- News
- Columns
- Interviews
- Law Firms
- Apprentice Lawyer
- Legal Jobs
- हिंदी
- ಕನ್ನಡ
In this series, Bar & Bench will bring you the top 15 judgments/orders delivered by the Supreme Court of India every two weeks.
Below are our picks for the first two weeks of February 2023.
1. Cannot confirm conviction under Section 138 NI Act overriding agreement between parties to compound offence: Supreme Court
Case Title: BV Seshiah v. State of Telangana and Another
A division bench of Justices Krishna Murari and V Ramasubramanian held that when parties to a case have entered into an agreement to compound an offence, the High Court cannot override such an agreement and impose its will on parties.
In this case, the Telangana High Court had confirmed the conviction of the appellant in a cheque dishonor case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, thereby, overriding the agreement between the parties to compound the offence.
The Supreme Court, however, set aside the High Court decision. The top Court placed reliance on its earlier decision in M/S Meters and Instruments Private Limited & Another v. Kanchan Mehta (2018), to hold that the nature of offence under Section 138 is primarily related to a civil wrong and has been specifically made a compoundable offence.
"When such a step (of compounding) has been taken by the parties, and the law very clearly allows them to do the same, the High Court then cannot override such compounding and impose its will," the top Court held.
Case Title: M/S Godrej Sara Lee Limited v. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and Others
A division bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Dutta observed that the mere availability of an alternative remedy of appeal or revision would not by itself oust the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and render a writ petition not maintainable.
The Court was of the view that the availability of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition and that the rule which requires a party to pursue the alternative remedy provided by a statute is a rule of policy, convenience, and discretion rather than a rule of law.
"Dismissal of a writ petition by a high court on the ground that the petitioner has not availed the alternative remedy without, however, examining whether an exceptional case has been made out for such entertainment would not be proper," the Court observed.
The Court acknowledged that it is true that the exercise of writ powers in a case where an alternate remedy is available should not be made in a routine manner. However, the Court clarified that the mere fact that the petitioner before the High Court, in a given case, has not pursued the alternative remedy available to him/it cannot mechanically be construed as a ground for its dismissal.
"One of the self-imposed restrictions on the exercise of power under Article 226 that has evolved through judicial precedents is that the high courts should normally not entertain a writ petition, where an effective and efficacious alternative remedy is available. At the same time, it must be remembered that mere availability of an alternative remedy of appeal or revision, which the party invoking the jurisdiction of the high court under Article 226 has not pursued, would not oust the jurisdiction of the high court and render a writ petition 'not maintainable'," the Court said.
Case Title: Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram and Others
A division bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that insufficiency of funds to pay court fees is not a valid ground to seek the condonation of delay in filing an appeal when Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) provides an option to file such 'defective' appeals within time.
The Court explained that Section 4 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (which lays down that prescribed court fees must be paid before filing appeals in the High Court), has to be read along with Section 149, CPC.
The Court explained that Section 149, CPC acts as an exception to the general rule under Section 4 of the Court Fees Act that an appeal cannot be filed before the High Court without paying the requisite court fee.
Relying on the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in Mannan Lal v. Mst. Chhotaka Bibi (1970), the bench added:
"The above section [Section 149 CPC] ... mitigates the rigour of Section 4 of the Court Fees Act and it is for the court in its discretion to allow a person who has filed a memorandum of appeal with deficient court fee to make good the deficiency and the making good of such deficiency cures the defect in the memorandum not from the time when it is made but from the time when it was first presented in court."
4. Supreme Court dismisses plea against appointment of Victoria Gowri as Madras High Court judge
Case Title: Anna Mathew and Others v. The Supreme Court of India and Others
A division bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and BR Gavai dismissed the pleas challenging the appointment of advocate L Victoria Gowri as an additional judge of the Madras High Court.
The Court said that as per Constitution bench judgments of the top court in Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. Union of India and Others and M Manohar Reddy and Another v. Union of India and Others, it cannot examine the suitability of a candidate who has been recommended for judgeship but can only decide whether the candidate meets the eligibility criteria prescribed under the Constitution.
