10 July 2022 4:23 AM GMT
Supreme Court Judgements1. Declaration Of Law By Court Will Have Retrospective Effect If Not Otherwise Stated Specifically: Supreme Court Case Name: Manoj Parihar vs State of Jammu And Kashmir Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 560 The Supreme Court reiterated that the declaration of law made by the court will have retrospective effect, if not otherwise stated to...
Supreme Court Judgements
1. Declaration Of Law By Court Will Have Retrospective Effect If Not Otherwise Stated Specifically: Supreme Court
Case Name: Manoj Parihar vs State of Jammu And Kashmir
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 560
The Supreme Court reiterated that the declaration of law made by the court will have retrospective effect, if not otherwise stated to be so specifically.
The bench comprising Justices Surya Kant observed thus while it upheld the order of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court that inter-se seniority for Munsiffs appointed by way of direct recruitment on the recommendation of the State Public Service Commission is to be determined on the basis of their inter-se merit at the time of selection and not roster points.
2. Mere Acceptance Of Rent By Landlord After The Expiry Of Lease Would Not Amount To Waiver Of Termination Of Lease: Supreme Court
Case Title: K.M. Manjunath Vs Erappa. G (D) |SLP(C) 10700 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 561
The Supreme Court bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia has reiterated that mere acceptance of the rent by the landlord after the expiry of the period of lease would not amount to waiver of the termination of lease.
3. Cancellation Of Bail Cannot Be Limited To The Occurrence Of Supervening Circumstances: Supreme Court
Case Title: Deepak Yadav vs State of UP |CrA 861 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 562
Cancellation of bail cannot be limited to the occurrence of supervening circumstances, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment delivered on 20 May 2022. The bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli observed thus while it allowed appeal against a judgment of Allahabad High Court which granted bail to a murder accused.
4. Trial/Appellate Court Has Full Discretion To Order Sentences To Run Concurrently: Supreme Court
Case Name: Malkeet Singh Gill vs State of Chhattisgarh | CrA 915 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 563
The Supreme Court observed that Trial court and Appellate Court has full discretion to order sentences for two or more offences at one trial to run concurrently. In this case, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the charges under Sections 409, 420, 409 read with Section 120B and 420 read with Section 1 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 04 years, 07 years, 01 year and 02 years respectively along with fine and also directed to serve the sentences one after the other. The Appellate Court upheld the judgment. The High Court while allowing the Revision in part directed that sentences so awarded shall run concurrently.
While considering the appeal, the Apex Court bench noted that there are concurrent findings of conviction arrived at by two Courts after detailed appreciation of the material and evidence brought on record.
5. Substantive Right Accrued To A Litigant Should Not Be Defeated Citing Procedural Defects Capable Of Being Cured: Supreme Court
Case Title: Ramnath Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs Vinita Mehta | CA 4639 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 564
The Supreme Court observed that substantive right accrued to the litigant should not be defeated citing a procedural defect capable of being cured. "It is a trite law that the procedural defect may fall within the purview of irregularity and capable of being cured, but it should not be allowed to defeat the substantive right accrued to the litigant without affording reasonable opportunity", the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari observed.
6. Purchaser Of Suit Property Cannot File Application Under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC Objecting Execution Of Decree By Decree Holder: Supreme Court
Case Title: Shriram Housing Finance and Investment India Ltd vs Omesh Mishra Memorial Charitable Trust
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 565
The Supreme Court observed that purchaser of the suit property from the decree holder is not entitled to file an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 objecting execution of the decree by the decree holder.
7. Plea Of Territorial Jurisdiction Or Lack Thereof Cannot Be Entertained In A Transfer Petition U/Sec 25 CPC: Supreme Court
Case Name: Neilan International Co. Ltd. vs Powerica Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 566
The Supreme Court observed that its jurisdiction under Section 25 of CPC cannot be extended to determine the question of territorial jurisdiction of the proceedings. The plea of jurisdiction or the lack of it can be prompted before the Court in which the proceedings are pending, Justice JK Maheshwari observed.
