Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up [March 21- March 27]

Supreme Court Judgements1. Suppression Of Information About Criminal Case By Candidate In Selection Process Can Be Ignored In Certain Situations : Supreme CourtCase Title: Umesh Chandra Yadav V. The Inspector General And Chief Security Commissioner, R.P.F., Northern Railway, New Delhi & Others| Civil Appeal No(S). 1964 Of 2022Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 300The Supreme Court has held that suppression of information relating to a criminal case by a candidate can be ignored in certain situations. The Court observed that competent authority while dealing with the case related to suppression of material information by a candidate in the selection process has to consider nature of post, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability and that the power has to be exercised with due diligence.2. Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On Need For Court Permission To Investigate Sec.23 POCSO Offence For Disclosure Of Victim's IdentityCase Title : Gangadhar Narayan Nayak @ Gangadhar Hiregutti versus The State of Karnataka| Criminal Appeal No 451 of 2022Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 301A 2-judge bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari of the Supreme Court has delivered a split verdict on the issue whether Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure will apply to the investigation of an offence under Section 23 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). As per Section 155(2) CrPC, a police officer cannot investigate a non-cognizable offence without the order of a Magistrate. Section 23 of POCSO relates to the offence of disclosure of the identity of the victim of the sexual offence.3. Refrain From Interfering In Grant Of Tender Even If It Is Totally Arbitrary Or Malafide ; Instead Relegate Party To Seek Damages: Supreme CourtCase Title: N.G. Projects Limited vs Vinod Kumar Jain | CA 1846 OF 2022Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 302The Supreme Court observed that a Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender even if it suffers from total arbitrariness and malafides. It should instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contract, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed. The court added that the injunction or interference in the tender leads to additional costs on the State and is also against public interest.4. Insurance Policy Condition Barring Filing Of Claim After Specified Time Period Void As Contrary To Section 28 Contract Act : Supreme CourtCase Title: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v Sanjesh and Anr| SLP(C) 3978 of 2022Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 303The Supreme Court has observed that a condition in the insurance policy which bars the filing of the claim after the specified time period is contrary to Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 ("Act") and thus void. The observation was made by the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian while dismissing a special leave petition filed by the Oriental Insurance Company assailing Allahabad High Court's order dated September 22, 2021.5. Acquittal Of Delinquent Employee In A Criminal Case Does Not Debar Employer From Proceeding With Disciplinary Enquiry: Supreme CourtCase Title: State of Karnataka vs Umesh | CA 1763-1764 of 2022Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 304The Supreme Court observed that the acquittal of the delinquent employee in a criminal case does not debar the employer from proceeding with disciplinary enquiry. The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant observed that a Court in the exercise of judicial review of disciplinary proceedings must restrict its review to determine whether:(i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with;(ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence;(iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed;(iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity;(vi) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct.6. Mere Breach Of Contract Cannot Give Rise To Criminal Prosecution For Cheating: Supreme CourtCase Title: Vijay Kumar Ghai vs State of West Bengal/CrA 463 OF 2022Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305The Supreme Court reiterated that a mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating. The court observed that a mere breach of contract is not in itself a criminal offence and gives rise to the civil liability of damages. "Even in a case where allegations are made in regard to failure on the part of the accused to keep his promise, in the absence of a culpable intention at the time of making promise being absent, no offence under Section 420 IPC can be said to have been made out.", the bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari said.7. Order Allowing Review Petition Must Be Speaking & Reasoned Order As To What Was The Error Apparent On The Face Of Record: Supreme CourtCase Title: Ratan Lal Patel vs Dr....

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up [March 21- March 27]

Shruti Kakkar

Tags