Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

Petitions Seeking Probe Into The Death Of Judge Loya DismissedSupreme Court of India dismissed the petitions seeking independent probe into Judge Loya’s death. The Three Judge bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice D. Y. Chandrachud and Justice A. M. Khanwilkar, was pronouncing the verdict in the string of writ petitions seeking an independent probe into the death of CBI special judge B. H. Loya.National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Has Power To Decide Minority Status Of Existing Educational InstitutionIn an important judgment, the Supreme Court held the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (NCMEI) has the power to decide minority status of an already existing educational institution and all applications for the establishment of a minority educational institution after the Amendment Act of 2006 must go only to the competent authority set up under the statute.Plaintiff Can’t Seek Specific Performance And Injunction In One SuitThe Supreme Court in Sucha Singh Sodhi v Baldev Raj Walia, held that a plaintiff could not claim the relief of specific performance of agreement along with the relief of a permanent injunction in a suit.‘Exceeded Jurisdiction’: NGT’s Direction For Pilgrims To Maintain Silence In Front Of Amarnath Ji Maha Shivling Set AsideThe Supreme Court set aside National Green Tribunal orders that directed the pilgrims to maintain silence while standing in front of the Amarnath Ji Maha Shivling – a natural formation in the cave, observing that it exceeded its jurisdiction.Sec 27 Of Evidence Act Applicable Only If Confessional Statement Leads To Discovery Of Some New FactThe Supreme Court, in Navaneethakrishnan v The State by Inspector of Police, reiterated the settled legal proposition that Section 27 of the Evidence Act is applicable only if the confessional statement leads to the discovery of some new fact while setting aside the conviction in a murder case.Ex Post Facto Notice Is Not Contemplated Under Provisions Of Sec. 6(2) Of Competition ActThe Supreme Court, in SCM Solifert Limited vs. Competition Commission of India, observed that ex post facto notice is not contemplated under the provisions of section 6(2) of the Competition Act and the saNo Requirement Of Mens Rea Or Intentional Breach As An Essential Element For Levy Of Penalty Under Sec. 43A Competition ActThe Apex Court, in Competition Commission of India vs. Thomas Cook (India) Ltd., observed that the imposition of penalty under section 43A of the Competition Act is on account of breach of a civil obligation, and the proceedings being neither criminal nor quasi-criminal, there is no requirement of mens rea or intentional breach as an essential element for levy of penalty.An Advocate May Know The Law But Can’t Presume That He Is Well Aware Of All Procedural Requirement On Agricultural Electricity Service ConnectionIn an interesting judgment, the Supreme Court observed that though a presumption that an advocate is supposed to know the law can be raised; there can be no presumption that an advocate is well aware of all procedural requirements regarding making of an application, in this case, an application for agricultural service connection.AFT Order To Reinstate Naval Officer Found Guilty Of Making Obscene Calls To Wives Of Three Naval Officers UpheldThe Supreme Court upheld findings of Armed Forces Tribunal that had found a Naval officer guilty of making obscene telephone calls to wives of three Naval officers yet set aside the punishment of ‘dismissal from the service’ and had modified the punishment to ‘forfeiture of seniority of 24 months’. ‘Unreasoned’ Family Court Order That Asked Husband To Pay Rs.15 Lakh Permanent Alimony To Wife Set AsideThe Supreme Court today set aside an ‘unreasoned’ family court order that directed a husband to pay Rs. 15 lakh as permanent alimony to wife. The bench of Justice RK Agrawal and Justice AM Sapre was considering an appeal filed by Jalendra Padhiary against an Orissa High Court order that had dismissed his appeal against the family court order awarding permanent alimony, in limine. The family court had passed a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage, directing the husband to pay permanent alimony of Rs.15,00,000 and litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000 to the wife.Centre’s Decision To Scrap Limited Competitive Examination For Recruitment To IPS UpheldThe Supreme Court upheld the decision taken by the Central government to scrap the Limited Competitive Examination (LCE) recruitment for making appointments to the Indian Police Service (IPS), observing that the same has been taken in the ‘larger public interest’.Husband’s Plea For Anti-Suit Injunction Against Wife’s Plea In US Court Seeking Divorce On Ground Of Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage RejectedThe Supreme Court dismissed a husband’s plea seeking an anti-suit injunction against his wife to restrain her from pursuing petition she had filed in a Florida (US) court, seeking divorce on the...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

Ashok K.M

Tags