8. Order XII Rule 6 CPC - Power To Pass Judgment On Admissions Discretionary Cannot Be Claimed As A Matter Of Right: Supreme Court
Case Title: Karan Kapoor vs Madhuri Kumar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 567
The Supreme Court observed that the power to pass judgment on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The said power is discretionary which should be only exercised when specific, clear and categorical admission of facts and documents are on record, otherwise the Court can refuse to invoke the power of Order XII Rule 6, the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari observed.
9. Landlord Entitled To Mesne Profits From Tenant When Execution Of Decree Of Eviction Is Stayed: Supreme Court
Case Title: M/s Martin & Harris Private Ltd vs Rajendra Mehta
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 568
The Supreme Court has reiterated that once a decree for eviction is stayed, it is necessary for the appellate court to fix the mesne profits to be paid by the tenant to the landlord for continuing the possession of the premises. "Thus, after passing the decree of eviction the tenancy terminates and from the said date the landlord is entitled for mesne profits or compensation depriving him from the use of the premises", observed a bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari in the case M/s Martin & Harris Private Ltd vs Rajendra Mehta.
10. 'A Proficient Advocate Must Be Physically Fit': Supreme Court Enhances Motor Accident Compensation For Lawyer Who Suffered Disabilities
Case Title: Abhimanyu Partap Singh v Namita Sekhon & Another| CA 4648 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 569
Observing that physical fitness is necessary for a proficient advocate and physical disabilities hamper the smooth functioning of a lawyer, the Supreme Court recently granted relief to an advocate who had suffered 100% permanent disability due to an accident. The Court partly allowed his appeal by enhancing the compensation awarded by the High Court from Rs 23,20,000/- to Rs 51,62,000/-.
11. Electricity Cannot Be Denied To Tenant Merely Because Landlord Refused To Issue No Objection Certificate: Supreme Court
Case Name: Dilip (D) vs Satish | CrA 810 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 570
The Supreme Court observed that electricity is a basic amenity of which a person cannot be deprived. "Electricity cannot be declined to a tenant on the ground of failure/refusal of the landlord to issue no objection certificate. All that the electricity supply authority is required to examine is whether the applicant for electricity connection is in occupation of the premises in question", the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and CT Ravikumar observed.
12. Employee Can't Claim Equal Pay Due To Mere Similarity Of Designation Or Similarity Of Quantum Of Work: Supreme Court
Case Title: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ORS. v SEEMA SHARMA| Civil Appeal No 3892 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 571
An employee can't claim parity of pay scale with another due to mere similarity of designation or similarity or quantum of work, held the Supreme Court recently.
"The doctrine of equal pay for equal work could only be invoked when the employees were similarly circumstanced in every way. Mere similarity of designation or similarity or quantum of work was not determinative of equality in the matter of pay scales. The Court had to consider all the relevant factors such as the mode of recruitment, qualifications for the post, the nature of work, the value of work, responsibilities involved and various other factors", the Court observed quoting from an earlier precedent.
13. "Big Fish Are Not Caught, You Are After Small Level Employee": Supreme Court Grants Relief To Class-4 Officer Against Dismissal Order
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. R.K SHARMA
Orally remarking that "missing from duty is a major misconduct in paramilitary forces or the army, but may not be so in a civilian employment", the Supreme Court last week(June 30) criticised the Central Government for imposing the penalty of dismissal from service for unauthorised absence from duty on a Grade-IV employee in the Ministry of Steel.
"Missing from duty is a major misconduct in paramilitary forces or the army. Had it been that kind of duty, we would have immediately agreed. But in a civilian employment, in some mines department, that too a class four employee? It is not that he was handling some sensitive kind of assignments where he compromised with his duties. We are agreeable that he had absented from duty, so retire him compulsorily, throw him out, don't keep him there, but allow his family to survive!", orally observed the Court.
Supreme Court Updates
1. Uddhav Group Moves Supreme Court Challenging Speaker's Approval For Whip Nominated By Eknath Shinde Group
The Uddhav Thackeray group of the Shiv Sena has approached the Supreme Court challenging the action of the newly elected Maharashtra Assembly Speaker recognizing the whip nominated by the Eknath Shinde group as the Chief Whip of Shiv Sena.
