Supreme Court Annual Digest 2021 - Part 3 [Citations 501 to 766]

As the end of year 2021 is nearing, LiveLaw brings to you an yearly Round-up of Supreme Court judgments. This yearly digest includes 765 orders and judgments, listed in the order of LiveLaw citation index.Due to the bulky size of the digest, it is being published in three parts. Part 1 covered citations from 1 to 250. Part two covered citations from 250 to 500 and part three will cover citations from 500 to 765. 501. "It Breaks The Back Of Litigants; Insults & Kills Justice" : Supreme Court Urges Courts To Get Out Of 'Adjournment Culture' [Case: Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal; Citation: LL 2021 SC 500] The Supreme Court urged the courts not to grant repeated adjournments in routine manner. "Time has now come to change the work culture and get out of the adjournment culture so that confidence and trust put by the litigants in the Justice delivery system is not shaken and Rule of Law is maintained", Justice MR Shah and AS Bopanna observed. The court said that repeated adjournments break the back of the litigants and consequentially lose confidence in the justice delivery system. 502. 'Nobody Can Take Benefit Of Mistake Of Court' : Supreme Court Refuses To Rely On 'Inadvertent' Order Enhancing Compensation [Case: Ajai Pal Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 501] The Supreme Court observed that a party cannot take benefit of an inadvertent mistake committed by a court while passing an order. A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna said, "Nobody can be permitted to take the benefit of the mistake either of the Court or of any party, which mistake has occurred inadvertently and without noticing the peculiar facts. As such it was the duty of the Advocate for the claimants to point out the correct facts." 503. ID Act - Burden Is On Employee To Prove He Was Not Gainfully Employed After Dismissal [Case: National Gandhi Museum v Sudhir Sharma; Citation: LL 2021 SC 502] The Supreme Court observed that whether an employee has been able to discharge the burden that he was not gainfully employed after order of compulsory requirement or not is an issue which is to be decided in the facts of each case taking into consideration the entire material on record. Referring to the precedent in Talwara Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd v. Sushil Kumar, a Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka observed that, "...the fact whether an employee after dismissal was gainfully employed is within his special knowledge and therefore, considering the principles laid down in Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden is on the employee to come out with a case that he was not gainfully employed during the relevant period. " 504. Role Attached To Accused Has To Be Considered While Deciding Bail Plea Citing Parity [Case: Mahadev Meena v. Raveen Rathore; Citation: LL 2021 SC 503] The Supreme Court observed that the role attached to the accused has to be considered while deciding the plea seeking bail on the ground of parity. The seriousness and gravity of the crime alleged has to be considered while granting bail to the accused, the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna reiterated while setting aside a bail grant to a murder accused. 505. Right To Get Aid From Govt Not Fundamental Right, There Cannot Be Any Difference Between Minority & Non- Minority Aided Institutions [Case: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Principal Abhay Nandan Inter College; Citation: LL 2021 SC 504] The Supreme Court observed that there is no difference between minority and non-minority aided institutions and that their right to get an aid from the Government is not a fundamental right. An institution receiving aid is bound by the conditions imposed and therefore expected to comply, the bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh observed while allowing the appeal filed by State of Uttar Pradesh against the Allahabad High Court judgment that declared that Regulation 101 framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is unconstitutional. 506. Summoning Of An Accused Is A Serious Matter; Magistrate Has To Record Satisfaction About Prima Facie Case [Case: Ravindranatha Bajpe v. Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd; Citation: LL 2021 SC 505] The Supreme Court reiterated that the summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal Law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course and that magistrate while ordering summons has to record his satisfaction about a prima facie case against the accused, the bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna observed. 507. Resignation Once Accepted Can't Be Withdrawn Citing Mere Delay In Relieving Employee [Case: M/s New Victoria Mills & Ors. v. Shrikant Arya; Citation: LL 2021 SC 506] The Supreme Court observed that mere delay in relieving an employee from his duties does not impact the acceptance of his...

Supreme Court Annual Digest 2021 - Part 3 [Citations 501 to 766]

Akshita Saxena