constitutional validity of the NCLT and specified allied provisions contained in the Act were re-challenged. Supreme Court had preserved the constitutional validity of the NCLT, however, specific provisions were rendered as a violation of the constitutional principles.

NCLT works on the lines of a normal Court of law in the country and is obliged to fairly and without any biases determine the facts of each case and decide with matters in accordance with principles of natural justice and in the continuance of such decisions, offer conclusions from decisions in the form of orders. The orders so formed by NCLT could assist in resolving a situation, rectifying a wrong done by any corporate or levying penalties and costs and might alter the rights, obligations, duties or privileges of the concerned parties. The Tribunal isn’t required to adhere to the severe rules with respect to appreciation of any evidence or procedural law.

Major Functions of NCLT

Registration of Companies

The new Companies Act, 2013 has enabled questioning the legitimacy of companies because of specific procedural errors during incorporation and registration. NCLT has been empowered in taking several steps, from cancelling the registration of a company to dissolving any company. The Tribunal could even render the liability or charge of members to unlimited. With this approach, NCLT can de-register any company in specific situations when the registration certificate has been obtained by wrongful manner or illegal means under section 7(7) of the Companies Act, 2013.

Transfer of shares

NCLT is also empowered to hear grievances of rejection of companies in transferring shares and securities and under section 58- 59 of the Act which were at the outset were under the purview of the Company Law Board. Going back to Companies Act, 1956 the solution available for rejection of transmission or transfer were limited only to the shares and debentures of a company but as of now the prospect has been raised under the Companies Act, 2013 and the now covers all the securities which are issued by any company. 

Deposits

The Chapter V of the Act deals with deposits and was notified several times in 2014 and Company Law Board was the prime authority for taking up the cases under said chapter. Now, such powers under the chapter V of the Act have been vested with NCLT. The provisions with respect to the deposits under the Companies Act, 2013 were notified prior to the inception of the NCLT. Unhappy depositors now have a remedy of class actions suits for seeking remedy for the omissions and acts on part of the company that impacts their rights as depositors.

Power to investigate

As per the provision of the Companies Act, 2013 investigation about the affairs of the company could be ordered with the help of an application of 100 members whereas previously the application of 200 members was needed for the same. Moreover, if a person who isn’t related to a company and is able to persuade NCLT about the presence of conditions for ordering an investigation then NCLT has the power for ordering an investigation. An investigation which is ordered by the NCLT could be conducted within India or anywhere in the world. The provisions are drafted for offering and seeking help from the courts and investigation agencies and of foreign countries.

Freezing assets of a company

The NCLT isn’t just empowered to freezing the assets of a company for using them at a later stage when such company comes under investigation or scrutiny, such investigation could also be ordered on the request of others in specific conditions.

Converting a public limited company into a private limited company

Sections 13-18 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with rules control the conversion of a Public limited company into the Private limited company, such conversion needs an erstwhile confirmation from the NCLT. NCLT has the power under section 459 of the Act, for imposing specific conditions or restrictions and might subject granting approvals to such conditions.

source: https://cleartax.in/s/national-company-law-tribunal

M/S N RAMACHANDRA REDDY V. THE STATE OF TELANGANA

SC- Allowing the appeal in a case relating to invitation of bids for award of work of construction of BT Road in Mahabubabad District of Telangana State, the Hon’ble SC observed that the act of the Chief Engineer to call for a report from Superintending Engineer, Karimnagar was fair and not arbitrary. As the issue does not relate to strict construction of territorial jurisdiction, it is always open for the decision-making authority, to have a report from the independent authority, to arrive at the just decision.-Hon'ble Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and R.Subhash Reddy [28-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/ms-n-ramachandra-reddy-vs-the-state-of-telangana

CHANDRAKANT BABAN MOTKARI . V. GOTIRAM LAXMAN MOTKARI(D) BY LRS.

SC-In a case relating to a property matter, the Hon’ble SC while dismissing the Appeal opined that the Kabuliyatnama was never in the name of the elder brother and the certificate under Sec. 32M of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 was granted in favour of the younger brother. The Agreement to Sell never matured into a sale deed and this was not a case where a suit was required to be stayed and the question of tenancy remitted to the Mamlatdar. The long drawn out proceedings initiated by the grandsons of Laxman were proceedings by “side wind”, which have dragged on for the last 16 years.-Hon'ble Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph[27-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/chandrakant-baban-motkari-vs-gotiram-laxman-motkari(d)-by-lrs

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA V. SAYEDABAD TEA CO. LTD. AND ORS

SC-Setting aside the Calcutta HC orders, in as case relating to appointment of an Arbitrator by the Central Government with respect to Sec. 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956,the Hon’ble SC held that in view of the power being vested exclusively with the Central Government to appoint an Arbitrator under Sec. 3G(5) of the Act 1956, being a special enactment, the application filed under Sec. 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator was not maintainable and provisions of the Act, 1996 could not be invoked for the purpose.-Hon'ble Justices N.V. Ramana,Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Ajay Rastogi[27-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/national-highways-authority-of-india-vs-sayedabad-tea-co-ltd-and-ors