The writ petition challenging the Speaker's action has been filed by Sunil Prabhu, the whip appointed by the Uddhav Thackeray-led group.
Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi mentioned the plea before a vacation bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari for urgent listing.
2. Agnipath Scheme : Supreme Court To Hear Next Week Plea By Candidates Shortlisted For Airmen Recruitment In Air Force
A vacation bench of the Supreme Court on Monday agreed to list next week, subject to the approval of the Chief Justice of India, a plea challenging the Centre's Agnipath recruitment scheme for armed forces.
Advocate Kumud Lata Das mentioned a petition filed by air force aspirants before a vacation bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari for urgent mentioning (Yogesh and others versus Union of India). The lawyer submitted that the scheme should not be made applicable to those who are already undergoing the selection process.
3. Man Arrested & Remanded In Maharashtra Despite Supreme Court's Interim Protection; SC Expresses "Serious Concern"
The Supreme Court on Monday disapproved the act of the Maharashtra police obtaining a non-bailable warrant (NBW) against a man and also of the order of the Magistrate sending him to judicial custody despite the fact that an interim order staying his arrest was passed by the Apex Court itself.
A vacation bench of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Krishna Murari was dealing with the plea of one Pandit who was sent to judicial custody in connection with an alleged cheating case in Maharashtra, even when an interim order regarding stay on his arrest was in operation.
4. Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Order Granting Anticipatory Bail To Actor Vijay Babu In Rape Case, Modifies Conditions
The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to interfere with the anticipatory bail granted to Malayalam film producer-actor Vijay Babu in a rape case alleged by another actor. It however made it clear that Vijay Babu shall not leave the State of Kerala without prior permission of the court. He is also restrained from making social media posts in connection with the case.
A vacation bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari further opined that the restrictions on proceeding with the investigation could not be sustained and accordingly modified the High Court's order. "We make it clear that the petitioner may be interrogated beyond July 3, 2022, if necessary."
5. EPS v OPS : Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Which Restrained AIADMK General Council From Passing Resolutions
In the dispute between Edappadi K Palaniswami(EPS) and O Paneerselvam (OPS) regarding the leadership of AIADMK party, the Supreme Court on Monday stayed the Madras High Court division bench's order staying the passing of resolutions in AIADMK General Council Meeting.
A vacation bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari passed the interim order in the special leave petition filed by EPS against the June 23 order of the High Court.
6. 'Hold Goa Panchayat Elections Within 45 Days' : Supreme Court Upholds Bombay HC Direction
The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, refused to interfere with the order of the Bombay High Court at Goa passed on 28th June, 2022, which had directed the State of Goa and the State Election Commission to ensure that the elections are held and completed within 45 days from the date of order. It observed that the High Court order was in compliance with Article 243E of the Constitution of India, which deals with the Panchayat and the decision of the Apex Court in Suresh Mahajan v. State of MadhyaPradesh, demanded no interference.
7. Plea Seeking Arrest Of Former BJP Spokesperson Nupur Sharma Mentioned For Urgent Listing Before Supreme Court
A petition filed by a lawyer seeking to arrest former BJP Spokesperson Nupur Sharma for her alleged hate statement against the revered Prophet Mohammad on a television debate was mentioned for urgent listing before the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
The petition was mentioned before the vacation bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari.
Urging the bench to list the plea, the counsel submitted that a complaint was made to the police but the police was not taking any action.
"Why mention it before the vacation bench? Mention it before the Registrar", the bench said.
Upon mentioning before the registrar, the petition has been listed on July 11, said the petitioner Abu Sohel.
8. Supreme Court Stays Army Disciplinary Proceedings Against Retired Brigadier In Misappropriation Case
The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted relief to retired Brigadier SK Gupta against whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated for allegedly committing misappropriation of Medical Stores while being posted as Commandant, Base Hospital, Lucknow.
