Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR)

The Supreme Court held that delay in pronouncement of a reasoned judgement causes irreparable loss to the parties. It issued comprehensive guidelines under Article 142, for the pronouncement of reserved judgements, uploading of judgements, monitoring of delayed matters and remedies available to litigants in cases of prolonged delay before High Courts.

The petitions arose from delays in the pronouncement of criminal appeals reserved by the Jharkhand High Court. The petitioners had been convicted in separate criminal cases and had preferred appeals before the High Court, where arguments were heard and judgements reserved between January and June 2022. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court alleging undue delay in the delivery of the reserved judgements. During the proceedings, the Supreme Court called for reports from High Courts across the country regarding matters in which judgements had been reserved but remained unpronounced, and regarding delays in uploading judgements after pronouncement.

The Supreme Court held that High Courts should endeavour to pronounce reasoned judgements within three months of reserving judgement. It observed that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 extends to every stage of a proceeding

The Supreme Court held that the character of betting and gambling does not depend on whether the game is of skill or chance but whether there is an existence of stakes. The online gaming activities played on digital platforms constitute betting and gambling for the purpose of the Goods and Service Tax (GST) framework.

Tax authorities issued show cause notices seeking 28 percent GST on the actionable claims arising from betting and gambling. In May 2023, the Karnataka High Court quashed the notice to Gameskraft Technologies, holding that online rummy is a game of skill beyond betting and gambling. The tax authority approached the Supreme Court. Other gaming operators, fantasy sports platforms and casino interests filed challenges to the levy and the 2023 CGST amendments. The Supreme Court heard the batch together.

The Bench set aside the Karnataka High Court judgement. It restored the show cause notice against Gameskraft, and upheld the levy as constitutionally valid. It held the 2023 amendments clarificatory and retrospective.

The Supreme Court held that betting on games of skill amounts to gambling and is not protected under Article 19(1)(g).

The respondents — gaming companies — challenged the constitutionality of amendments made to the Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, 1930 and the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, in the Madras and Karnataka High Courts respectively. The amendments prohibit betting and gambling. The High Courts held that states cannot regulate betting on activities based on skill under Entry 34 of State List. The state governments appealed against the judgements on the ground that “betting and gambling” under Entry 34 cannot be read rigidly to invalidate legislative competence.

The Supreme Court set aside the judgements, noting that even a game of skill played with stakes on the outcome amounts to “betting” under Entry 34. Further, Entry 34 does not include protection from betting on games of skill.

The Supreme Court held that when a company notifies a combination, it must present the transaction to the Competition Commission of India (CCI) in substance, listing all inter-connected steps and commercial arrangements. However, the company is not required to adopt the regulator’s preferred characterisation or labelling of those rights or agreements.

In November 2019, Amazon acquired a 49 percent stake in Future Coupons after securing approval from the CCI under Section 31(1) of the Competition Act, 2002. In June 2021, the CCI issued a show cause notice alleging suppression of material facts in the aftermath of the Amazon-Future dispute. The CCI kept the approval in abeyance in December 2021. It imposed penalties on Amazon and directed it to file a fresh application. This was affirmed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).

The Supreme Court set aside NCLAT and CCI’s order. It held that Amazon had notified its combination in substance and provided the CCI with the relevant agreements. Further, the CCI lacked the authority to suspend a concluded approval, there being a limitation barring the reopening of a case after the passage of a year, under Section 20(1) of the Act.

The Supreme Court held that it is better for public interest to regularise wrongly allotted public land by charging the market value rather than demolishing it, as it has created long-term social and economic benefits.

In 2003, the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra (CIDCO) allotted a 3,611 sq metre plot in Sector 30A, Vashi, Navi Mumbai to K. Raheja Corp. at Rs. 10,250 per sq metre on an individual application. Subsequently, the appellant invested Rs. 450 crore and made a fully operational shopping mall and hotel. The Bombay High Court in 2014 held the allotment illegal and directed that the land be restored to its “original condition”, requiring that the shopping mall and hotel be demolished. The appellant then filed an application for regularisation and an appeal before the Supreme Court. The state government set up a committee to examine the feasibility and terms of regularisation.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgement. It applied the recommendations of the committee stating that the appellant is liable to pay the market value of the land, as it was in 2014—Rs. 54,400 per sq.meter. The Bench noted that the mall has 150 retailers with 8000 individuals employed.