On the question that the Collegium might have not considered all the circumstances pertaining the Justice Gowri, the Bench made it clear that all relevant facts and the political background of Justice L Victoria Gowri were taken into consideration by the Collegium before recommending her elevation as a judge of the Madras High Court.
The Court also noted that the Collegium did not consider it appropriate to withdraw its recommendation on Justice Gowri, despite having received a representation against the proposed appointment of Justice Gowri.
Further, a number of judges of political backgrounds or with anti-government stances or positions criticising State policies, have been appointed, the Court highlighted.
"This by itself, though a relevant consideration, has not been an absolute bar to appointment of otherwise a suitable person... It goes without saying that the conduct of the judge and her/his decisions must reflect and show independence, adherence to the democratic and constitutional values. This is necessary as the judiciary holds the centre stage in protecting and strengthening democracy and upholding human rights and rule of law," the Court stated.
Case Title: Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
A division bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia held that a daily rated employee cannot claim regularization of employment when his initial appointment was not done by a competent authority and there existed no sanctioned post in which such an employee was working.
The Supreme Court said that as per its decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi and Others (2006), there are two pre-conditions that are to be fulfilled in order to claim regularization of employment, which are:
- initial appointment must be done by the competent authority; and
- there must be a sanctioned post on which the daily rated employee must be working.
The Court found that both of the above conditions were missing as far as the case before it was concerned.
Therefore, the top Court said that the rejection of the regularization request in this case was correct.
Case Title: M/S Gas Authority of India Limited v. M/S Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited and Others
A division bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S Oka held that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 can be exercised even in contractual dealings, if the government fails to exercise fairness or practices discrimination.
The Court made the observation while upholding a Gujarat High Court decision to grant relief to Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. (IPCL) in the exercise of the Court's writ jurisdiction in a contractual dispute with the Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL).
On the issue of maintainability, the Court noted that the writ petition was maintainable since GAIL was a public undertaking and, therefore, 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution.
Pertinently, the Court added, "Further, writ jurisdiction can be exercised when the State, even in its contractual dealings, fails to exercise a degree of fairness or practices any discrimination."
Case Title: Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Another
A Constitution bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S Oka, Vikram Nath, and JK Maheshwari referred the issue concerning rights of the Dawoodi Bohra community to excommunicate its members to the nine-judge bench hearing the Sabrimala reference.
The Court held that the 1962 judgment in Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin v. The State Of Bombay protecting the rights of the Bohra community to excommunicate members required reconsideration.
The Bench elaborated that an examination was needed with respect to balancing rights under Article 26(b) of the Constitution - which gives all religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion - with other rights under Part III of the Constitution, particularly Article 21 (right to life and liberty).
The second aspect was whether protection can be given under Article 26(b) to the practice of excommunication while being tested on the touchstone of Constitutional morality.
Noting that these two issues were covered under questions 3 and 4 of the Sabarimala review judgment, the Bench requested the Chief Justice of India to tag this case with the one before the nine-judge bench.
Case Title: Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College
A Constitution bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, AS Oka, Vikram Nath and JK Maheshwari upheld the validity of the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) that law graduates are required to take to be allowed to practice before courts.
The Court held that the powers of the Bar Council of India (BCI) to conduct the exam were adequate, adding,
"We are, thus, of the view that while considering the questions referred to us, the only conclusion which can be laid is that the interdict placed by the judgment of this Court in V. Sudeer on the powers of the Bar Council of India cannot be sustained and we cannot hold that V. Sudeer lays down the correct position of law."
On whether the AIBE should be held pre or post-enrolment, the Court said,
"The effect of the view expressed by us would be that it has to be left to the Bar Council of India as to at what stage the All India Bar Examination has to be held – pre or post."
The bench noted that while there are consequences, especially in respect of the interregnum period, which would arise in holding the AIBE in either scenario, it was not for the Supreme Court to delve into them.
