References Answered And Made By Supreme Court In 2020

In the COVID-19 affected 2020, where the Supreme Court was functioning in virtual mode throughout except for the first three months of the year, several substantial points of law were settled by answering long pending references.Also, some new points of public importance were referred to larger bench. Here is a look at some of such important judgments(in no particular order).1. Judicial Officers Cannot Seek Direct Recruitment To Post Of District Judges Against Quota For AdvocatesIn the case Dheeraj Mor v Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, a 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court answered a reference to hold that judicial officers who are in service cannot seek direct recruitment to the post of District Judges as the said route is meant for practising advocates only.The reference was made by a two-judge bench in 2018 observing that it was a substantial question of law involving public importance.Answering the reference, a bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran and Ravindra Bhat noted that eligibility under Article 233(2) of the Constitution requires 7 years of continuous practice. "Only practising candidates can avail the quota. It is exclusively for them", the court said."Article 233(2) nowhere provides eligibility of in-service candidates for consideration as a District Judge concerning a post requiring 7 years' practice as an advocate or a pleader. Requirement of 7 years' experience for advocate or pleader is qualified with a rider that he should not be in the service of the Union or the State", the Court said in the judgment.Practising Advocates' Experience Gained At Bar Injects Judicial Branch With Fresh Perspectives : SC [Read Judgment] 2.Landlord-Tenant disputes arbitrable unless covered by rent control lawsA three judge bench of the Supreme Court answered a reference to hold that landlord-tenant disputes are arbitrable unless covered by specific rent contorl laws. The judgment delivered by a three judge bench in the case Vidya Drolia and others v Durga Trading Enterprises also decides several issues such as tests for arbitrability, who determines arbitrability, scope of enquiry under Sections 8/11, meaning of 'existence of arbitration agreement' etc.The bench comprising Justices N V Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna and Krishna Murari overruled the view in Himangni Enterprises vs Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia.Other reports based on the judgment :Disputes Which Are To Be Adjudicated By DRTs Are Not Arbitrable: Supreme Court Overrules 2012 Delhi HC JudgmentAllegations Of Fraud Arbitrable When They Relate To Civil Dispute: Supreme Court Overrules 'N Radhakrishnan' JudgmentExpression 'Existence Of Arbitration Agreement' In Section 11 Of Arbitration Act Includes Aspect Of Validity Of Agreement : Supreme Court3. [Domestic Violence Act] Wife Entitled To Claim Right Of Residence Which Belongs To Relatives Of Husband Also: Supreme Court Overrules Its 2006 'SR Batra' JudgmentA wife is also entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household belonging to relatives of the husband, the Supreme Court held in an important judgment overruling the 2006 judgment in SR Batra v. Taruna Batra. "In the event, shared household belongs to any relative of the husband with whom in a domestic relationship the woman has lived, the conditions mentioned in Section 2(s) are satisfied and the said house will become a shared household," the bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah held in the case Satish Chander Ahuja v Sneha Ahuja.It added, "The living of woman in a household has to refer to a living which has some permanency. Mere fleeting or casual living at different places shall not make a shared household. The intention of the parties and the nature of living including the nature of household have to be looked into to find out as to whether the parties intended to treat the premises as shared household or not. As noted above, Act 2005 was enacted to give a higher right in favour of woman. The Act, 2005 has been enacted to provide for more effective protection of the rights of the woman who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family. The Act has to be interpreted in a manner to effectuate the very purpose and object of the Act."This judgment did not came out a reference but is included in this list as it laid down an important point of law by overruling a previous decision on the Supreme Court.In the 2006 judgment in S.R. Batra vs Taruna Batra , the Supreme Court bench of Justices SB Sinha and M.Katju had rejected the contention that the definition of shared household includes a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage had lived in a domestic relationship. It held that the wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household, and a `shared household' would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of ...

References Answered And Made By Supreme Court In 2020

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags