Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up/Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise Index- March 14 to 20

SUBJECT INDEX Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint - While considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to go through the entire plaint averments and cannot reject the plaint by reading only few lines/passages and ignoring the other relevant parts of the plaint - Only in a case where on the face of it, it is seen that the suit is barred by limitation, then and then only a plaint can be rejected - The plaint cannot be rejected partially. (Para 7,7.1. 7.4) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 280 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXXIX - Interim injunctions - While considering the question of grant of interim injunction, the courts are required to consider the three tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury .(Para 36) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 282 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 190 (1)(b) - Appeal against High Court judgment which upheld the order passed by Magistrate summoning the appellant who was not named in police report - Dismissed - The name of the accused/appellant had transpired from the statement made by the victim under Section 164 CrPC - No error in the order of the Magistrate. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 291 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 190 (1)(b) - For summoning persons upon taking cognizance of an offence, the Magistrate has to examine the materials available before him for coming to the conclusion that apart from those sent up by the police some other persons are involved in the offence. These materials need not remain confined to the police report, charge sheet or the F.I.R. A statement made under Section 164 of the Code could also be considered for such purpose. (Para 21) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 291 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 190 (1)(b) - Jurisdiction to issue summons can be exercised even in respect of a person whose name may not feature at all in the police report, whether as accused or in column (2) thereof if the Magistrate is satisfied that there are materials on record which would reveal prima facie his involvement in the offence. (Para 20) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 291 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 362 - Appeal against High Court order which recalled an order passed by it in a criminal case - Dismissed - This application for recall of the order was maintainable as it was an application seeking a procedural review, and not a substantive review. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 283 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 362 - Application for recall of the order maintainable when it is an application seeking a procedural review, and not a substantive review. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 283 Constitution of India, 1950 ; Article 32, 226 - Judicial Review in policy matters - Most questions of policy involve complex considerations of not only technical and economic factors but also require balancing competing interests for which democratic reconciliation rather than adjudication is the best remedy. Further, an increased reliance on judges to solve matters of pure policy diminishes the role of other political organs in resolving contested issues of social and political policy, which require a democratic dialogue. This is not to say that this Court will shy away from setting aside policies that impinge on constitutional rights. Rather it is to provide a clear-eyed role of the function that a court serves in a democracy. (Para 46) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 289 Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Tender Jurisdiction - Interim order- disapprove and deprecate the grant of interim relief virtually allowing the writ petitions at an interim stage - If by way of interim relief, a tenderer/petitioner is permitted to participate in the tender process without insisting upon the tender clause which was under challenge and subsequently the writ petition is dismissed what would be the consequences. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 295 Constitution of India, 1950; Article 233,235 - The High Courts are well within their domain in prescribing a requirement which ensures that candidates with sufficient maturity enter the fold of the higher judiciary. The requirement that a candidate should be at least 35 years of age is intended to sub-serve this - The Constitution does not preclude the exercise of the rule making power by the High Courts to regulate the conditions of service or appointment - Age is not extraneous to the acquisition of maturity and experience, especially in judicial institutions which handle real problems and confront challenges to liberty and justice. (Para 26) 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 286 Constitution of India, 1950; Article 311(2) - Judicial Service- When the Government had, on enquiry, come to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that the appellant was unsuitable for the post he held on probation, this was clearly by way of punishment and, hence, the appellant would be entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. (Para 50) 2022...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up/Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise Index- March 14 to 20

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up/Digest With Nominal And Subject/Statute Wise Index- March 14 to 20

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers