Triple Riding On Motorcycle Not Automatic Proof Of Contributory Negligence; High Court Can Enhance Award Even Without Cross-Appeal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Statutory Power To Lay Electricity Lines Prevails Over Private Land Claims; Landowners Entitled To Compensation, Not Obstruction: Bombay High Court Beer & Whisky Are Allied/Cognate Goods; Use Of Identical Mark For Spirits Infringes 'Godfather' Beer Trademark: Delhi High Court Minimum Percentile Fixed By Indian Nursing Council For B.Sc. Nursing Admissions Must Be Strictly Adhered To; Cannot Be Diluted Without Approval: Calcutta High Court Bride Not Expected To Keep All Gold In Personal Custody In Matrimonial Home; Entrustment To Husband Presumed: Kerala High Court Default Imprisonment Not Additional Punishment But Coercive Measure To Secure Fine; Cannot Become 'De Facto' Debtors' Prison: Karnataka High Court Mahant Is Only A Custodian Of Deity’s Property, Assets Gifted For Temple Maintenance Belong To Public Trust: Gujarat High Court Pendency Of Criminal Antecedents Alone Not A Ground To Deny Bail: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail In Abduction Case After 3-Year Delay In FIR Beer Falls Under ‘IMFL’ Category; No Obligation To Collect TCS On Sales Prior To June 2003: Telangana High Court Dismissal From Service For Negligence Without Proved Misappropriation Is Disproportionate: Orissa High Court Merit In A Case Does Not Justify Disregarding Statutory Delay: NCDRC Upholds Dismissal Of Star Health's Appeal Filed With 442-Day Delay Limitation Period Under Section 34(3) Arbitration Act Commences Only From Receipt Of Signed Copy Of Award: Madhya Pradesh High Court Government Employee Not Eligible For Regular Promotion During Pendency Of Vigilance Proceeding: Orissa High Court Arrest Warrants Against Directors Under Section 72 CP Act Should Be Last Resort; Proper Procedure Must Be Followed: NCDRC

"Supreme Court Expunges High Court's Adverse Remarks Against State Officer, Citing 'Incorrect and Erroneous Appreciation of the Record'"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India expunged the adverse remarks and directions issued by the High Court against an Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner (AETC) in Punjab. The apex court cited that the High Court's directions were based on an "incorrect and erroneous appreciation of the record" [Para 20].

The case originated from the State of Punjab's appeal against the High Court's order, which had directed the initiation of criminal proceedings against the AETC for allegedly taking a false defense in a case related to the sealing of a shop. The Supreme Court scrutinized the basis of the High Court's directions and found them lacking in evidence and natural justice [Para 1, 2, 7].

Justice ABHAY S. OKA and Justice SANJAY KAROL, who presided over the case, emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice. The judgment stated, "The Supreme Court questions the High Court's failure to afford the AETC an opportunity to defend himself, thereby violating principles of natural justice" [Para 7, 11].

The judgment also elaborated on the principles that should guide a court in passing adverse remarks against an individual. "The Court emphasizes the need for caution, evidence, and necessity for the case at hand" [Para 14-19].

In the concluding remarks, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the State of Punjab and ordered that "any proceedings initiated, including the FIR, are ordered to stand closed with immediate effect" [Para 21, 22, 23].

Date of Decision: August 25, 2023

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. vs M/S. SHIKHA TRADING CO.

Latest Legal News