Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

Plaintiff Can Implead Proposed Purchasers Of Property In Suit For Specific PerformanceThe Supreme Court in Robin Ramjibhai Patel vs. Anandibai Rama @ RajaramPawar And Ors, reiterated that when the plaintiff wants to implead certain persons as defendants in a suit for specific performance on the ground that they may be adversely affected by the outcome of the suit, then interest of justice also requires allowing such a prayer for impleadment so that the persons likely to be affected are aware of the proceedings and may take appropriate defence as suited to their vendors.Mere Non-Filing Of Original/Certified Copy Of Arbitration Agreement Does Not Entail Dismissal Of Application For ReferenceThe Supreme Court in Ananthesh Bhakta vs. Nayana A. Bhakta, observed that filing of an application seeking reference to arbitration under Section 8(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, without producing original or certified copy of the arbitration agreement, shall not entail rejection of the application under Section 8(2), if the applicant brings the original arbitration agreement on record at the time when the court is considering the application.Refusal To Answer Court Queries Isn’t Criminal ContemptThe Supreme Court in Kuldeep Kapoor & Ors vs. Court on its Motion, observed that a litigant refusing to answer a question put to him by the Court does not constitute criminal contempt of Court. Subsequent Bequest In Will Void If Absolute Bequest Has Been Made In Same WillThe Supreme Court in Madhuri Ghosh vs. Debobroto Dutta, reiterated the legal position that where an absolute bequest has been made in respect of certain property to certain persons in a Will, then a subsequent bequest made qua the same property later in the same Will to other persons will be of no effect. Subsequent Adoption Can’t Divest Any Person Of Estate Vested In Him Or Her Prior To AdoptionThe Apex Court in Saheb Reddy vs. Sharanappa, reiterated the legal position that an adopted child cannot divest any person of any estate which was vested in him or her before the adoption.Pendency Of Liquidation Case Against Credit Society Doesn’t Bar Its Committee Members From Other DutiesThe Apex Court in Vineshkumar Mavjibhai Parmar Vs. Dethali Gopalak Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Mandali Ltd, held that Managing Committee members of Credit Societies, against which there is an ‘interim order’ of winding up, cannot be debarred from participating in the election process of an agricultural produce marketing committee constituted under the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963.Not Placing An Ordinance In The Legislature Is FraudulentThe Supreme Court Constitution Bench on Thursday reserved its judgment in the case of Krishna Kumar Singh v State of Bihar, after grilling the counsel on both the sides on the propriety of promulgating an ordinance, and not placing it in the legislature to seek its approval, within the prescribed period. Dowry Death: Ingredients Shall Be Proved By Prosecution Beyond Reasonable Doubt To Invoke PresumptionA two-judge bench of the Supreme Court reiterated that one of the essential ingredients of dowry death under Section 304B of the Penal Code is that the accused must have subjected the woman to cruelty in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death and that this ingredient has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and only then the court will presume that the accused has committed the offence of dowry death under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act.BIFR, AAIFR Not Competent To Issue Directions To Non-Sick Industrial CompanyThe Supreme Court in President J.K. Synthetics Mazdoor Union, Kota vs. Arfat Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd., reiterated that the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) has no competence to issue directions under Section 22A of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, to a company that is not a sick industrial company.Forming Opinion On Punishment Before Giving Chance To Delinquent To Reply On Inquiry Report Violates Natural JusticeThe Supreme Court in HP State Electricity Board Ltd vs Mahesh Dahiya, observed that in disciplinary proceedings, before making opinion with regard to punishment which is to be imposed on a delinquent, the delinquent has to be given an opportunity to submit representation/reply on the inquiry report which finds a charge proved against the delinquent.Jallikattu Ban: TN Govt’s Review Plea DismissedIn a major blow to the Tamil Nadu government, the Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down its review plea to lift the ban centuries old Jallikattu or bull fighting in the state. A bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra said it found no ground for a review.Demonetisation: “We Are Not Interfering But People Should Not Suffer At Any Cost”The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to interfere with the central government’s decision to demonetise Rs 1,000 and Rs 500 currency notes but sought an affidavit as to what urgent extra measures...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

Ashok KM

Tags