"But it would be appropriate to leave it to the Bar Council of India to look to the niceties of both situations," the judgment stated.
The Court also called for an appropriate rule to be framed laying down that an enrolled advocate who takes up employment in a non-legal context for a substantial period would be deemed to be a new enrolee, and would be required to take AIBE again.
"We believe that the requirements of an active legal practice and that of an unconnected job are different. Even if a person has a law degree or enrolment, it does not mean that his ability to assist the court would continue with him if there are long hiatus period of time in some unconnected job. He would have to hone and test his skills afresh," the Court said.
9. Supreme Court dismisses petition challenging proposed delimitation in Jammu and Kashmir
Case Title: Haji Abdul Gani Khan and Another v. Union of India and Others
A division bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and AS Oka dismissed the petition challenging the notifications for the delimitation of assembly constituencies in the Union Territory (UT) of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K).
The Court clarified that it has not ruled upon the validity of the Jammu & Kashmir Re-organisation Act, 2019, which is pending before the top court in the batch of petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution.
" ... there is absolutely no merit in any of the contentions raised by the petitioners. We may, however, clarify that the findings rendered in the judgment are on the footing that the exercise of power made in the year 2019 under clauses (1) and (3) of Article 370 of the Constitution is valid. We are aware that the issue of the validity of the exercise of the said powers is the subject matter of petitions pending before this Court. Therefore, we have not dealt with the issue of validity," the Court said.
The Court made it clear that the position of the north-eastern States of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur and Nagaland with respect to the conduct of a delimitation exercise cannot be compared to that of the newly-created Union Territory (UT) of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K).
The Court, while noting that Section 10A of the 2002 Delimitation Act allows postponement of the exercise of delimitation in certain contingencies, stated,
"The position and the status of the newly created Union Territory of J&K under the Constitution is completely different from the four north-eastern States. In its applicability to the Union Territory of J & K, Sections 4 and 9 of the Delimitation Act, 2002 stand amended by requiring readjustment to be carried out on the basis of the census figures of 2011. In case of the North Eastern States, there is no such amendment. Therefore, two unequal cannot be treated as equals. Hence, the argument based on the violation of Constitutional provisions including Article 14 deserves to be rejected."
Case Title: Baini Prasad through LRs v. Durga Devi
A division bench of Justices BR Gavai and CT Ravikumar held that an encroacher cannot be treated as a ‘transferee’, and therefore cannot claim a 'right to require' under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act of 1882 (TP Act).
Section 51 comes to the aid of transferees of immoveable property who make any improvement to such property, believing in good faith that they are absolutely entitled to the property. The provision lays down that if such transferees are subsequently evicted by any person having a better title, the transferees are entitled to be paid the value of the improvement. In the alternative, the person causing the eviction can also sell to such transferee the part of the property in which the transferee has such interest at the then prevailing market value.
The Court was of the view that in order to attract Section 51, the occupant of the land must have held possession under colour of title. Such occupant must have been under the bona fide belief that he had secured good title to the property in question and is the owner of the property, the Court said.
"Where the owner of the land filed suit for recovery of possession of his land from the encroacher and once he establishes his title, merely because some structures are erected by the opposite party ignoring the objection, that too without any bona fide belief, denying the relief of recovery of possession would tantamount to allowing a trespasser/encroacher to purchase another man’s property against that man’s will," the Court observed.
11. Complaints under Consumer Protection Act should not be rejected on the ground that consumer knew what he was purchasing: Supreme Court
Case Title: Debashis Sinha and Others v. M/S RNR Enterprise represented by its Proprietor/Chairman, Kolkata and Others
A division bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Dutta held that complaints by consumers should not be rejected by consumer forums on the ground that the consumers knew what they were purchasing.
The Court observed that under the Consumer Protection Act, the jurisdiction of consumer forums is often invoked after the consumer makes a purchase. Hence, if the complaints are rejected by consumer forums on the ground that the consumers “knew what they were purchasing", the object and purpose of the enactment would stand defeated, the Court said.
