Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

Defendant Can’t Object To Mere Withdrawal Of Suit By PlaintiffThe Supreme Court, in Anil Kumar Singh vs Vijay Pal Singh, held that defendant has no right to compel the plaintiff to prosecute the suit by opposing the withdrawal of suit sought by the plaintiff except to claim the cost for filing a suit against him. Insufficient Evidence: SC ‘Acquits’ Man Who Has Been In Custody For 17 Years In Murder CaseThe Supreme Court, in a very brief non-reasoned order, set aside concurrent conviction in a murder case and ordered release of the accused who has been in custody for 17 years.Auction Purchaser Can Challenge Before DRT Action Of Secured Creditor In Forfeiting Deposit Made By ItThe Supreme Court, in Agarwal Tracom Pvt Ltd Vs Punjab National Bank, held that an action of secured creditor in forfeiting the deposit made by the auction purchaser is a part of the measures taken by the secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Insurer Has No Liability Once There Is Breach Of Condition Of Insurance PolicyThe Supreme Court, in MS Middle High School Vs HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co Ltd, upheld a high court judgment which held that once there is breach of condition of insurance policy, the liability cannot be fastened on the insurer.Independent Proceedings Against Validity Of Trademark Not Maintainable If The Issue Is Abandoned In Infringement SuitThe Supreme Court settled an important question of law in the Trademarks Act, in its decision in Patel Field Marshal Agencies Ltd vs PM Diesels Ltd and others. A division bench of Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Navin Sinha dealt with the interplay between sections 46 & 56 on one hand, and sections 107 & 111 on the other hand of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958.Stop Filing Writ Petitions On Same Subject Or Get Punished For Contempt: SC Tells A Man Who Filed 16 PetitionsThe Supreme Court of India cautioned a man that he will be liable for punishment for contempt if he files yet another petition similar to 16 petitions he filed before Allahabad High Court. How Can Guidelines Be Issued When There Is An IPC Provision? SC On its Section 498A GuidelinesThe Supreme Court, on Wednesday, expressed qualms over the correctness of its judgment in the case of Rajesh Sharma v. Union of India, wherein it had issued a new set of guidelines to prevent misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Can HC Review President’s Decision Rejecting Mercy Petition Of Death Convict: SC Issues Notice On Centre’s Plea In Sonu Sardar CaseThe Supreme Court issued notice on the Centre’s special leave petition against the Delhi High Court’s judgment commuting death sentence of Sonu Sardar.Ban On Convicts Forming Political Parties: SC Notice To Centre, ECIThe Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to the Centre and the Election Commission of India (ECI) on a PIL seeking a ban on convicted persons from forming a political party and becoming office-bearer of the party.After A Decade, SC Clears Legal Confusion Caused By HC & Lets The Trial BeginThe Supreme Court, while solving the legal conundrum created by two orders passed on the same day in two criminal revision petitions on the same matter, by the same judge of high court, expressed its regret on such a confusion causing more than a decade’s delay in even the criminal trial commencing.SC Slaps Cost On Litigant Who Filed Incomprehensible English Translation Of Judgment The Supreme Court slapped costs on a litigant who filed unofficial and incomprehensible English translation of Rajasthan High Court judgment, which was penned in Hindi.2011 I-T Dept Circular On Not To File Appeals Before HC Where Tax Impact Is Less Than Rs.10 Lakh Applies To Pending Matters AlsoThe Supreme Court, in Director Of Income Tax vs SRMB Dairy Farming (P) Ltd, clarified that the Income Tax administrative circular, providing for appeals not to be filed before the high court(s) where the tax impact was less than Rs. 10 lakh, would apply even to pending matters, but subject to the two caveats provided in CIT Central-III vs Surya Herbal Ltd.SC Issues Notice On Petition Challenging “Jury System” Under Parsi Marriage And Divorce Act The Supreme Court, on Friday, issued notice to the Centre on a Petition challenging several provisions of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936. A Bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Dipak Gupta was hearing a Petition filed by Ms. Naomi Sam Irani, who has challenged the Constitutional validity of Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 30, 32(a), 46, 47(b) and 50 of the Act. The Petition alleges that the impugned provisions are violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.SC Issues Notice On Petition Challenging Finance Act Provisions On Tribunals, Including NCDRC The Supreme Court, on Monday, issued notice on a Petition challenging the Constitutional validity of provisions of the Finance Act, 2017 which confer “unbridled and...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

Ashok K.M

Tags