Supreme Court Monthly Digest: December 2022

Judgements/OrderCut-Off Date For Acquiring Qualification For The Post Advertised Is The Last Date Of Application : Supreme CourtCase Details: Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. vs Dharminder Singh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 999 | CA 8828 OF 2022The Supreme Court observed that the cut-off date for acquiring the qualification advertised is the last date of application.In this case, the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. published advertisement on 17.07.2018 inviting application for a post. As per the advertisement, the essential qualification is metric pass and the desirable qualification is ITI diploma in wireman/Electrical trade obtained through Regular Course (not through distance education) from the institutions recognized by the Government of Himachal Pradesh or the National Trade Certificate of one year Broad Based Basic Training. The marks to be assigned for essential qualification are 60 per cent whereas the marks for desirable qualification are 25 per cent.Chapter VIII CrPC Provisions Not To Be Used As 'Vehicle For Punishment' ; Demand Of Excessive Amount Of Security/Bond Impermissible: Supreme CourtCase Details: Istkar vs State of Uttar Pradesh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1000 | CrA 2034 of 2022The Supreme Court observed that the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure are merely preventive in nature and are not to be used as a 'vehicle for punishment'.The demand of excessive and arbitrary amount of security/bond is impermissible as it stultifies the spirit of Chapter VIII of the Code, the bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sudhanshu Dhulia said.UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad's Function Does Not Include Fixing its Employees' Service Conditions : Supreme CourtCase Details: State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Virendra Kumar & Ors. | CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 66226623 OF 2022 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1001The Supreme Court has reiterated and held that "where an enactment requires to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way and in no other manner" in the judgment of State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Virendra Kumar & Ors.A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka and Vikram Nath have delivered the judgment which has been authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka.'Arrest Memo, Body Search Memo Not Proved; Site Plan Incorrect' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction Under NDPS ActCase Details: Amar Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh | C. A. No. 2035/2022 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 752/2019 | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1002The Supreme Court recently acquitted a person, who was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment and pay Rs 1 lakh fine for the offence of possessing charas. Granting him benefit of doubt due to the lacunae and gaps in the prosecution, a bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and JK Maheshwari set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.Existence Of An Alternate Remedy Cannot Exclude Writ Jurisdiction Of High Court : Supreme CourtCase Details: Maharashtra State Board of Waqfs vs Shaikh Yusuf Bhai Chawla | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1003 | CA 7812-7814 OF 2022The Supreme Court reiterated that the existence of an alternate remedy by itself cannot exclude the writ jurisdiction of the High Court."A constitutional remedy cannot be barred or excluded as when the High Court exercises its power under Article 226, it cannot be a case of lack of inherent jurisdiction.", the bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy observed while considering Maharashtra state Waqf Board's appeal against the 2011 decision of the Bombay High Court where the High Court had quashed the constitution of the Maharashtra state Board of Waqfs. The court however partly allowed the appeal filed by the Board.ISRO Espionage Case : Supreme Court Sets Aside Kerala HC Order Granting Anticipatory Bail To Accused, Asks HC To Take Fresh DecisionCase Details: CBI v. Siby Mathew SLP(Crl) 4097/ 2022, CBI vs Jayaprakash | SLP(Crl) No. 8008-8010/2021 II-B | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1005The Supreme Court set aside the orders passed by the Kerala High Court in 2021 granting anticipatory bail of five former police and intelligence bureau officials in the case related to the alleged framing of ISRO scientist Nambi Narayanan in 1994 ISRO espionage case.The Court remitted the bail applications back to the High Court and asked the High Court to decide the same as early as possible, at any rate within a period of four weeks. The Supreme Court also granted protection from arrest to the accused for a period of 5 weeks, subject to their cooperation with the investigation, as an interim arrangement till the High Court finally decides the matter.Order 33 Rule 1 CPC - Application To Sue As Indigent Can Be Rejected If It Is Found That The Suit Is Barred By Res Judicata : Supreme CourtCase Details: Solomon Selvaraj vs Indrani Bhagawan Singh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1004 | CA 8885 OF 2022The Supreme Court observed that an application to sue as indigent under Order XXXIII Rule 1 of...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest: December 2022

Padmakshi Sharma

Tags