Supreme Court Monthly Digest: November 2020

Important Judgments/ Orders: 1. Entitlement Of Homebuyer Starts From Date Of Agreement And Not RERA Registration: Supreme Court Order dated November 2, 2020 The Supreme Court held that period for allotment of flat to a homebuyer has to be reckoned from the date of the buyer agreement and not from the date of the registration of the project under the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act (RERA Act). A division bench comprising Justices UU Lalit and Vineet Saran said that entitlement of the Complainants must be considered in the light of the terms of the Builder Buyer Agreements. [Case: Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni] 2. Powers Of Review U/s 114 CPC Cannot Be Exercised As An Inherent Or Appellate Power: Supreme Court Order dated November 3, 2020 The Supreme Court observed that the powers of review under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC cannot be exercised as an inherent power or an appellate power. "An application for review is more restricted than that of an appeal and the Court of review has limited jurisdiction as to the definite limit mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC itself," said a bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and MR Shah. In this case, the High Court had allowed an application seeking review of its judgment which had contained some observations regarding possession of disputed property. The High Court allowed the review petition observing that as regards the possession of the disputed property the issue of possession was neither raised before the Trial Court nor before the First Appellate Court and even no issue with respect to possession was framed by the Trial Court. [Case: Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) v. Vinod Kumar Rawat] 3. "It's For Employer To Determine Suitability Of Qualifications": Supreme Court Denies Bank Peon Job For Overqualified Candidate Order dated November 3, 2020 The Supreme Court upheld the cancellation of the candidature of a candidate by Punjab National Bank on the ground that he was overqualified for the post of peon. The bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah set aside the Orissa High Court judgment in which it observed that the candidate cannot be denied the appointment solely on the ground that he is possessing a higher qualification. "It is for the employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of the qualifications for any post and it is not for the Courts to consider and assess," the Court said. The court also added that suppression of material information and making a false statement has a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the employee in relation to his continuance in service. [Case: Chief Manager, PNB v. Anit Kumar Das] 4. Supreme Court Issues Guidelines On Payment Of Maintenance In Matrimonial Matters Order dated November 4, 2020 The Supreme Court issued guidelines on payment of maintenance in matrimonial matters. A bench comprising Justices Indu Malhotra and R. Subhash Reddy held that maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date of filing the application for maintenance. The court said that for payment of Interim Maintenance, the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities, shall be filed by both parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings before the concerned Family Court / District Court / Magistrates Court, as the case may be, throughout the country. The model affidavit is annexed as Enclosures I, II and III of the judgment. [Case: Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr.] 5. For Writ Against Stoppage Of Pension, Part Of Cause Of Action Arises Where Pensioner Is Getting Pension: Supreme Court Order dated November 5, 2020 The Supreme Court held that a retired employee can file a writ petition against stoppage of pension at the place where he/she is residing and need not approach the High Court where the pension authority is located. A 3-judge comprising of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and MR Shah held that part of cause of action under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India for filing writ arises at the place where the pensioner is residing and drawing pension. [Case: Shanti Devi @ Shanti Mishra v. Union of India & Ors.] 6. [SC-ST (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act] Mere Insult Of A Person Is Not An Offence Unless It's On Account of Him/ Her Belonging To SC-ST: Supreme Court Order dated November 5, 2020 The Supreme Court observed that the offence under Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. A bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and Ajay Rastogi observed thus while quashing a part of charge sheet against a person accused under...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest: November 2020

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags