Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

Article 226 Can’t Be Used For Deciding Disputes For Which Civil And Criminal Remedies Are Available [Roshina T V. Abdul Azeez K.T.& Ors]The Supreme Court observed that a regular suit, and not a writ petition, is the appropriate remedy for settlement of the disputes relating to property rights between private persons.Even Heinous/Brutal Crimes May Not Be Rarest Of Rare [Sukhlal V. State of Madhya Pradesh]The Supreme Court, reiterating the principle that life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception,observed that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category. A three-judge bench comprising of Justice AK Sikri, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S Abdul Nazeer observed thus while commuting death penalty awarded to Sukhlal, who was found guilty of murdering a lady in whose house he was working as a gardener.High Courts, Being Constitutional Courts Of Record, Has Inherent Jurisdiction To Recall Their Own Orders [Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai vs. Pratibha Industries Ltd]The Supreme Court observed that the High Courts, being courts of record, has inherent jurisdiction to recall their own orders. In Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai vs. Pratibha Industries Ltd,, the supreme court dealt with the question on High Court’s power of recall of its orders.Imposition Of Penalty In Disciplinary Proceeding Lies In Sole Domain Of Employer [State of Tamil Nadu vs. M. Mangayarkarasi]The Supreme Court reiterated that the imposition of a penalty in disciplinary proceeding lies in the sole domain of the employer and the court cannot interfere unless the penalty is found to be shockingly disproportionate.Unauthorised Bulk Possession Of Manufactured Drugs Containing Narcotic Drugs Or Psychotropic Substances Triable Under NDPS Act As Well [State of Punjab V. Rajesh Kumar]The Supreme Court held that persons who are found in bulk possession of manufactured drugs without any valid authorization can be tried under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, apart from the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.HCs Cannot Adjudicate Upon Affidavits Or Disputed Questions Of Fact Under Article 226 [Sanjay Kumar Jha V. Prakash Chandra Chaudhary]The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, reiterated that high courts cannot adjudicate upon affidavits or disputed questions of fact while hearing petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, except in the “rarest of cases”. Retrenchment Procedure Under Section 25F ID Act Not Applicable To Employee Who Abandons Work [Manju Saxena V. Union ofIndia]The Supreme Court held that an employee who voluntarily abandons work cannot be treated as on in “continuous service” of the employer as per Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, procedure for retrenchment as per under Section 25F of the ID Act will not apply to such an employee.Chapter XXXII Of Kerala Education Rules Shall Alone Be Applicable While Making Recruitment To Teaching Posts [VK Girija vs. Reshma Parayil]The Supreme Court reiterated that the Statutory Scheme as delineated by Chapter XXXII of Kerala Education Rules shall alone be applicable while making recruitment to the teaching posts and Rule 5 Note (3) of Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 is not attracted. The bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Ajay Rastogi upheld the judgment passed by a division bench of the Kerala High Court which had followed the dictum laid down in Maya Mathew vs. State of Kerala.‘Administrative Difficulties’ Not A Valid Reason To Condone Delay In Filing Application To Set Aside Arbitral Award [Simplex Infrastructure Ltd V. Union of India]The Supreme Court held that administrative difficulties would not be a valid reason to condone a delay above and beyond the statutory prescribed period under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to file an application to set aside arbitration award.Any Challenge To Arbitrator Appointed Should Be Raised Before The Arbitrator Himself In First Instance [SP Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd. V. State of Himachal Pradesh]The Supreme Court reiterated that any challenge to the arbitrator appointed should be raised before the arbitrator himself under Section 13 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, in the first instance and thereafter under Section 34 of the Act. The bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice Indira Banerjee was considering high court order that held that the appointment of arbitrator could not be challenged by way of an application under Section 11(6) of the Act. SC Sets Aside Allahabad HC Orders In Sec. 482 Petitions [Omveer Singh V. State of Uttar Pradesh]On Monday, the Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre set aside four orders passed by the Allahabad High Court in different criminal petitions as those did not contain ‘facts’ of the case. The bench, also comprising of Justice Indu Malhotra, observed that the high court in...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

ashok kini

Tags