Supreme Court Monthly Digest (January 2016)

1. Motor Accident Claims; SC cautions Courts against Hyper Technical approachThe 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.2. Aurobindo Ashram Trustee can’t be removed for failure of taking steps for banning a book against Guru The 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.3. After 40 Yrs. of Litigation a Landlord gets relief The 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.4. Wannabe Lawyer gets relief from Supreme CourtSupreme 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.5. SC quashes Perjury Proceedings against Forensic Expert, who turned hostile in Jessica Lal Case 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. No deliberation of marriage before consensual sex, not a rapeThe Supreme Court 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.7. No SC/ST Quota for reservation for promotion in Public Sector Banks: SCSupreme 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.8. SC asks courts not to allow “Court Haunting” by “Unscrupulous Litigants” Supreme Court 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.9. Man convicted for raping young girlSupreme Court sentenced a man accused of raping and burning alive a young girl for life imprisonment. Apex Court bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and Arun Mishra reversed the Gauhati High Court order acquitting the accused from rape charges and restored the conviction and sentence recorded by trial court.10. 20 year old suit dismissedThe Supreme Court in L. Gowramma (D) vs. Sunanda (D), has dismissed a Suit filed against a widow twenty years ago, by her daughter, by reversing concurrent judgments of the High Court and Trial court which had decreed the suit in favour of the daughter. Apex Court bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and R.F. Nariman held that succession to a Hindu male dying intestate (in this case) will be governed by Section 4(1)(ii) of the Hindu Law Women’s Rights Act, 1933, and not under Section 10(1)(g).11. Medical college asked to pay 5 crores as costsComing down heavily on a medical college for not complying with its orders in Medical Council of India vs. JSS Medical College, the Supreme Court ordered it to deposit five crores Rupees as costs. Apex Court bench comprising of Justices Madan B. Lokur and R.K. Agrawal specifically directed the College not to recover this cost to be deposited, from any student in any manner or to adjust it against the fees or provision of facilities for students of subsequent batches.12. Proposal forms binds insured The Supreme Court set aside a National Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum order against an Insurance company and held that notes appended to proposal forms which limits insurance coverage to the goods insured, binds ...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest (January 2016)

Ashok KM

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Supreme Court Monthly Digest (January 2016)

Ashok KM

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers