Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up 2016 (Week 1 - Jan 4-8)

JudgmentsMotor Accident Claims; SC cautions Courts against Hyper Technical approach1. MALATI SARDAR vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTDThe Supreme Court restated its earlier position in Mantoo Sarkar vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2009) 2 SCC 244 regarding territorial jurisdiction of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Apex Court Bench of Justices Anil R. Dave and Adarsh Kumar Goel held that there is no bar to a claim petition being filed at a place where the insurance company, which is the main contesting parties in such cases, has its business.Aurobindo Ashram Trustee can’t be removed for failure of taking steps for banning a book against Guru2. SRI AUROBINDO ASHRAM TRUST AND ORS vs. R RAMANATHAN AND ORSThe Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Madan B. Lokur and S.A. Bobde in Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust vs. R. Ramanathan held that failure to take steps to ban a book that is critical of the philosophical and spiritual guru of a Trust would not fall within the compass of administration of the Trust.After 40 Yrs. of Litigation a Landlord gets relief 3. DAMODAR LAL Vs. SOHAN DEVI AND ORSThe Supreme Court has put an end to a 4 decade long litigation by setting aside the High Court judgment which had reversed the concurrent finding of the courts below it by allowing a Second Appeal against the Land Lord.Wannabe Lawyer gets relief from Supreme Court4. KULDEEP KUMAR PATHAK Vs. STATE OF UP AND ORSSupreme Court comes to the rescue of a wannabe lawyer who was about to lose his LLB and other degree as the UP High School Board found his Intermediate results invalid and irregular. Apex Court bench of Justices A.K. Sikri and Rohinton Fali Nariman set aside these orders of the UP High School Board and also held that High Court refusal to quash these orders are erroneous.SC quashes Perjury Proceedings against Forensic Expert, who turned hostile in Jessica Lal Case 5. PREM SAGAR MANOCHA Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)The Supreme Court quashed perjury proceedings initiated by the Delhi High Court against Forensic Expert in Jessica Lal Murder case. Apex Court Bench of Chief Justice T.S. Thakur and Justice Kurian Joseph held that mere rejection of indefinite and inconclusive Expert opinion does not warrant initiation of perjury proceedings under Section 340 CrPC, against the Expert.6. TILAK RAJ vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESHThe Supreme Court has observed that if no deliberation about marriage between the prosecutrix and the accused took place before the alleged sexual contact which was consensual, it cannot be said that the consent has been given under misconception of marriage. Apex Court acquitted the ‘rape’ accused from all the charges against him.No SC/ST Quota for reservation for promotion in Public Sector Banks: SC7. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA SC/ST EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ORS.Supreme Court held that there is no SC/ST quota for promotion in Public Sector banks, reviewing its earlier judgment which had directed the banks to make provision for reservations while carrying out promotions from Scale-I to Scale VI. Apex Court bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and A.K. Sikri setting aside the Judgment of Madras High Court, said that it is open for the State and the Banks to consider whether demand to provide reservation for promotion for SC/ST is justified and feasible.SC asks courts not to allow “Court Haunting” by “Unscrupulous Litigants” 8. USMANGANI ADAMBHAI VAHORA vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.Supreme Court has warned the Courts about “unscrupulous litigants” indulging themselves in court haunting and said that Trial Court judges are not expected to show unnecessary sensitivity to allegations of accused against them and recuse himself from the case.Orders The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Pinaki Ghosh and Amitava Roy dismissed the SLP filed by 11 convicted encounter cops, against the Bombay High Court’s stay on the suspension of their life sentences for six months by the Maharashtra Government.In a significant direction, the Supreme Court sought response from the Centre on the steps it intended to take for the protection of whistle-blowers till a law is passed by the parliament.The Apex court for the time being refused to withdraw the ban it had imposed on registration of diesel vehicles having engine power of more than 2000 CC like the SUVs and luxury sedans.FilingsThe Supreme Court has admitted for hearing a petition filed by an NGO challenging the October 30, 2015 judgment of the Delhi High Court which ruled that the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) cannot audit the accounts of three electricity distribution companies in national capital Delhi.A unique kind of PIL has been filed by a Law student, Vibhor Anand, in the Supreme Court to permit apex court judges to remain in office as long as they can.The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a review petition filed by victims association and CBI seeking a review of the decision to let off...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up 2016 (Week 1 - Jan 4-8)

Ashok KM

Tags