Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

Person Who Remains In Occupation Of An Encroached Property Disqualified From Being Member Of Panchayath, SC Overrules Its Earlier Judgment [Janabai vs. Additional Commissioner]The Supreme Court, overruling its earlier decision, held that a person who shares an encroached property by residing there and there is continuance; he/she has to be treated as disqualified from being a Member of Panchayat. Three-Judge Bench comprising of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY Chandrachud in Janabai vs. Additional Commissioner overruled two-judge bench decision in Sagar Pandurang Dhundare v. Keshav Aaba Patil.Lender Banks Cannot Be Left Hanging For Forever [ArcelorMittal Vs Numetal]“Lenders cannot be left hanging for forever”, the Supreme Court on Wednesday observed and made it clear that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) was brought to ensure that the dues of the companies, declared non-performing assets (NPAs), are recovered by the banks.No Criminal Case Is Free From Shortcoming; Accused Can’t Take Advantage Of ‘Insignificant’ Inconsistencies In Prosecution Evidence [Shamim vs. State] A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, while confirming a high court judgment convicting a woman for the murder of in-laws of her daughter, observed that no criminal case is free from shortcomings and the benefit would go to accused only if inconsistencies in prosecution evidence go to the root of the matter.Motor Accidents Claims: Parents Entitled To Be Awarded Loss Of Consortium Under The Head Of Filial Consortium [Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram]The Supreme Court observed that in a case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. The bench of Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Indu Malhotra also observed that court is duty-bound and entitled to award “just compensation”, irrespective of whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the claimant.Court Must Not Go Deep Into Merits Of The Matter While Considering Bail Application: SC Cancels Bail Granted By HC To An ‘Influential Businessman’ [state of Orissa vs. Mahimananda Mishra]The Supreme Court cancelled bail granted by the high court to an ‘influential’ businessman accused in a murder case, taking into account his past attempt to evade the process of law, and also implications of the clout enjoyed by him in the community.Labour Court Can Examine Charges On Merits Only If Domestic Enquiry Is Held Illegal: SC Upholds Dismissal Of Banker Who Was Found Drunk On Duty [M. L. Singla V. Punjab National Bank& Anr.]The Supreme Court, while upholding the dismissal of a bank employee who was found drunk during duty, explained the procedure to be followed by the Labour Court while dealing while examining an industrial reference to it pertaining to the dismissal of an employee.Mere Delay In Forwarding FIR Copy To The Magistrate Will Not Vitiate The Trial, Reiterates SC [Jafel Biswas vs. State of West Bengal]The Supreme Court reiterated that mere delay in sending the report under Section 157 CrPC to the Magistrate itself, cannot lead to a conclusion that the trial is vitiated or the accused is entitled to be acquitted on this ground. The bench comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Vineet Saran were dealing with a submission of Advocate Pijush Roy, who appeared for the accused-appellants, that a report under Section 157 CrPC which is to be forwarded to the Magistrate, was submitted with delay. It was argued that there is non-compliance of Section 157 Cr.P.C.Default Sentences, Inter Se, Cannot Be Directed To Run Concurrently [Sharad Hiru Kolambe V. State of Maharashra & Ors.]The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that default sentences, inter se, cannot be directed to run concurrently. The Bench comprising Justice AM Sapre and Justice UU Lalit explained, “Theoretically, if the default sentences awarded in respect of imposition of fine in connection with two or more offences are to be clubbed or directed to run concurrently, there would not be any occasion for the persons so sentenced to deposit the fine in respect of the second or further offences. It would effectively mean imposition of one single or combined sentence of fine. Such an exercise would render the very idea of imposition of fine with a deterrent stipulation while awarding sentence in default of payment of fine to be meaningless.” Food Safety Violations Can Be Prosecuted Under IPC As Well [State of Maharashtra vs. Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhan]The Supreme Court held that Food Safety Officers can lodge complaints alleging offences under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code against the persons transporting, stocking and/or selling the prohibited goods. The bench comprising Justice SA Bobde and Justice L Nageswara Rao observed that there is no bar for prosecution under the IPC merely because the provisions in the FSS Act prescribe...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

Ashok Kini

Tags