Supreme court monthly digest

By: Ashok Kini 7 March 2019 5:08 AM GMT Significant Rulings Minority Status Of Aligarh Muslim University: SC Refers The Matter To Seven Judge Bench The Supreme Court referred to seven-judge bench the issue of determining the correctness of minority status granted to Aligarh Muslim University. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi referred the matter to the larger bench for defining the parameters for grant of minority status to educational institutions.Acquittal If IO & Informant Same Person: Benefit Of 'Mohan Lal' Judgment Not Available To Cases Prior To It Varinder Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh In an important judgment, the Supreme Court observed that all pending criminal prosecutions, trials and appeals prior to the law laid down in the judgment in Mohan Lal vs. State of Punjab (acquittal if investigator-informant is the same person), shall continue to be governed by the individual facts of the case. Bhima Koregaon … [Read more...] about Supreme Court Monthly Digest- February 2019

By: Ashok Kini 7 April 2019 5:53 AM GMT If Contempt Is In The Face Of Court, Judges Can Take Immediate Action Without Issuing Notice National Lawyers Campaign For Judicial Transparency and Reforms V. Union of India To hold Advocate Mathews Nedumpara guilty of contempt, the Supreme Court followed the dictum that when contempt is in the face of court, summary procedure can be followed to inflict punishment "then and there". "When contempt is committed in the face of the Court, judges' hands are not tied behind their backs. The majesty of this Court as well as the administration of justice both demand that contemptuous behavior of this kind be dealt with sternly", observed the judgment by the bench of Justice R F Nariman and Vineet Saran.SC Sentences Nedumpara To 3 Months Jail For Contempt; Bars From Practising In SC; Suspends Sentence On UndertakingThe Supreme Court bench of Justices R F Nariman and Vineet Saran sentenced Advocate Mathews Nedumpara to 3 … [Read more...] about Supreme Court Monthly Digest- March 2019

By: Ashok Kini 11 May 2019 8:33 AM GMT 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 … [Read more...] about Supreme Court Monthly Digest- April

By: Ashok Kini 11 May 2019 8:33 AM GMT 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 … [Read more...] about Supreme Court Monthly Digest- April 2019

By: Ashok Kini 18 Jun 2019 3:39 AM GMT Statutory Appeal Can Be Filed Even If Application To Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree [ Order IX Rule 13 CPC] Is Dismissed Bhivchandra Shankar More vs. Balu Gangaram More The Supreme Court observed that the right of appeal under Section 96(2) CPC is a statutory right and the defendant cannot be deprived of the statutory right of appeal merely on the ground that the application filed by him under Order IX Rule 13 CPC [to set aside ex-parte decree] has been dismissed. Writ Of Habeas Corpus Can Be Issued When The Detention Of A Minor Is By A Person Who Is Not Entitled To His Legal Custody Tejaswini Gaud vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari The Supreme Court observed that the writ of habeas corpus is maintainable where it is proved that the detention of a minor child by a parent or others was illegal and without any authority of law. The bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice R. Subhash Reddy affirmed a Bombay … [Read more...] about Supreme Court Monthly Digest- May 2019