"More often than not, the jurisdiction of the consumer fora under the Consumer Protection Act is invoked post purchase. If complaints were to be spurned on the specious ground that the consumers knew what they were purchasing, the object and purpose of the enactment would be defeated. Any deficiency detected post-purchase opens up an avenue for the aggrieved consumer to seek relief before the consumer fora," the Court's order stated.
In this case, the Court criticized the approach of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) to reject a consumer complaint on the ground that the complainants 'ought to have known what they were purchasing'.
"We have failed to comprehend as to what the NCDRC meant when it observed that the appellants 'ought to have known what they were purchasing' ... The reasoning of the NCDRC is indefensible," the Supreme Court observed.
Case Title: Ajai Alias Ajju and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh
A division bench of Justices BR Gavai and Vikram Nath affirmed the conviction and life sentence of four persons accused of murder based on the testimony of the solitary eye witness in the case.
The Court observed that it is not the quantity of witnesses to a criminal trial that matter but the quality of witnesses.
It, therefore, rejected the contention by the accused regarding the failure of the prosecution to examine two witnesses in the case.
The Court observed that such non-examination did not have any material bearing on the case.
"It is the discretion of the prosecution to lead as much evidence as is necessary for proving the charge. It is not the quantity of the witnesses but the quality of witnesses which matters," the Court added.
Case Title: ITC Limited v. Aashna Roy
A division bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Vikram Nath set aside ₹2 crore compensation amount awarded to a lady for bad haircut and hair treatment she underwent at ITC Maurya hotel in Delhi.
The Court sent the matter back to the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) for a fresh determination of the compensation amount.
The Court said that the compensation amount has to be determined based on evidence and not based solely on the claim raised by the consumer.
"The NCDRC discussed regarding the importance of hair in a woman’s life and also that it could be an asset for building a career in modelling and advertising industry but then quantification of compensation has to be based upon material evidence and not on the mere asking ... Once deficiency in service is proved then the respondent is entitled to be suitably compensated under different heads admissible under law. Question is on what basis and how much. Let this quantification be left to the wisdom of the NCDRC," the Court said.
14. Supreme Court dismisses Rana Ayyub challenge to Ghaziabad court summons against her in PMLA case
Case Title: Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement
A division bench of Justices V Ramasubramanian and JB Pardiwala dismissed a plea filed by journalist Rana Ayyub challenging the jurisdiction of a Ghaziabad court that had commenced proceedings against her in a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case.
The Court granted liberty to Ayyub to raise the question of jurisdiction before the trial court itself.
" ... we are of the view that the issue of territorial jurisdiction cannot be decided in a writ petition, especially when there is a serious factual dispute about the place/places of commission of the offence. Hence, this question should be raised by the petitioner before the Special Court, since an answer to the same would depend upon evidence as to the places where any one or more of the processes or activities mentioned in Section 3 were carried out", the Supreme Court said.
The Court pointed out that as per the PMLA, the Special Court constituted under Section 43(1) is empowered to try even the scheduled offence connected to the same.
" ... the trial of the scheduled offence, insofar as the question of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, should follow the trial of the offence of money-laundering and not vice versa", the top court explained.
Taking note of the fact that the donations in question were received from different parts of the country online, the Court said,
"Therefore, the question of territorial jurisdiction in this case requires an enquiry into a question of fact as to the place where the alleged proceeds of crime were (i) concealed; or (ii) possessed; or (iii) acquired; or (iv) used. This question of fact will actually depend upon the evidence that unfolds before the Trial Court."
15. Ouster of civil court jurisdiction cannot have retrospective effect of annulling decree validly passed by it: Supreme Court
Case Title: Ananta Chandrakant Bhonsule (D) By LRs and Another v. Trivikram Atmaram Korjuenkar (D) By LRs and Another
A division bench of Justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal held that the ouster of a civil court's jurisdiction by a statute cannot have a retrospective effect of annulling a decree validly passed by a civil court before the change in law.
