Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995 — Sch. I — Diosmin — Inclusion of in Sch. I: The issue of inclusion of Diosmin, in Sch. I, already stands decided in Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, Union of India, (2003) 7 SCC 1. In view thereof, matter remanded to the High Court for reconsideration. [Union of India v. Cipla Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC 324]
Environment Law — Water/River/Coastal Pollution — Effluents, Sewage, River and Lake Pollution: Directions issued regarding establishment and functionality of effluent treatment plants, common effluent treatment plants, and sewerage treatment plants. Industrial units without functional effluent treatment plant directed to not be permitted to be operational. [Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti v. Union Of India, (2017) 5 SCC 326]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Pt. I or Pt. II (including S. 34) — Inapplicability of Pt. I to foreign-seated arbitrations where place of arbitration i.e. juridical seat is outside India: Where the parties do not expressly choose the law governing the contract as a whole or the arbitration agreement in particular, the law of the country where the arbitration is agreed to be held i.e. place chosen as arbitration/juridical seat of arbitration as per terms of arbitration agreement and subsequent conduct/consent of parties has primacy. [Imax Corpn. v. E-City Entertainment (India) (P) Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC 331]
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 7 R. 11 vis-à-vis Or. 14 R. 2 — Relative scope of, and materials which may be considered under either provision: Or. 7 R. 11 deals with institutional defects while Or. 14 R. 2 allows for disposal of a case on preliminary issues. Issues which truly concern Or. 7 R. 11 cannot be disposed of as preliminary issues under Or. 14 R. 2. [Kuldeep Singh Pathania v. Bikram Singh Jaryal, (2017) 5 SCC 345]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 482 and 320 — Quashment of non-compoundable offences pursuant to settlement arrived at by parties: Exercise of judicial restraint vis-à-vis continuance of criminal proceedings after compromise arrived at between parties may amount to abuse of process of court and futile exercise. In this case, quashment of criminal proceedings based on settlement, by High Court upheld. [CBI v. Sadhu Ram Singla, (2017) 5 SCC 350]
Constitution of India — Arts. 366(29-A)(e) and (f) (as enacted vide 46th Amendment in 1982) — Provision of food and beverages by incorporated clubs to their permanent members — Consideration of, as sale: Questions regarding applicability of doctrine of mutuality, to clubs post 46th Amendment to Art. 366(29-A), framed and matter referred to larger Bench. [State of W.B. v. Calcutta Club Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC 356]
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 47 and Or. 21 — Execution of decree — Powers of executing court under S. 47 CPC: Powers available under S. 47 CPC, are quite different and much narrower than those available in appeal/revision or review. Executing court can neither travel behind decree nor sit in appeal over the same or pass any order jeopardising rights of parties thereunder. Decree is unexecutable only on limited grounds where it suffers from jurisdictional error/infirmity or is void and a nullity, apart from the ground that decree is incapable of execution under the law, either because the same was passed in ignorance of such provision of law or law was promulgated making a decree unexecutable after its passing. An erroneous decree cannot be equalled with one which is a nullity. [Brakewel Automotive Components (India) (P) Ltd. v. P.R. Selvam Alagappan, (2017) 5 SCC 371]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 228 and 216 — Framing of additional charge: There is plea for framing of additional charge, by complainant/victim, when investigating officer drops a charge against the accused, hence, direction to trial court before whom case is pending to consider the same. [Sarada Prasanna Dalai v. Inspector General of Police, (2017) 5 SCC 381]
Service Law — Appointment — Compassionate appointment — Right to compassionate appointment — Parity — Pay: There is no right to seek compassionate appointment since compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment but is a mode to provide succour to family of employee who died in harness. [Mukesh v. State of Bihar, (2017) 5 SCC 383]
Government Contracts and Tenders — Formation of Government Contract — Tender Conditions/Criteria/Norms: Respondent bidder, whose bid had been rejected, inter alia, contended that L-2 who was one amongst the two tenderers found to have requisite qualifications, did not possess hot mix plant at the time of submitting the tender and was thereby disqualified and thus it became necessary to invite the fresh bids but on analysing the tender document and the requirements for prequalification, held hot mix plant was not a mandatory requirement so as to open the financial bid. Thus, the financial bids of the two tenderers who succeeded at the pre-qualification stage had been rightly opened and considered. [Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. Amar Infrastructure Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC 387]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 437 and 439 — Bail — Successive applications for grant of — Effect of filing of charge-sheet: In this case of “misconceived class honour” culminating in appellant-accused murdering his son-in-law, grant of bail by Additional Sessions Judge in third application finding that filing of charge-sheet amounts to change in circumstance oblivious to fact that SLP filed by appellants for grant of bail was dismissed by Supreme Court, not proper. Hence, quashment of such bail by High Court, affirmed. [Virupakshappa Gouda v. State of Karnataka, (2017) 5 SCC 406]
Constitution of India — Art. 136 — Appeal against conviction: In this case, Supreme Court issued suo motu show-cause notice to appellant-accused for enhancement of sentence and appellant, thereafter, sought permission to withdraw appeal. It was held that on issuance of such notice by Supreme Court after hearing both sides, it will be the duty of Supreme Court to decide the same irrespective of fact that accused does not want to prosecute his appeal against conviction. It is because show-cause notice issued to appellant will have to be taken to its logical end being substantive proceedings ascribable to jurisdiction of appellate court under S. 386 or r/w Ss. 397 and 401 CrPC and, in instant case, plenary jurisdiction of Supreme Court. In such backdrop, appellant cannot be permitted to withdraw the appeal. [Gandi Doddabasappa v. State of Karnataka, (2017) 5 SCC 415]
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 2015 — S. 9-B — Contributions made by iron ore lessees to “District Mineral Foundation” set up under S. 9-B: In pursuant to orders/directions passed in Samaj Parivartana Samudaya, (2013) 8 SCC 154, SPV was directed to be set up in order to meet the extraordinary situation i.e. systematic, extraordinary and unprecedented plunder of the natural wealth and environment, and the special funds in deposit with the Monitoring Committee were meant to be deployed for re-creation of what had been lost due to such illegal activities. Even new lessees, who may not have been involved with such degradation, were contributing to the process of reclamation and restoration. In view thereof, held, lessees who may be even remotely connected with the degradation and destruction of nature must continue to pay their share in the process of restitution by contributing to the Managing Committee/SPV from their present sale proceeds, regardless of their obligations under S. 9-B. Therefore, all existing lessees to continue to pay 10% of the sale proceeds to the Monitoring Committee/SPV. [Samaj Parivartana Samudaya v. State of Karnataka, (2017) 5 SCC 434]
Rent Control and Eviction — Eviction petition/suit — Maintainability — Locus standi/Standing — Co-owners/Joint owners: Eviction suit instituted by appellants claiming themselves to be joint owners of suit premises by virtue of a will deed and appellants also declared to be co-owners in an earlier title suit filed by them, and decree in said suit had attained finality, hence, dismissal of the present (subsequent) eviction suit (by Revisional Court and High Court), on ground that appellants had no locus standi to maintain the eviction suit as they failed to formally prove the above will, not proper. [Om Prakash v. Mishri Lal, (2017) 5 SCC 451]
Advocates Act, 1961 — Ss. 36-B(1), 35, 36 and 37 — Relative scope of, explained — Jurisdiction of BCI: Transfer to BCI from State Bar Council under S. 36-B(1) takes place by operation of law on failure by State Bar Council to decide proceedings within mandated period of one year. BCI is mandated to dispose of such transferred proceedings as if they were proceedings withdrawn for enquiry under S. 36(2). BCI is required to exercise original jurisdiction that ought to have been exercised by the State Bar Council in such cases. In exercise of original jurisdiction BCI cannot remand matter to State Bar Council. It can only do so in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. [Ajitsinh Arjunsinh Gohil v. Bar Council of Gujarat, (2017) 5 SCC 465]
