One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice
Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. V. Govindan Raghavan
The Supreme Court held that the incorporation of one-sided clauses in a builder-buyer agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice as per Section 2 (r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The bench comprising Justice UU Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra also observed that a builder could not seek to bind a flat buyer with one-sided contractual terms.
Employee Not Entitled To Full Back Wages On Acquittal, Unless His Prosecution Was Found Malicious
Raj Narain V. Union of India
The Supreme Court held that the employer cannot be mulcted with full back wages on the acquittal of an employee by a criminal Court, unless it is found that the prosecution is malicious.
SC Strikes Down RBI Circular Asking Banks To Take Defaulting Companies To Insolvency
Dharani Sugars &Chemicals Ltd. V. Union of India
The Supreme Court struck down the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India on February 12, 2018 directing banks to initiate insolvency proceedings against companies having bad debts of Rs 2000 crores or above.
Authorization From Central Govt Necessary For RBI To Direct Insolvency Process Against Stressed Assets
The Supreme Court observed that after the insertion of Section 35AA in 2017 with a specific condition of authorization from central government, recourse cannot be made to general powers under Section 35A for issuing directions to take insolvency action in respect of bad debts.
SC Sets Aside Bail Granted To J&K Businessman In Terror Funding Case
National Investigation Agency V. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali
The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court order which granted bail to Jammu and Kashmir based influential businessman Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali in Terror funding case. Allowing the appeal filed by the National Investigating Agency, the bench comprising Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice Ajay Rastogi observed that the Designated NIA Court had rightly rejected the bail application after adverting to the relevant material/evidence indicative of the fact that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the respondent is prima facie true.
Employees Of ‘Local Bodies’ Entitled To Gratuity Under Payment Of Gratuity Act
Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam, Kanpur V. Sri. Mujib Ullah Khan
The Supreme Court held that the employees of the local bodies like Municipalities are entitled for gratuity under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The bench comprising Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Hemant Gupta upheld Allahabad High Court judgments while upholding appeals filed by Kanpur and Gorakhpur Municipalities.
Sanction Under Sec.197 CrPC Required Only If Offence Has Nexus With Duties Of Public Servant
Devendra Prasad Singh V. State of Bihar
In order to attract the rigor of section 197 Cr.P.C. the offence alleged against a Government Officer must have some nexus with the discharge of his official duties as Government Officer, held the Supreme Court.
No Prohibition In Granting Interim Mandatory Injunctions In Appropriate Cases
Hammad Ahmed V. Abdul Majeed
The Supreme Court observed that grant of interim mandatory injunction is not prohibited, and it can granted in ‘appropriate’ cases. The bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Hemant Gupta observed that an ad interim mandatory injunction, is to be granted not at the asking but on strong circumstance so that to protect the rights and interest of the parties so as not to frustrate their rights regarding mandatory injunction.
#Rafale- Official Secrets Act Does Not Empower Executive To Restrain Publication Of Documents Marked As Secret
Yashwant Sinha V. Central Bureau Investigation
The Supreme Court dismissed Centre’s preliminary objection against using privileged documents for considering the review petitions in the Rafale case. While dismissing the Centre’s preliminary objections, the CJI observed that there is no provision in the Official Secrets Act by which Parliament has vested any power in the executive arm of the government either to restrain publication of documents marked as secret or from placing such documents before a Court of Law which may have been called upon to adjudicate a legal issue concerning the parties. No such provision in any other statute has been brought to our notice, the CJI said.
SC Dismisses Centre’s Preliminary Objections Against Relying On “Privileged” Documents; Review To Be Heard On Merits
Yashwant Sinha V. Central Bureau Investigation
The Supreme Court dismissed the preliminary objections raised by the Centre against using privileged documents for considering the review petitions in the Rafale case. The Court said that the review petitions will be heard on merits and a date will be fixed for that.
Res Judicata Principle Also Applicable To Labour/Industrial Proceedings Chairman & MD, Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. Vs. Gen. Secretary, FACT Employees Association
The Supreme Court reiterated that principle of Res Judicata defined in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure also applies to the labour/industrial proceedings. The bench comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Indu Malhotra referred to three old judgments of the Apex Court to hold that principle of res judicata applies to the labour proceedings or not, remains no more res integra.
Examination Of Witnesses In The Absence Of Accused Is A Curable Irregularity
Atma Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
Absence of the accused while taking evidence of prosecution witnesses, by itself, would not vitiate the trial, unless great prejudice has caused to the accused, the Supreme Court held, while upholding a High Court judgment which ordered fresh trial in a murder case. The bench comprising of Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra was considering an appeal against High court judgment which ordered fresh trial/de-novo by directing the trial court to lawfully re-record statements of the witnesses whose evidence was recorded in the first round without ensuring presence of the accused in the court.
498A Case Can Be Filed At A Place Where A Woman Driven Out Of Matrimonial Home Takes Shelter
Rupali Devi V. State of Uttar Pradesh
Answering a reference pending for about seven years, the Supreme Court held that the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would, dependent on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code
Corroborative Evidence Required If It Is Doubtful Whether Deceased Was In Fit State Of Mind While Making Dying Declaration
Sampat Babso Kale V. State of Maharashtra
The Supreme Court observed that, though conviction can solely be based on dying declaration, corroborative evidence may be required when there is doubt as to whether the victim was in a fit state of mind to make the statement. The bench comprising Justice SA Bobde and Justice Deepak Gupta acquitted Sampat Babso Kale and his sister who were convicted by the Bombay High Court for murder of his wife by pouring Kerosene.
Deceased Bachelor’s Age To Be Considered For Calculating ‘Multiplier’ In Motor Accident Claim Cases
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd vs. Mandala Yadagari Goud
A three judge bench of the Supreme Court held that, in the case of a motor accident where there is death of a person, who is a bachelor, it is the age of the deceased which should be taken into account for calculating the multiplier, not that of dependents. The bench comprising Justice SA Bobde, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar was considering a submission in an appeal against High Court judgment that it is the age of the dependents which has to be taken into account and thus the High Court has fallen into an error by taking the multiplier on the basis of the age of the deceased.
Section 138 NI Act: Complainant Bound To Explain His Financial Capacity When It Is Questioned By The Accused
Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa
The Supreme Court observed that a complainant in a cheque bounce case is bound to explain his financial capacity, when the same is questioned by the accused, by leading evidence to that effect. In this case.
Court Can’t Appoint Arbitrator When The Contract Containing Arbitration Clause Is Insufficiently Stamped
Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. Vs. Coastal Marine Constructions &Engineering Ltd.
The Supreme Court held that it would be necessary for the Court before considering and passing final orders on an application under Section 11(6) of the Act to await the adjudication by the stamp authorities, in a case where the document objected to, is not adequately stamped. The bench comprising Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran observed that the law laid down in SMS Tea Estates (P) Ltd. v. Chandmari Tea Co. (P) Ltd. still applies, even after introduction of Section 11(6A), by way of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015.
Mere Financial Assistance To Buy Property Cannot Be Termed Benami Transaction
P. Leelavathi vs. Shankarnarayana Rao
The Supreme Court observed that mere financial assistance to buy a property cannot be the sole determinative factor/circumstance to hold the transaction as benami in nature. The issue before the bench comprising of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice MR Shah in an appeal arising out of a suit filed by a lady against her brothers was whether the transactions can be said to be benami in nature merely because some financial assistance has been given by the father to the sons (defendants) to purchase the properties, subject matter of the suit (filed by his daughter, claiming share in these properties)
Almost Every Tender Being Challenged In Writ Proceedings Almost As A Matter Of Routine
Caretel InfoTech Ltd. Vs. HPCL
In a judgment delivered, the Supreme Court expressed its concern about the trend of challenging almost every tender in writ proceedings ‘almost as a matter of routine’, The bench comprising Justice SA Bobde and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul observed that it affects the efficacy of commercial activities of the public sectors, which may be in competition with the private sector.
Practice Of Summoning Officers To Court Is Not Proper
Shri N. K. Janu V. Lakshmi Chandra
The Supreme Court observed that practice of summoning officers to court is not proper and does not serve the purpose of administration of justice in view of the separation of powers of the Executive and the Judiciary. The bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Hemant Gupta observed thus in an appeal, while noticing that numerous orders were passed by the High Court from time to time seeking personal presence of the officers of the State.
