Supreme Court Monthly Round-Up: July 2023

Judgment/OrdersSupreme Court Grants Interim Protection To Teesta Setalvad For 7 Days ; Stays HC Order After Special Night SittingCase title- Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat Citation-SLP (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 25725/2023The Supreme Court at a special sitting on Saturday night granted interim relief to social activist Teesta Setalvad in connection with an FIR lodged against her by Gujarat police for allegedly fabricating documents to implicate high government functionaries in relation to the 2002 Gujarat riots. While staying the Gujarat High Court's order which dismissed her bail application and directed Setalvad to immediately surrender, the 3-judge bench took note of the earlier order passed by the Supreme Court in September 2022 which granted her interim bail.After Allowing Workmen To Work For 2 Decades, Management Cannot Challenge Award' : Supreme Court Allows Appeal Of FCI WorkersCase title : FCI Executive Staff Union v. Employer, Management of FCI,Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 491The bench of Justices Krishna Murari and Sanjay Kumar held that having allowed the workmen to render services for 2 decades to their own benefit, the management now cannot claim a right to challenge the award. The workmen altered their position and remained with FCI due to their absorption in services. Now, having put them in such a position, the management cannot turn back the clock.'Downright Bizarre': Supreme Court On High Court Judgment Resulting In Different Jail Terms For Convicts In Same OffenceCase Title: Uggarsain v. The State of Haryana & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 492The Court reminded that the principle of proportionality should guide the sentencing process. Various precedents, which hold that the Court has the duty to impose the "appropriate sentence" which is proportionate to the crime, were cited in the judgment.Order 41 Rule 22 CPC - Cross Objections Have All Trappings Of Regular Appeal ; Must Be Considered In Full : Supreme CourtCase title: Dheeraj Singh vs Greater Noida Industrial Development AuthorityCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 493The Apex Court bench of Justices Krishna Murari and Bela M. Trivedi observed that the High Court was under an obligation to consider the cross objections filed by the appellantsThe court also observed “While cross objections, unlike a regular appeal, are filed within an already existing appeal, however, as per Order 41 Rule 22 of the CPC, cross objections have all the trappings of a regular appeal, and therefore, must be considered in full by the court adjudicating upon the same.”Supreme Court Affirms Delhi HC's Order Dismissing Judicial Officer For Accepting Favour Of 'Sponsored' Foreign Travel From 'StrangerCase Title: Naveen Arora v. High Court Of Delhi And AnrThe Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the order of the Delhi High Court that upheld a judicial officer's dismissal from service for allegedly accepting a "favour" from a "stranger". The allegation against the judicial officer was that a “stranger” had “sponsored” his family's foreign travel in 2016.Sec 180 IPC Can't Be Applied Against A Person For Refusing To Sign Statement Given To Police : Supreme Court Castigates DySPCase title: Supriya Jain vs State of HaryanaCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 494The Supreme Court has held that Section 180 of Indian Penal Code is not attracted if a person refuses to sign the statement made to a police officer in course of an investigation. In terms of section 162, Cr. PC, no statement made by a person to a police officer in the course of any investigation under Chapter XII of the Cr. PC, which is reduced to writing, is required to be signed by the person making the statement and that section 180 of the IPC gets attracted only if a statement is refused to be signed which a public servant is legally competent to require the person making the statement to sign.", the bench of Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta observed.Don't Grant Bail In Private Cheating Cases Merely Because Accused Undertook To Deposit Money: Supreme Court Reminds CourtsCase Title- Ramesh Kumar v State NCT of DelhiCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 496The Supreme Court has disapproved of the practise followed by the Courts to direct deposit of amount as a condition for granting anticipatory bail for the offense of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.“It is considered appropriate to remind the high courts and the sessions courts not to be unduly swayed by submissions advanced by counsel on behalf of the accused in the nature of undertakings to keep in deposit/repay any amount while seeking bail under section 438 of the Cr. PC. and incorporating a condition in that behalf for deposit/payment as a pre-requisite for grant of bail", the Court observed.Condition Of Right To Repurchase In Sale Deed Not Personal Unless Expressly Stated; Can Be Assigned: Supreme CourtCase title: Indira Devi vs Veena Gupta Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 495The Supreme Court held that the condition of right to...

Supreme Court Monthly Round-Up: July 2023

Suraj Kumar

Tags