Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

Non-Mentioning Of Accused’s Name In FIR Not A Ground To Doubt Its ContentsThe Supreme Court, in Latesh @ Dadu Baburao Karlekar v The State of Maharashtra, reiterated that merely because the names of the accused are not stated and their names are not specified in the FIR, that may not be a ground to doubt the contents of the FIR and the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out on this count. Grant Of Ex-parte Interim Orders In Financial Matters Can Have A Deleterious EffectThe Supreme Court observed that in financial matters grant of ex parte interim orders can have a deleterious effect and it is not sufficient to say that the aggrieved has the remedy to move for vacating the interim order.Party Not In Possession Of Device From Which Electronic Document Is Produced Need Not Produce Sec. 65B CertificateThe Supreme Court clarified that a party who is not in possession of device from which the electronic document is produced, cannot be required to produce certificate under Section 65B (4) of the Evidence Act. A bench of Justice AK Goel and Justice UU Lalit clarified this legal position while considering special leave petitions in which the question to be considered was whether videography of the scene of crime or scene of recovery during investigation should be necessary to inspire confidence in the evidence collected. Rule 8D Of Income Tax Rules Prospective In OperationThe Supreme Court, in Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai v M/s Essar Tele Holdings Ltd., affirmed a Bombay High Court judgment holding that Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules is prospective in operation and could not have been applied to any assessment year prior to Assessment Year 2008-09.SC Disposes Of Goa Raj Bhavan’s Plea Against Bombay HC Judgment To Make Guv Report Public,Calls The Matter “Infructuous”A Supreme Court bench of Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Amitava Roy on Tuesday disposed of a plea of Goa Raj Bhavan against the Bombay High Court judgment that the Governor’s office should provide information under the RTI Act as sought by then opposition leader Manohar Parrikar, now the Chief Minister, relating to a report about the political situation in 2007.SC Issues Notice To Centre On CPI(M)’s Plea Challenging Electoral BondsThe Supreme Court, on Friday, sought the Centre’s response on a Petition filed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)) challenging the Government’s decision to issue electoral bonds. The Bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar issued notice on the plea, while agreeing to hear the petition along with similar challenges by two NGOs – Association for Democratic Reforms and Common Cause – which have been pending since 2007.SC Asks MP HC To Constitute Bench Headed By Judge With Reasonable Tenure To Hear 1984 Bhopal Gas Tragedy CasesA Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra requested the Madhya Pradesh High Court to constitute a bench which will hear the cases relating to rehabilitation of victims in the cases related to the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy. The bench, also comprising Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY Chandrachud, clarified that the judge who would hear the pleas should have at least reasonable tenure so that they will be decided by the same bench.Can TN Conserve Jallikattu As Its Culture? SC Refers Matter To Constitution Bench With Five Questions The Supreme Court on Friday referred to a constitution bench the matter pertaining to whether Tamil Nadu can conserve jallikattu as its cultural right under Article 29(1) of the Constitution which guarantees protection to cultural rights of citizens.SC Reserves Judgment in PIL on Chhattisgarh’s VIP Chopper DealThe Supreme Court, on Wednesday, concluded the hearing and reserved judgment in a PIL seeking CBI investigation in the purchase of a VIP Helicopter manufactured by AgustaWestland by the Chhattisgarh Government.Submit Statement On 5th Time Applicants For Haj: SC Directs CentreThe Supreme Court, on Tuesday, directed the Centre to file a statement on the applicants aged between 65 and 70 years, who have applied for four times earlier but have not been able to go for the Haj pilgrimage.Proposed Legislation No Justification To Not Implement SC Judgments, SC Tells Karnataka State Making it clear that any proposed legislation will be no justification not to carry out the judgment delivered by it, the Supreme Court directed the Karnataka Government to implement the directive issued in BK Pavitra & Others v Union of India and Ors.SC Expresses Displeasure At Failure Of States, UTs To File Reply On Pension, Old Age Homes While hearing former Union Law Minister Ashwani Kumar’s PIL on the right to live with dignity of the elderly, the Supreme Court bench of Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta on Tuesday expressed displeasure at the governments of 11 states, including Himachal Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Maharashtra, Jharkhand and Mizoram, and the two Union Territories of Lakshadweep and...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

Ashok K.M

Tags