9. 'UP Police FIR A Strategy To Stifle Secular Persons Who Stand Up Against Communal Elements' : Mohammed Zubair To Supreme Court
Mohammed Zubair, the co-founder of fact checking website AltNews, on Thursday approached Supreme Court challenging the Allahabad High Court's refusal to quash an FIR registered against him for a tweet in which he allegedly called 3 Hindu seers- Yati Narasinghanand Saraswati, Bajrang Muni and Anand Swaroop as 'Hate mongers'.
Contending that the FIR has been registered to harass Zubair, it has been argued in the petition that the allegations in the same are false and baseless and the offences u/s 295A IPC and 67 of IT Act are not made out against him.
Alleging that it is a "new strategy of the police" to register FIRs against those monitoring hate speech, the plea states, "It is therefore imperative that this Hon'ble Court understand this new strategy and nip it in the bud so that secular social activism continues on its path and plays the most necessary role in society to stand up to communalism."
10. Supreme Court Grants 5 Days Interim Bail To Mohammed Zubair In UP Police FIR; Restrains Him From Posting Further Tweets
The Supreme Court on Friday granted interim bail for 5 days to Mohammed Zubair, the co-founder of fact checking website AltNews, in connection with the FIR registered against him by the UP Police for a tweet in which he allegedly called 3 Hindu seers- Yati Narasinghanand Saraswati, Bajrang Muni and Anand Swaroop as 'Hate mongers'.
"In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall be granted interim bail in connection with FIR No. 0226 dated 01.06.2022 lodged at P.S. Khairabad, District Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh for a period of five days from today or until further orders of the Regular Bench on terms and conditions to be imposed by the Judicial Magistrate-I, Sitapur, which shall include the conditions that the petitioner shall not post any tweets and shall not tamper with any evidence, electronic or otherwise in Bengaluru or anywhere else", the Court ordered.
Also Read: Bajrang Muni A Respected Religious Leader; Zubair's Tweet Offended His Followers : UP Police To Supreme Court
"Those Who Made Hate Speeches Are Out On Bail; And The Person Who Exposed Them Is In Jail; What Has This Country Become?" : Colin Gonsalves In Zubair's Case
11. Supreme Court Protects Zee News Anchor Rohit Ranjan From Coercive Action In Multiple FIRs Over Rahul Gandhi's Doctored Video
The Supreme Court on Friday granted interim protection to Zee News anchor Rohit Ranjan against the multiple FIRs registered against him over an alleged doctored video of Rahul Gandhi's speech.
The vacation bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari passed an interim order restraining respondent authorities from taking coercive steps to take Ranjan into custody in connection with the telecast of DNA show on July 1, 2022.
12. Maharashtra Political Crisis : Shiv Sena General Secretary Moves Supreme Court Challenging Actions Of Governor & New Speaker
Mr. Subhash Desai, the General Secretary of the Shiv Sena has approached the Supreme Court assailing the decision of the Maharashtra Governor to invite Eknath Shinde to be the Chief Minister of Maharashtra and challenged the further proceedings of the State's Legislative Assembly held on 03.07.2022 and 04.07.2022 as 'illegal'.
On Friday, Senior Advocate, Mr. Devadatt Kamat mentioned the petition before a vacation Bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari seeking urgent listing of the matter on 11.07.2022 along with Eknath Sindhe's plea against disqualification notices issued to rebel MLAs; the petition filed by Sunil Prabhu, the whip appointed by Uddhav Thackray-led group challenging the action of the newly elected Maharashtra Assembly Speaker recognizing the whip nominated by the Eknath Shinde faction and other related matters. The Bench agreed to list the matter on the said date, before the appropriate Bench.
13. Can Section 156(3) CrPC Be Invoked After Failing To Get Desired Relief In A Civil Suit? Supreme Court Issues Notice In An SLP
The Supreme Court has issued notice in a Special Leave Petition which raises an issue whether in a dispute essentially of civil nature, can a person, after having failed to get the desired relief from a civil suit, invoke Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ?
In this case, an FIR was registered against the accused under Sections 323/ 384/406/ 423/ 467/468/ 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code following an order passed by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC.