Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

No prohibition in giving weightage to service rendered by daily wages employeesThe Supreme Court of India clarified that, its Judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi has not prohibited the State from giving weightage for the service rendered by employees where services were used by the State either temporarily or on adhoc bases, including daily wage basis, irrespective of the regularity of their initial entry into the service. Apex Court bench made this pertinent observation in Sachivalaya Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karamchari Union, Jaipur VS. State Of Rajasthan. Quota for in-service candidates for PG Medical Admission not permissible, Giving Weightage marks for rural service validThe Supreme Court of India upheld the Allahabad High Court Judgment which quashed the Government notification enabling the State Government to reserve 30% seats for in-service candidates for pursuing post-graduate degree courses. But the Court held that some weightage marks given to eligible in-service candidate linked to performance in NEET and also the length of service in remote and/or difficult areas in the State by no standard can be said to be excessive, unreasonable or irrationalThe Principle ‘agent cannot be personally liable’ is applicable in proceedings under Consumer Protection Act alsoThe Supreme Court in Virender Khullar vs. American Consolidation Services Ltd., reiterated that defence under Section 230 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 is available in the cases under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the agents of the principal with whom the complainant had the agreement.Disputes arising out of Trust Deed and the Trust Act cannot be decided by ArbitrationSupreme Court of India on Wednesday held that the disputes relating to Trust, trustees and beneficiaries arising out of the Trust Deed and the Trust Act are not capable of being decided by the arbitrator despite existence of arbitration agreement to that effect between the parties.Essentiality of a term in Notice Inviting Tender to be decided by the EmployerThe ApexCourt in Central Coalfields Limited & Anr vs. SLL – SML (Joint Venture Consortium) & Ors. held that, decision taken by the employer about essentiality of a term of the Notice Inviting Tender should be respected and lawfulness of that can be questioned on very limited grounds.NCW’s curative petition against its 2014 JT protecting husbands against Automatic Arrests dismissedA Supreme Court bench on August 4, dismissed the curative petition filed by the National Commission for Women (NCW), by circulation, against its 2014 judgment in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar. Distinction between ‘Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” upheldA subtle but fundamental distinction between “Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” was discussed in Omana P.K. and others v. Francis Edwin and others (2011 (4) KLT 952). This Judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which has now dismissed the Appeal.Sale of non-service arms be under strict scrutinyExpressing concern over illegal sale of service weapons and gun licenses by army personnel, the Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Defence Ministry to ensure that sale of non-service pattern weapons must be under strict scrutiny and supervision of the competent authority.Notice issued in Appeal against Bombay HC Jt allowing possession of beef brought from outside stateSupreme Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Maharashtra Government and Centre on an Appeal which challenged the May 7, 2016 Judgment of the Bombay High Court that allowed possession and consumption of beef brought into Maharashtra from outside the State.Narmada Bachao Andolan’s contempt petition in the Omkareshwar Dam submergence case fails to convince the SC The Supreme Court bench held on Tuesday that there is no obligation on the State of Madhya Pradesh to raise the height of the road so as to erect a Bandh to keep five villages free from submergence at all times, due to the construction of the Omkareshwar Dam.Constitution Bench to decide whether secrets behind Judges’ appointments can be disclosedA three-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday referred to a five-Judge Constitution bench, the question whether the Apex Court is exempted from disclosing how it appointed its Judges under the Right to Information Act.Gujarat’s response sought on defreezing of Teesta accountsShall social TeestaSetalvad’s accounts be defreezed? The Supreme Court on Tuesday posed the question to Gujarat government and sought its response within two weeksNotice issued to Centre, State and MCIThe Supreme Court has issued notice to Central and State Governments and the Medical Council of India and sought to know from them whether there are any guidelines in place regarding treatment of the patients in the Intensive Care Units (ICU) or Critical Care Units (CCU).

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

Ashok KM

Tags