Supreme Court Weekly Round-up

Undue leniency in awarding sentence to be avoided; SCSupreme Court, in State of M.P. vs. Udaibhan observed that undue leniency in awarding sentence needs to be avoided because it does not have the necessary effect of being a deterrent for the accused and does not re-assure the society that the offender has been properly dealt with.SC summarises law on Mitakshara Joint Family PropertySupreme Court summarized the law governing the Mitakshara joint family property, prior to the amendment of 2005. Apex Court bench, hearing an appeal arising from a suit for partition, which was dismissed both by Trial Court and the High Court, holding that the date of the birth of the plaintiff in 1977 the said ancestral property, not being joint family property, the suit for partition of such property would not be maintainable.Casual workers are also Employee under ESI Act: SC Supreme Court, in Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. Vs. E.S.I. Corporation, has held that casual workers are covered under definition of employee as defined in Section 2(9) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948.AIBE hearing in SCThe Supreme Court of India on Tuesday observed that the right to practice law is a Fundamental Right for LL.B. degree holders and the introduction of an examination to acquire a license has the effect of negating this right.On Wednesday The apex court said it was not averse to any exam to test the capability of law graduates in the “interest of betterment of the profession” but only wanted to verify if the AIBE was within the “parameters of law”.A Chief Justice T S Thakur-led bench of the Supreme Court expressing serious concern over the falling standard of lawyer, said will refer the petition challenging the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to a constitution bench and appointed senior lawyer K K Venugopal as amicus curiae to assist in the contentious matter.Higher Secondary school leaving Certificate as proof of ageThe Supreme Court held that Higher Secondary School Leaving Certificate can be accepted as proof of age. The Court said that rejecting an application on the ground that the applicant’s age proof submitted was not of the Secondary School as per the norms, but of a Higher Secondary School, is not justified.Hindu Adoptive father can retain Custody of Muslim Child; SCA Division Bench of the Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of a Hindu adoptive father, while disposing of a petition for custody filed by the Muslim child’s natural mother.Sec. 36 CrPC does not debar appointment of a Superior Officer to investigate a Case A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court Today reversed a Kerala High Court Judgment which held that “a Superior Police Officer of a different Sub Division, by an executive order of the Police Chief, cannot exercise the powers of the Officer in charge of the Police Station if that station does not fall within the local area to which he has been appointed”‘Test of Prejudice to the Accused’ to be kept in view while adding/altering charges; SCSupreme Court observed that while adding or altering a charge under Section 216 CrPC, the trial court has to keep in view, the test of prejudice to the accused. Apex Court Bench comprising of Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh said that it is the duty of the trial court to bear in mind that no prejudice is caused to the accused as that has the potentiality to affect a fair trial.Sales Tax assessment extension to before expiry of normal period of assessmentSupreme Court held that power of the Sales Tax Commissioner to extend the time to pass an order on assessment is to be exercised before the normal period of assessment expires. Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court dismissed the appeals by Revenue challenging a judgement of Punjab and Haryana High Court.PIL on sexual abuse in Edu institutionsThe Supreme Court on Monday asked the petitioner in a PIL which sought framing of guidelines to fix responsibility and liability on the educational institutions in whose incidents of sexual abuse and accidents happen, to approach the Centre in this regard.On Dance bars in MumbaiThe Supreme Court on Wednesday, directed the Mumbai police to issue licenses to those willing to reopen dance bars across the states within ten days and scrapped the conditions in the new rules which mandated erecting of a three feet wall around the dance stage and installation of CCTV cameras at all points including over the performing area for giving live feeds to the nearest police control roomOn Section 300 IPCSupreme Court held that when medical report establishes that the injuries inflicted intentionally on the deceased by the accused, were cumulatively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, Thirdly of Section 300 IPC is attracted, even if no significant injury had been inflicted on a vital part of the body and when the accused could not be said to have the intention of causing death.BCCI implementation of Lodha panel reportThe Supreme court on Thursday today warned the...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-up

Ashok KM

Tags