SC Dismisses Man’s Plea Challenging His Father’s Detention under COFEPOSA During Emergency
Narender Kumar V. Union of India
The Supreme Court dismissed a man’s plea challenging detention order passed against his father under COFEPOSA in the year 1974. The bench observed that the Competent Authority and the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the provisions of SAFEMA had, after issuance of due notice and granting every opportunity to the noticees, arrived at findings that the properties mentioned in the schedules to the notices were illegally acquired and that they stood forfeited to the Central Government free from all encumbrances.
Domestic Inquiry During Pending Criminal Trial Not Contempt: SC Upholds Termination Of Teacher Accused Of Sexually Harassing Girl Students
The Secretary, Lucy Sequeira Trust V. Kailash Ramesh Tandel
While upholding termination of a teacher accused of harassing girl students in a Private school, the Supreme Court observed that pendency of criminal trial does not have any bearing on the domestic inquiry against the teacher. The bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Indira Banerjee observed that the initiation of the process in a departmental proceeding, in matters like these, cannot be said to be amounting to contempt of court even if the criminal proceedings were pending.
Sex After Obtaining Consent By False Promise To Marry Is Rape
Anurag Soni vs. State of Chhattisgarh
The Supreme Court reiterated that the consent for sexual intercourse obtained by a person by giving false promise of marriage would not excuse him from rape charges. The bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice MR Shah, in a criminal appeal referred to many judgments on the subject and restated the legal position.
Contemporary Events Reveal That There Is A Growing Intolerance Which Unaccept the Rights Of Others To Freely Espouse Their Views
Indibility Creative Pvt Ltd. Vs. Govt. of West Bengal
The Supreme Court came down heavily on the unofficial ban imposed by West Bengal Government on the film “Bhobhishyoter Bhoot” by using police pressure to coerce exhibitors to stop its screening. The Court ordered that the film producer has to be compensated by the State Government by paying Rs. 20 lakhs.
‘No Useful Purpose Will Be Served’, SC Closes 22 Year Old Enron-Dabhol Bribery Case Citing Long Delay
Center for Indian Trade Unions Vs. State of Maharashtra
Observing “no useful purpose will be served” after long delay, the Supreme Court closed a Special Leave Petition filed by Centre of Indian Trade Union(CITU) in 1997 seeking probe into the alleged Enron-Dabhol corruption case.
SC Upholds Madras HC’s Direction Appointing Retired Police Officer To Head SIT Probing Idol Theft Cases
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Elephant G. Rajendran
The Supreme Court upheld the Madras High Court’s appointment of A.G. Ponn Manickavel as the head of Special Investigation Team to probe Idol Theft cases in Tamil Nadu. The State of Tamil Nadu had approached the Apex Court challenging the High Court order contending that Ponn Manickavel after superannuation could not have exercised any power of police officer as entrusted on a police officer under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Tenants Can Be Evicted Only By Following Procedure Laid Down In Applicable Rent Control Laws
Dr. RS Grewal Vs. Chander Parkash Soni
The Supreme Court observed that the protection offered to a statutory tenant by Rent Control Laws can only be overcome by following the procedure laid out in such laws. The bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta observed that such a statutory tenant can be evicted only by following the procedure laid down in applicable rent control laws and not by filing suit for possession against him/her.
Magistrate Cannot Suo Motu Direct Further Investigation After Discharging The Accused
Bikash Ranjan Rout Vs. State
The Supreme Court observed that a Magistrate has no jurisdiction to suo moto pass an order for further investigation/reinvestigation after he discharges the accused. The court said that the power to order further investigation which may be available to the Magistrate at the pre-cognizance stage may not be available to the Magistrate at the post-cognizance stage, more particularly, when the accused is discharged by him.
Magistrate Cannot Direct Police To File Chargesheet On Receipt Of Closure Report
Ramswaroop Soni vs. State of M
The Supreme Court reiterated that a magistrate, upon receipt of a closure/refer report, cannot direct the police to file charge sheet. Such a direction is wholly unsustainable, said the bench comprising of Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra, in the appeal filed by accused. It observed that the judicial discretion to be used by the Magistrate at such stage shall fall in either of the the three categories.
If Terms On Exclusion Of Policy Are Not Communicated To Insured, Insurer Cannot Rely On Them To Repudiate Claim
Bharath Watch Company Vs. National insurance Co. Ltd
Setting aside the judgment of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission(NCDRC), the Supreme Court held that if the terms of exclusion of policy are not communicated to the insured, the insurer cannot rely on them to repudiate a claim.
SC Acquits Murder Accused After 20 Years, Finding That He Was Juvenile At The Time Of Incident
Ashok Kumar Mehra & Anr v. State of Punjab
Supreme Court acquitted a murder accused after 20 years of commission of alleged murder on the crucial finding that the he was a minor at the time of commission of the offence.
HC Has No Jurisdiction To Appreciate Evidence While Hearing A Petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Md. Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar
The Supreme Court held that the High Court has no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under section 482 Cr.P.C. The division bench of the Supreme Court Comprising of Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari held so while allowing an appeal in a case against the order of the High Court of Judicature of Patna, quashing the order of Magistrate wherein cognizance of complaint was taken for commission of offence under sections 323 and 379 r/w section 34 of IPC.
Regularization Obtained By Misrepresenting Facts Cannot Be Sustained; SC Upholds Termination Of A ‘Chowkidar’
Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority Vs. Karamjit Singh
Holding that the appointment of a Chowkidar on regular basis was invalid, the Supreme Court observed an order of regularization obtained by misrepresenting facts, or by playing a fraud upon the competent authority, cannot be sustained.
Person Ineligible To Be Arbitrator Under Sec.12(5) Of Arbitration Act Cannot Appoint Another Arbitrator
Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. Vs. United Telecoms Limited
The Supreme Court held that the appointment of arbitrator by a person who himself is ineligible to be an arbitrator as per Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 is void ab initio.
Pre-Sentence Hearing On A Separate Date Not Mandatory
Accused X Vs. State of Maharashtra
The Supreme Court observed that there is no bar on the pre-sentencing hearing taking place on the same day after passing the judgment of conviction, if the accused and the prosecution are ready to submit their arguments. The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Indira Banerjee observed that the object of Section 235 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to provide an opportunity for accused to adduce mitigating circumstances, but it does not mean that the Trial Court can fulfil the requirements of Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C. only by adjourning the matter for one or two days to hear the parties on sentence.
Post Conviction Mental Illness Is A Mitigating Factor To Commute Death Sentence
The Supreme Court held that post conviction mental illness will be a mitigating factor while considering appeals of death convicts. The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Indira Banerjee commuted death penalty of a person convicted of rape and murder of two minor girls.
SC Allows Plea To Record Evidence Of A Nigerian Doctor Through Video Conferencing
Manju Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan
The Supreme Court allowed a plea to record evidence of a Nigerian doctor who conducted post mortem of the deceased via video conferencing. Allowing the application under Section 311 CrPC, the bench directed the Trial Court to take all the necessary measures for ensuring the examination of the witness concerned by issuing commission and/or recording his statement through video-conferencing.
Sentence Can Be Enhanced In Convict’s Appeal Only By Giving Him Notice Of Enhancement
Kumar Ghimirey V. The State of Sikkim
The Supreme Court reiterated that the power of a High Court to enhance sentence awarded to a convict, while considering his appeal, can only be exercised after giving him the notice of enhancement. Kumar Ghimirey was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment by the Trial Court finding him guilty of sexually assaulting a seven year old girl. The Sikkim High Court, in his appeal against conviction, enhanced it to ten years.
Adverse Possession Plea Can Be Sustained Only When Possession Is In Denial Of True Owners’ Title
Mallikarjunaiah vs. Nanjaiah
The Supreme Court reiterated the principles of acquisition of title by adverse possession. The bench comprising of Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari observed that mere continuous possession howsoever long it may have been qua its true owner is not enough to sustain the plea of adverse possession unless it is further proved that such possession was open, hostile, exclusive and with the assertion of ownership right over the property to the knowledge of its true owner.
Witness Can Be Called ‘Interested’ Only When He/She Derives Some Benefit Seeing An Accused Person Punished
Sadayappan @ Ganesan vs. State
The witness may be called “interested” only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished, the Supreme Court observed while rejecting a defence contention in a criminal appeal.
Suppression Of Facts Made In Proposal Form Will Render Insurance Policy Voidable By The Insurer
Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Rekhaben Nareshbai Rathod
The Supreme Court, observed that failure of the insured to disclose the policy of insurance obtained earlier in the proposal form entitled the insurer to repudiate the claim under the policy. The bench comprising Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta said that any suppression, untruth or inaccuracy in the statement in the proposal form will be considered as a breach of the duty of good faith and will render the policy voidable by the insurer.
States Can Impose Restrictions To Consider Remission Claims: SC Upholds Rajasthan Rule
State of Rajasthan vs. Mukesh Sharma
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006. The bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Navin Sinha observed that there is no requirement for laying of the Rules before the Legislature prior to promulgation and no time limit has been prescribed for laying has been provided. The use of words “as soon as” coupled with the absence of any consequence for not laying makes the provision directory and not mandatory, said the bench.
‘Attack’ Cannot Be Said To Be Made At ‘Spur Of The Moment Without Premeditation’ When There Are Multiple Wounds
Nagji Odhavji Kumbhar & Anr v. State of Gujarat
It cannot be said that the attack was made at the spur of the moment without pre-meditation when there are multiple wounds, observed the Supreme Court while deciding a criminal appeal. The appeal in the case Nagji Odhavji Kumbhar & Anr v. State of Gujarat arose against the order of the High Court of Gujarat upholding the conviction of the appellants for the offences under sections 302 and 324 of IPC.
Strong Suspicion Based On Materials Which Can Be Translated Into Evidence Required While Framing Charge Against Accused
Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel V. State of Gujarat
The Supreme Court observed that a strong suspicion would suffice at the stage of framing charge against the accused. The bench was hearing an appeal filed by Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel who had challenged the orders of the Trial Court and the High Court refusing to discharge him of the offences under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
‘Admission’ Made By Accused To Police Officer Before Investigation Commences May Be Admissible
Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel V. State of Gujarat
The Supreme Court observed that a statement made by the accused to a police officer before the investigation commences, is admissible in evidence, if it contains only an admission [and not a confession]. The bench comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph observed that the bar under Section 162 CrPC operates in regard to the statement made to a Police Officer in between two points of time, viz., from the beginning of the investigation till the termination of the same.
Fee For RTI Application Shall Be Sought As Per RTI Rules Only
Institute Of Companies Secretaries Of India V. Paras Jain
The Supreme Court held that if a person seeks information under the provisions of the Right to Information, then payment has to be sought under the Right to Information (Regulation of Fees and Cost) Rules, 2005 only. The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer was considering an appeal by Institute Of Companies Secretaries Of India against Delhi High Court judgment which had quashed the Guideline framed by it prescribing fee of Rs.500 per answer sheet payable for supply of certified copy(ies) of answer book(s) and Rs.450 per answer book.
Sec 498A & 306 IPC: Incidents Which Happened Much Before Wife’s Death Can’t Be Treated As Conduct Which Drove Her To Suicide
Jagdishraj Khatta V. State of Himachal Pradesh
The Supreme Court observed that the incidents which had taken place between husband and wife much before latter’s death by suicide could not be treated as the conduct which drove her to commit suicide. Setting aside the High Court judgment, the bench restored the Trial Court order of acquittal.
Release Under Probation Does Not Entitle An Employee To Claim A Right To Continue In Service
The State Bank of India & Others v. P. Soupramaniane
Supreme Court held in that the release under probation does not entitle an employee to claim a right to continue in service. It said that the employer is under an obligation to discontinue the services of an employee convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude.
All Cases Of Assault Or Simple Hurt Cannot Be Categorized As Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude
The State Bank of India & Others v. P. Soupramaniane
All cases of assault or simple hurt cannot be categorized as crimes involving moral turpitude, the Supreme Court observed while granting relief to a SBI Employee who was discharged from service for being convicted under Section 324 IPC.0
Any Person Aggrieved With Violation Of General Directions Issued In A Judgment Can File Contempt Petition
Girish Mittal V. Parvati V. Sundaram
The Supreme Court observed that when the directions issued in a judgment are general in nature, any aggrieved party (not just the party to the judgment), can file a Contempt petition when there is violation of such directions. The Bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice MR Shah, while considering a contempt petition, directed the Reserve Bank of India to withdraw the disclosure policy insofar as it contains exemptions which are contrary to the directions issued in Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry Judgment.
Mere Abuse In A Filthy Language Does Not Attract Offence Of Criminal Intimidation U/s 506 IPC
Vikram Johar V. State of Uttar Pradesh
The Supreme Court observed that mere act of abusing a person in filthy language does not satisfy the ingredients of the offence of Criminal Intimidation (Section 506 IPC). The bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph was concerned with an appeal filed by one Vikram Johar against the High Court and the Trial Court orders refusing to discharge him from a criminal case.
Non Disclosure Of Pre-Existing Illness In MediClaim Proposal Form A Valid Ground For Repudiation
Life Insurance Corporation of India V. Manish Gupta
The Supreme Court recently allowed an appeal filed by Life Insurance Corporation of India holding that the failure of the insured to disclose the past history of cardiovascular disease was a valid ground for repudiation.
‘Judgment On Admissions’ Can Be Ordered Only When Admissions Are Categorical And Unconditional
Hari Steel and General Industries Ltd.v. Daljit Singh
The Supreme Court observed that ‘Judgment on Admissions’ can be ordered only when there are categorical and unconditional admissions made in the pleadings. In appeal filed by the defendant company-., the Apex Court bench comprising of Justice R. Banumathi and Justice R. Subhash Reddy observed that, there are no categorical and unconditional admissions made by the defendant as claimed by the Plaintiffs. The court said
SC Asks TN Govt To Decide Premature Release Plea Of A ‘SriLankan Refugee’ Who Spent 3 Decades In Jail
Rajan V. Home Dept. of Tamil Nadu
The Supreme Court directed the Tamil Nadu Government to decide the representation submitted by a ‘Sri Lankan Refugee’ who spent 30 years in jail seeking remission of life sentence and for premature release.
A Dying Declaration Is Not Invalid Merely Because It Was Not Certified By A Doctor
Poonam Bai V. State of Chhatisgarh
The Supreme Court acquitted a convict by setting aside the judgment of the High Court of Chattisgarh which had convicted her for murder, after finding lacunae in the dying declarations. Considering the appeal, the bench of Supreme Court comprising of Justice N.V.Ramana, Justice Mohan.M.Shantanagoudar and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer observed that the dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction only when it is “trustworthy, voluntary, blemishless and reliable”.
Section 498A IPC: Complaint Need Not Be Filed By The Woman Subjected To Cruelty Herself
Rashmi Chopra vs. State of UP
The Supreme Court held that the Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code does not contemplate that complaint for offence under Section 498A should be filed only by women, who is subjected to cruelty by husband or his relative.
Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)
Rajbir Surajbhan Singh V. Chairman, IBPS Mumbai
The Supreme Court held that the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) is not a ‘State’ and thus not amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court or the Supreme Court. Upholding the Bombay High Court judgment, the bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice MR Shah observed that conducting recruitment tests for appointment in banking and other financial institutions, is not a public duty.
Limitation Act Applicable To Suits, Appeals, Application Filed In Courts, Not Before Statutory Authorities
Ganesan V. The commissioner, TN Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board
The Supreme Court observed that the suits, appeals and applications referred to in the Limitation Act, 1963 are suits, appeals and applications which are to be filed in a Court, and not before a statutory authority. The bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph held that the ‘Commissioner’ under Hindu Religious Endowment Charitable Act, 1959 while hearing the appeal under Section 69 of Act, is not a ‘Court’ within the meaning of the Limitation Act.
Mere Summary Disposal Of SLP Does Not Conclude The Issue On Merits
State of J&K vs. Farid Ahmed Tak
Mere summary disposal of a Special Leave Petition does not conclude the issue on merits, the Supreme Court observed while setting aside a Jammu and Kashmir High Court judgment. The bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra made this observation in response to the contention raised by respondent in an appeal filed against the High Court judgment.
Minimum Wages Act: Categorization Of Unskilled Employees As Semi-Skilled And Semi-Skilled As Skilled On The Basis Of Their Experience Is Ultra Vires
Hindustan Sanitaryware and Industries Ltd. V. The State of Haryana
The Supreme Court held that the categorization of unskilled employees as semiskilled and semi-skilled as skilled on the basis of their experience in the notification issued for fixing/revising the minimum rates of wages is beyond jurisdiction of Government.
‘No Public Interest’-SC Sets Aside The First Forced Merger Of Two Companies Ordered By Central Govt
63 Moons Technologies Ltd. V. Union of India
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court set aside the forced merger of two companies ordered by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, which was the first ever instance of invocation of Section 396 of the Companies Act 1956.
Manager Of A Nationalized Bank Though A Public Servant Can’t Claim Protection U/S 197 CrPC
S. K. Miglant V. State NCT of Delhi
The Supreme Court observed that a public servant working in a nationalized bank cannot claim benefit of Sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. To hold thus, the bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph relied on a 1987 judgment of the Supreme Court in K.CH. Prasad Vs. J. Vanalatha Devi.
Legal Principles Governing Suspension Of Conviction Cannot Be Applied To Suspend The Sentence
N. Ramamurthy V. State
The Supreme Court set aside a High Court judgment which applied principles governing suspension of conviction to reject a plea seeking suspension of execution of sentence. The Apex Court bench comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari observed that the High Court erred in observing that sentence comes to 45 years of imprisonment. It noted that the sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the Trial Court and hence, the maximum period of imprisonment is 7 years apart from certain default stipulations, which would come in operation only if the fine is not paid.
Solitary Confinement Of Death Convict Prior To Rejection Of Mercy Petition Palpably Illegal
Union of India V. Dharam Pal
The Supreme Court observed that solitary confinement of a person sentenced to death prior to the rejection of mercy petition is palpably illegal. The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer upheld the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that had commuted death sentence awarded to a murder accused whose mercy petition was rejected by the President of India in 2013.
SC Upholds Constitutionality Of Section 23 Of PCPNDT Act, Complete Contents Of Form ‘F’ Mandatory
Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecological Societies of India V. Union of India
The Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional Validity of Sections 23(1) and 23(2) of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 . Dismissing a writ petition filed by Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecological Societies of India (FOGSI), the bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Vineet Saran observed that dilution of the provisions of the Act or the Rules would only defeat the purpose of the Act to prevent female foeticide, and relegate the right to life of the girl child under Article 21 of the Constitution, to a mere formality.
Giving Preference To Male Child Is Against Constitutional Duty To Renounce Practices Derogatory To Women’s Dignity
Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecological Societies of India V. Union of India
The Supreme Court observed that giving preference to male child is violative of Article 39A of the constitution and against mandate of Article 51A (e) which casts a Constitutional duty on citizens to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women. While upholding the constitutional validity of Section 23 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, the bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Vineet Saran observed that that female foeticide is most inhumane,immoral and anti-social act.
Registered Trade Union Can File Insolvency Petition As Operational Creditor On Behalf Of Its Members
JK Jute Mill Mazdoor Morcha V. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Co. Ltd.
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court held that a registered trade union can maintain a petition as an operational creditor on behalf of its members. The bench comprising Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran allowed the appeal against the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) order which held that a trade union would not be an operational creditor as no services are rendered by the trade union to the corporate debtor.
SC Relief To Man Who Killed His Daughter Amidst Quarrel Over Placing A Bulb
Govind Singh V. State of Chhattisgarh
The Supreme Court modified the conviction of a man who was accused of killing his daughter to ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’. Govind Singh was awarded life imprisonment by the Trial Court holding him guilty of murdering his daughter Lalita.
Mother Can’t Give Up Maintenance Rights Of Daughter During Mutual Consent Divorce
Ganesh V. Sudhirkumar Shrivastava
The Supreme Court observed that a mother cannot give up the rights which vest in the daughter insofar as maintenance and other issues are concerned, during divorce by mutual consent. While considering an appeal, the bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra noticed one of the terms agreed between the parties which read thus: The applicant has released the right of monthly maintenance to the daughter with the non-applicant.
A Case Of No Evidence: SC Acquits 7 Accused In 1984 Anti Sikh Riots
Ganeshan V. State
The Supreme Court recently acquitted 7 persons accused of their involvement in 1984 Anti Sikh Riots who were convicted by the Delhi High Court, in November last year. Referring to their deposition, the Apex Court bench comprising the Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Sanjiv Khanna observed that none of them have deposed that these accused were part of the unlawful assembly or they were involved in any acts.
No Relief For Those Who Slept Over Their Rights: SC Upsets Employee’s Attempt To Correct DoB In Service Records
Factory Manager, Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. V. Laxman
No relief for those who slept over their rights, the Supreme Court made it clear while upsetting orders of the Labour court and the High Court which had allowed an employee to change his date of birth in service records.
Other important orders and proceedings
- Cancelled the bail it had granted to former Jharkhand Minister Yogendra Sao. Yogendra Sao and his wife Nirmala Devi, are accused in a rioting case of 2016. They were granted bail by the Apex Court in December 2017 and had imposed a condition that they shall stay in Bhopal and not enter Jharkhand except for attending the court proceedings.