RAMESHWAR . V. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

SC-Affirming the conviction of appellant No.2-Balaram under Sec. 302 IPC read with Sec. 34 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him, the Hon’ble SC opined that the presence of appellant No.2 has been established by consistent evidence of the eye-witnesses and he was armed with rifle and thus shared the common intention acting in concert with accused Rameshwar and has been proved to have acted in furtherance of the common intention. To invoke Section 34 IPC, it must be established that the criminal act was done by more than one person in furtherance of common intention of all. -Hon'ble Justices R.Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna[21-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/rameshwar-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh

www.plclaws.com

M/S KUT ENERGY PVT.LTD V. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

SC- Setting aside the order of the Himachal Pradesh HC and directing  that the amount deposited by the appellants in terms of the order dated 11.10.2017 be returned to them, the Hon’ble SC held that the deposit of Rs.40 crores in terms of the HC order made by the appellant was only to show the bona fides of the appellants when a revised offer was made by them. It was not towards satisfaction of the debt in question and that is precisely why the HC directed the deposit would be treated to be a deposit in the Registry of the HC. It reiterated the law laid down in Axis Bank that the ‘secured creditor’ would be entitled to proceed only against the ‘secured assets’ mentioned in the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.-Hon'ble Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran[20-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/ms-kut-energy-pvtltd-vs-the-authorized-officer-punjab-national-bank

SALEEM AHMED V. STATE

SC-Allowing the petition filed under Sec. 482 of the CrPC and quashing the FIR,the Hon’ble SC opined that once the dispute in relation to recovery of outstanding amount was finally settled between the appellant and BSES amicably in Lok Adalat resulting in passing of the award in full and final satisfaction of the entire claim, there was neither any occasion and nor any basis to file FIR by the BSES against the appellant in respect of the cause which was subject matter of an award. The filing of FIR after passing of the award by the Lok Adalat was wholly unjust and not legally sustainable.-Hon'ble Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and R. Subhash Reddy[19-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/saleem-ahmed-vs-state

www.plclaws.com

STATE OF RAJASTHAN V. SHIV DAYAL

SC- Allowing the appeal and remanding the case to the HC,the Hon’ble SC reiterated that if the Appellate Court affirms the finding, it is called “concurrent finding of fact” whereas if the finding is reversed, it is called "reversing finding". When any concurrent finding of fact is assailed in second appeal, the appellant is entitled to point out that it is bad in law because it was recorded de hors the pleadings or it was based on no evidence or it was based on misreading of material documentary evidence or it was recorded against any provision of law and lastly, the decision is one which no Judge acting judicially could reasonably have reached.-Hon'ble Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and R. Subhash Reddy[14-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/state-of-rajasthan-vs-shiv-dayal

www.plclaws.com

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 MUMBAI V. M/S S.G. ASIA HOLDINGS (INDIA) PVT. LTD

SC- In a case relating to assessment proceedings wherein the respondent was directed to furnish details about the parent company and the rate of brokerage, the Hon’ble SC affirmed the view of the tribunal that the transfer pricing adjustment made by the Assessing Officer was contrary to the mandatory instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in its Instruction No.3/2003 dated 20.05.2003 and by not making reference to the TPO, the AO had breached the mandatory instructions issued by the CBDT. It would therefore be upto the authorities and the Commissioner concerned to consider the matter in terms of Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 92CA of Income Tax Act, 1961.-Hon'ble Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran[13-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/the-principal-commissioner-of-income-tax-4-mumbai-vs-ms-sg-asia-holdings-(india)-pvt-ltd

VINOD KUMAR V. ASHOK KUMAR GANDHI

SC-The Hon’ble SC did not find any good ground to refer the judgment of this Court in Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs. Vs. UOI for reconsideration by a larger Bench. It observed that the case of Satyawati  Sharma which held that sec. 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958  is violative of the doctrine of equality embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution insofar as it discriminates between the premises let for residential and non-residential purposes when the same are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him and restricts the latter's right to seek eviction of the tenant from the premises let for residential purposes only, cannot be held to be per incuriam.-Hon'ble Justices Ashok Bhushan and K.M. Joseph[05-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/vinod-kumar-vs-ashok-kumar-gandhi

ASST. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EPFO, BAREILLY V. M/S U P STATE WAREHOUSING CORP

SC-The Hon’ble SC remanding the matter to the Allahabad HC for deciding the Corporation's writ petition afresh on merits keeping in view the definition of "employee'' as defined under Sec. 2(f) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, held that the definition of "employee" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Act is not identical to the one defined under Sec. 2(f) of the Act in question and secondly, the object of these acts is not the same. The issue was to be decided independently and de hors the proceedings decided under the ID Act.-Hon'ble Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and R. Subhash Reddy[14-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/asst-provident-fund-commissioner-epfo,-bareilly-vs-ms-u-p-state-warehousing-corp

www.plclaws.com

KANWALJIT SINGH V. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

SC-In a case relating to the extent of the liability of the Insurance Company with regard to individual claim under Family Mediclaim Policy, the Hon’ble SC affirmed that the maximum claim which could be payable in the present case would be 50% of the sum insured under the Policy for the medical treatment of one member of the family, which was Master Jasnoor Singh. The claim could not have been repudiated by the Insurance Company as there was no pre-existing disease when the initial individual Mediclaim Policy was taken in the year 2007-2008 and it was regularly renewed up to the year 2014-2015.-Hon'ble Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran[14-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/kanwaljit-singh-vs-national-insurance-company-ltd

www.plclaws.com