Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

Mere Abduction Of Woman Doesn’t Attract Offence Under Section 366 IPCThe Supreme Court reiterated that mere abduction of a woman does not attract offence under Section 366 of Indian Penal Code without proof that the woman was abducted with the intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse.Erroneous Decision That Didn’t Give Effect To Statutory Prohibition Will Not Operate As Res JudicataIn Canara Bank vs NG Subbaraya Setty, the Supreme Court observed that an issue of law which arises between the same parties in a subsequent suit or proceeding is not res judicata if, by an erroneous decision given on a statutory prohibition in the former suit or proceeding, the statutory prohibition is not given effect to.No Automatic Absorption Of Executive Officers Turned Adhoc Judges Into JudiciaryIn a significant judgment, the Supreme Court held that executive officers cannot be automatically absorbed to judicial service taking into account their service as adhoc-judges. The apex court bench of Justice AK Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan has set aside a Gauhati High Court judgment that held that the executive officers (Additional Deputy Commissioners) can be absorbed into district judiciary, considering their services as adhoc judges.Arbitration Award Directing Transmission Of Shares Can Be ‘Enforced’ Through NCLTA three-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, in Cheran Properties Limited Vs. Kasturi And Sons Limited, upheld proceedings for rectification of records before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) by a claimant company whose claim was upheld by the arbitral tribunal directing transmission of shares.SC Closes ‘Perjury’ Proceedings Initiated By MP HC Against BJP MP From UjjainThe Supreme Court closed criminal proceedings initiated by Madhya Pradesh High Court against BJP MP Prof. Chintamani Malviya for perjury. The notice in an election petition was served on the MP through process server. Months later after the date of appearance, the MP filed an application before the court stating that the process server had served notice and documents on one of the employees while he was in Delhi and that he came to know about the petition only recently.PhD Not Required For Promotion To Post Of Professor In Medical College Under AMUThe Supreme Court held that PhD is not required for promotion to the post of Professor in a medical college under Aligarh Muslim University. The Allahabad High Court, interpreting Clause 12 (19) of the Ordinances (Executive) as amended by the University provides for prescription of the minimum qualifications for candidates from the faculty of medicine by the Medical Council of India (MCI), held that fulfillment of ‘other conditions’ as laid down in the Ordinances (Executive) would include Clause 12 (5) which mandates a PhD degree for promotion to the post of Professor.Mere Change Of Opinion Of Assessing Officer Not A Ground For ReassessmentThe Supreme Court held that Section 147 of the Income Tax Act does not allow re-assessment of an income merely because of the fact that the assessing officer has change of opinion on the same facts and circumstances which were already in his knowledge even during the original assessment proceedings. A bench of Justice RK Agrawal and Justice Mohan M Shantanagoudar were considering an appeal filed by the Revenue against Delhi High Court order that had quashed the show cause notice as well as reassessment order.When Trial Court Records Are Summoned By Higher Courts Only Photocopy/Scanned Copy Of The Records Need To Be Sent To Avoid DelayA Supreme Court Bench of Justice AK Goel and RF Nariman directed that if the trial court record is summoned by a higher Courts, the trial courts may send photocopy/scanned copy of the record and retain the original so that the proceedings are not held up. The Bench also held that wherever the original record has been summoned by an appellate/revisional court, photocopy/scanned copy of the same may be kept for its reference and original returned to the trial courts forthwith.Legislatures Should Provide ‘Serious Consequences’ For Elected Representatives For Not Taking ‘Oath Of Office’The Supreme Court suggested that legislatures should provide ‘serious’ consequences for the elected representatives to public offices for not subscribing to such an oath of office.Influence Of Bias In Testimony Of Interested Witnesses Should Never Be OverlookedThe Supreme Court, in Bhaskarrao vs. State of Maharashtra, while acquitting 14 persons accused in a murder case, observed that influence of bias in the testimonies of witnesses having a strong interest in the result of a case, should never be overlooked.Remove The Obnoxious Provisions Discriminating Against Leprosy Patients From The Statute...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

Ashok K.M

Tags