- Refused to accord urgent hearing to Congress leader Hardik Patel’s plea challenging the Gujarat High Court order rejecting stay on his conviction in the 2015 Vispur rioting case.
- Dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed against a Kerala High Court Judgment setting aside Employee’s Pension (Amendment) Scheme, 2014 that capped maximum pensionable salary to Rs.15, 000 per month.
- Held that the High Court registry cannot decide maintainability of petitions which requires judicial application of mind. The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar was considering a special leave petition (P. Surendran vs. State) challenging the action of Madras High Court Registry which had refused numbering of a Anticipatory Bail petition and dismissed it on the issue of the maintainability in view of Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
- Stayed the Delhi High Court’s eviction order against Associated Journal’s Limited (AJL) – the publisher of Congress mouthpiece National Herald – from ITO premises in New Delhi.
- Refused to hear pleas challenging the constitutional validity of recent Aadhaar ordinance brought by the Centre and asked the petitioners to approach the high court with their grievances.
- Refused urgent listing of a plea seeking a stay on the release of the biopic on Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
- Agreed to hear on April 10 a string of petitions challenging the electoral bond scheme. The has also agreed to consider the prayer for staying the scheme
- Sought the response of Congress President Rahul Gandhi in a contempt petition filed by BJP leader Meenakshi Lekhi over his remarks after Rafale verdict.
- The CJI-led bench directed the Election Commission of India to watch the biopic on Prime Minister Narendra Modi and report back to Court in sealed cover by this Friday as to whether its screening can be allowed during election time.
- Directed the Madras High Court to consider the objections against the ex-parte ban imposed on popular video app ‘Tik Tok’ The Court was considering an SLP filed by of Bytedance Technology Pvt Ltd, the Indian operators of the app, against the ex-parte ban imposed by the High Court in an interim order passed in a PIL.
- Expressing satisfaction of the action taken by Election Commission of India against UP CM Yogi Adityanath, BSP Chief Mayawati, BJP leader Maneka Gandhi and SP leader Azam Khan yesterday, the Supreme Court adjourned the hearing of a PIL seeking action against hate speeches during election campaign.
- Issued notice on a Writ Petition seeking to declare the practices of prohibition of entry of Muslim Women in Mosque in India as illegal, unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 14, 15, 21, 25 and 29 of the Constitution.
- Sought responses from Congress leader P Chidambaram’s wife Nalini and son Karti on an appeal of the Income Tax department against the Madras High Court order quashing criminal prosecution against them in an alleged blackmoney case.
- Issued notice in a special leave petition which raises the issue whether Section 143-A in the Negotiable Instruments Act, has retrospective application or not?
- When a PIL for prisoners’ right to vote came up for admission in Supreme Court, the CJI-led bench posed queries regarding the petitioner, his interest in the subject and reason for choosing the particular cause.
- Observed that a demand notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, claiming ‘loan amount’, does not become invalid, if it is same as the amount covered under the dishonoured cheque(s).
- In a major boost to conservation of wildlife in this UNESCO world heritage site, the Supreme Court banned mining and related activities along the Kaziranga National Park & Tiger Reserve (KNP) and in the catchment area of the rivers/streams and rivulets which originate in the Karbi Anglong Hill ranges and flow into the park.
- Directed the Gujarat Government to pay Rs 50 lakh compensation and to provide government job to a woman who was gang raped during Gujarat riots of 2002. The bench of CJI Gogoi, Justices Deepak Gupta and Justice Sanjiv Khanna also directed the Government to provide her accommodation at a a place of her choice, after noting that she had been living a nomadic life since 2002.
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/breaking-sc-directs-gujarat-govt-to-pay-rs-50-lakh- Taking note of the fact that the Madras H
- The Supreme Court: Past, Present and Future
- Supreme Court Rules on Climate Change
- US Supreme Court and Military Commissions
- Supreme Court Ruling on MAP
- The USA's Supreme Court's Diluted Laws
- African-Americans Could Never be Citizens According to a U.S. Supreme Court Ruling in 1857
- 11 Things Small Business Owners Can Learn From The Supreme Court
- Supreme Court Justices: Their Business is Our Business
- The Supreme Court-Eminent Domain-A Conundrum
- U.S. Supreme Court - God Save The United States And The Honorable Court