In the present case, the Supreme Court found that an Act applicable to Goa which had barred the civil court's jurisdiction, had come into force only in 1976, after a trial court had passed its 1975 decree allowing a civil suit for eviction.
As such, the Court upheld the decree so passed.
"It is settled law that ouster of jurisdiction of civil court can be expressed or implied, but it cannot have retrospective effect annulling a decree validly passed by the civil court," the top Court reasoned.
1. Relax bail conditions suo motu if bail bond not furnished for a month: Supreme Court to trial courts
Case Title: In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail
A division bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S Oka directed that local courts may suo motu consider relaxing bail conditions in cases where bail bonds have not been furnished by the accused for over a month.
The Court also said that the concerned courts should not always insist on local sureties, which could create an impediment in securing bail.
After discussing suggestions of Amicus Curiae Gaurav Agrawal regarding bail, the judges ordered compliance with the following directions:
- The Court which grants bail to an undertrial prisoner/convict would be required to send a soft copy of the bail order by e-mail to the prisoner through the Jail Superintendent on the same day or the next day. The Jail Superintendent would be required to enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prisons software (or any other software which is being used by the prison department);
- If the accused is not released within a period of 7 days from the date of grant of bail, it would be the duty of the Superintendent of Jail to inform the secretary of Delhi Legal Services Authority (DLSA) who may depute para legal volunteer or jail visiting advocate to interact with the prisoner and assist the prisoner in all ways possible for his release;
- NIC would make attempts to create necessary fields in the e-prison software so that the date of grant of bail and date of release are entered by the prison department and in case the prisoner is not released within 7 days, then an automatic email can be sent to the secretary, DLSA;
- The secretary, DLSA, with a view to finding out the economic condition of the accused, may take the help of the probation officers or the para legal volunteers to prepare a report on the socio-economic conditions of the inmate which may be placed before the concerned court with a request to relax the condition (s) of bail/surety;
- In cases where the undertrial or convict requests that he can furnish bail bond or sureties once released, then, the court may consider granting temporary bail for a specified period to the accused so that he can furnish bail bond or sureties;
- If the bail bonds are not furnished within one month from the date of grant bail, the concerned court may suo motu take up the case and consider whether the conditions of bail require modification/ relaxation;
- One of the reasons which delays the release of the accused/ convict is the insistence upon local surety. It is suggested that in such cases, the courts may not impose the condition of local surety.
Case Title: Devu G v. State of Kerala
A three-Judge bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala issued notice in a plea filed by a woman in a same-sex relationship alleging that her partner has been illegally detained by her parents.
The Court also stayed the order of the Kerala High Court directing her detained partner to attend counselling.
The Court further directed the parents of the detained partner to produce their daughter before the Kollam Family Court, following which an interview was to be arranged with a member of the Supreme Court E-Committee. The E-Committee member was asked to submit a report apprising the Supreme Court on whether the woman was voluntarily residing with her parents or being kept in illegal detention.
The Family Court and the E-commitee member were also directed to ensure that the statement of the woman is recorded 'in a fair and free manner without any coercion or duress from the parents'.
Case Title: Roppen Transportation Services Pvt Ltd and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Others
A three-Judge bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala refused relief in an appeal filed by bike taxi aggregator company, Rapido, against the Maharashtra government's refusal to grant a two-wheeler bike taxi aggregator license to the company.
The Court added that amendments made to the Motor Vehicles Act in 2019 made it clear that aggregators cannot operate without a valid licence.
"The effect of amended provision is that no person can engage himself as an aggregator without a license from such authority and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by State government," the Court said.
4. Supreme Court rejects bail plea of Christian Michel in AgustaWestland scam
Case Title: Christian Michel v. Central Bureau of Investigation
A three-Judge bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala rejected the bail plea of British national and an accused in the AgustaWestland chopper scam, Christian Michel.
The Court reasoned that Section 436A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which provides for release when half the sentence is served, would not be applicable in the instant case.
"The provisions of Section 436A would not be applicable in this case. We find no merit in the Special Leave Petition," the Court said in its order.
The Court, however, clarified that their order would not come in the way of Michel approaching the trial court for regular bail.
Case Title: Vijay Kirgandur and Another v. State of Kerala
A three-Judge bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala granted relief to the makers of the movie, Kantara by staying a bail condition imposed by the Kerala High Court which had restrained the playing of the song Varaha Roopam in the movie for the time being.
The High Court had imposed this condition while granting anticipatory bail to Rishab Shetty and Vijay Kiragandur, the director and producer respectively of the movie.
Lifting the said condition, the Supreme Court ordered:
"Petitioner shall present before Investigating Officer on 12th and 13th February. In the event he is arrested, he shall be released on bail forthwith subject to conditions on trial court. We issue stay on Condition 5."
6. Try and catch international drug syndicates, not small time peddlers, says Supreme Court
Case Title: Sabir v. State of Madhya Pradesh
A three-Judge bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala observed that law enforcement agencies should spent their time and energy to go behind international drug syndicates instead of catching small time peddlers.
The Court questioned what the State was doing about real offenders running international syndicates.
"What are you doing about real offenders who are running international syndicates? Try and catch them and then save the people...You are catching small time peddlers, farmers, etc but the not real culprit," the Court remarked.
The Court was hearing a bail plea filed by an accused booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) after opium was allegedly recovered from him.
The Court noted that the accused had served five years in jail when the maximum term he could be sentenced to was ten years. Hence, it said that he was entitled to bail.
Case Title: All India Association of Jurists v. Uttarakhand High Court
A three-Judge bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala said that the fact that some High Court Chief Justices are doing away with technology set up for virtual hearings is most disturbing.
The Court took a poor view of the practice in some High Courts, while hearing a plea seeking to declare virtual hearing a fundamental right.
"What is most disturbing to see is that some Chief Justices of High Courts are doing away with technology set up for virtual hearings. This is not how you deal with public money. It is not that you are technology friendly or not. But you cannot do away with the infrastructure," the Chief Justice of India remarked.
Case Title: M/S Jindal Saw Limited v. State of Rajasthan and Another
A division bench of Justices BR Gavai and CT Ravikumar took strong exception to the manner in which many tribunals were passing orders based on reports of committees and experts, without actually hearing the parties to the case.
The Court pulled up the National Green Tribunal (NGT) for passing one such order without hearing the party to the case.
"How are these tribunals functioning, passing orders based only on committee reports, without giving notice to parties? Total violation of principles of natural justice," Justice Gavai remarked.
Justice Ravikumar weighed in saying that there were several such instances and that such matters eventually end up being moved before the top court.
Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Smt. Priyanka
A division bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna imposed ₹50,000 costs on the Uttar Pradesh government for challenging a Allahabad High Court order which had directed the government to pay gratuity to the wife of a deceased employee, who had passed away while in service.
The Court took exception to the State challenging such cases before the Supreme Court which results in the aggrieved person being deprived of the compensatory amount.
"We deprecate the practice of a State filing such cases before the Apex Court. Hence the appeal is dismissed with cost of ₹50,000 payable by the appellant to the respondent within a period of four weeks from today," the Court ordered.
10. Supreme Court upholds statutory bail granted to NSE co-location scam accused Chitra Ramkrishna
Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Chitra Ramkrishna
A division bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi upheld the bail granted to former National Stock Exchange (NSE) Chief Executive Officer Chitra Ramkrishna in connection with the NSE co-location scam case being probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The Court refused to interfere with a Delhi High Court order granting bail to Ramakrishna in the case.
"After hearing learned counsel, we find no reason to interfere with the bail order. We clarify that the observations made are only for grant of default bail and shall not affect the merits of the trial; all questions of law are left open", the Supreme Court said.
The Delhi High Court had, in September, granted statutory bail to Ramkrishna and former Group Operating Officer of NSE, Anand Subramanian, in a case registered against them by the CBI in connection with the NSE co-location scam.