Supreme Court Monthly Digest: October 2020

Important Judgments/ Orders: 1. "Covid 19 Is Not A Public Emergency": SC Quashes Gujarat Govts' Notification Extending Work Hours Under Factories Act Without Overtime Pay Order dated October 1, 2020 The Supreme Court quashed the notification issued by the Gujarat Labour and Employment Department granting exemptions to all factories in Gujarat from provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 relating to daily working hours, weekly working hours, intervals for rest and spread overs of adult workers as well as from payment of overtime wages at double rates viz. Section 59. A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, KM Joseph & Indu Malhotra held that the pandemic situation cannot be a reason to do away with statutory provisions that provide dignity and rights for workers by the Gujarat Government. In this context, the bench has stated that the pandemic is not a "public emergency" within the meaning of Section 5 of the Factories Act threatening security of the country. Also Read: Workers' Right To Life Cannot Be Deemed Contingent On The Mercy Of Their Employer Or The State: SC Quashes Gujarat Govt. Notification Also Read: SC Warns About Sobering Lessons Learnt From Our Not-Too-Distant History Of Emergency Era Also Read: The Phrase Of This Court As 'Sentinel On The Qui Vive' May Have Become Weather-Beaten, Judges Must Constantly Remind Themselves Of Its Value: SC [Case: Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha & Anr. v. State] 2. Financier Continues To Be Owner Of Goods Which Are Subject Of Hire Purchase Agreement Until Hirer Pays All Instalments: SC Order dated October 1, 2020 The financer continues to be owner of the goods being the subject of hire purchase, until the option to purchase is exercised by the hirer, upon payment of all amounts agreed upon between the hirer and the Financier, the Supreme Court has reiterated in a judgment passed on Thursday. The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee observed that there is no impediment to the Financier taking possession of the vehicle when the hirer does not make payment of instalments/hire charges in terms of the Hire Purchase Agreement. [Case: M/S Magma Fincorp Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari] 3. Mens Rea For Section 306 IPC Cannot Be Assumed To Be Ostensibly Present But Has To Be Visible And Conspicuous: SC Acquits Husband Accused Of Driving Wife To Suicide Order dated October 1, 2020 Section 306 IPC cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous, observed a bench comprising Justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy while setting aside the conviction of a husband who was accused of driving wife to suicide. While considering his appeal, the bench noted that there is neither any direct evidence of cruelty against the husband or the in-laws on nor to show which particular hope or expectation of the deceased was frustrated by the husband. "What might have been the level of expectation of the deceased from her husband and in-laws and the degree of her frustration, if any, is not found through any evidence on record. More significantly, wilful negligence by the husband could not be shown by the prosecution," the bench noted. [Case: Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab] 4. Court Cannot Refuse To Hear Bail Application On Merits Saying Accused Went Back On Promise To Settle: SC Order dated October 1, 2020 The Supreme Court observed that a court cannot refuse to hear a bail application on merits on the ground that the accused had failed to comply with the settlement offer made earlier. Observing thus, a Bench comprised of Justices L Nageswara Rao and Ajay Rastogi set aside an order passed by the Madras High Court which dismissed a bail application on the ground that the accused had gone back on the promise to settle. The case arose out of an FIR registered over allegations of criminal breach of trust, cheating etc. The accused had sought for interim bail by stating that he will settle the disputes relating to the payment of money once he is released. Based on that, the Court granted him interim bail. [Case: G Selvakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu] 5. SLP Against HC Order Rejecting Review Petition Cannot Be Entertained When Main Judgment Is Not Challenged: SC Order dated October 5, 2020 The Supreme Court observed that a special leave petition challenging the order of High Court rejecting the review petition cannot be entertained when main judgment in the writ petition is not challenged. When the main judgment of the High Court cannot be effected in any manner, no relief can be granted by this Court in the special leave petition filed against order rejecting review application to review the main judgment of the High Court, the three judge Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, MR Shah and R. Subhash Reddy observed. "Against the main judgment the SLP having been dismissed earlier the same having become final between the...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest: October 2020

Akshita Saxena

Supreme Court Important Judgments in October 2020

Tags