Supreme Court Monthly Digest: August 2020

1. SC Directs Centre To Ensure Proper Care For Senior Citizens Living Alone Amidst COVID-19 Order dated August 4, 2020 The Supreme Court directed the Central Government to take appropriate steps to ensure that senior citizens who are living alone amidst the COVID-19 pandemic are given proper care. The bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan & R Subhash Reddy recognised the obligation of the Government in taking care and protecting the elderly who live alone, by securing the availability of essential goods and services to them. [Case: Dr. Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India] 2. [Order VII Rule 10 & 10A CPC] Suit In New Court Has To Proceed De Novo On Return of Plaint: SC Order dated August 5, 2020 The Supreme Court held that, if a plaint is returned under Order VII Rule 10 and 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure for presentation in the court in which it should have been instituted, the suit shall proceed de novo. The bench comprising Justices RF Nariman, Navin Sinha & Indira Banerjee were answering a reference made to it in this regard. Last year, the bench comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, noticing, apparent conflict between the judgment in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.v. Modern Construction [(2014) 1 SCC 648] and Joginder Tuli vs. S. L. Bhatia [(1997) 1 SCC 502], had observed that the former needs reconsideration. It was observed that unless a party can prove that it has been actually prejudiced by some proceedings before the Court not having jurisdiction, it would not be in the larger interest to start the proceedings de novo. [Case: M/S EXL Careers & Anr. v. Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd.] 3. No Advantage To Candidate When The Very Selection Is Illegal: SC Upholds Termination Of 8882 Teachers In Tripura. Order dated August 5, 2020 The Supreme Court affirmed the termination of 8,882 ad-hoc teachers in Tripura. The bench comprising Justices UU Lalit & Vineet Saran observed that, as their very selection and appointments were found to be illegal and invalid, no other advantage can be conferred upon the concerned candidates. "In our view, considering the fact that the very selection and appointments were found to be illegal and invalid, no other advantage can be conferred upon the concerned candidates", the bench observed. [Case: Ajoy Debbarma & Ors. v. State of Tripura & Ors.] 4. Interpretation Of Provisions Of Major Port Trusts Act: SC Answers Reference Order dated August 5, 2020 A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court answered the reference made to it regarding the interpretation of various provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. Reference was made to the larger bench by Justices RK Agrawal and DY Chandrachud to Justices RF Nariman, Navin Sinha & Indira Banerjee while considering a batch of appeals against division bench order of the High Court of Kerala. The issue in this case whether the liability to pay 'ground rent' on containers unloaded at Cochin Port, but not cleared by the consignees/importers and refused to be de-stuffed by the port, on the ground of inadequate storage space, can be imposed on the owners of the 3 vessel/steamer agents beyond the period of 75 days, fixed by the Tariff Authority of Major Ports, a statutory body constituted under Section 47A of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. [Case: The Chairman, Board Of Trustees, Cochin Port Trust v. M/S Arebee Star Maritime Agencies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors] 5. Mere Fact That Crime Is Heinous And That Release Of Prisoner Would Send A Negative Message Not Relevant Factors To Deny Probation: SC Order dated August 5, 2020 The Supreme Court freed a murder convict who served 28 years 08 months and 21 days in prison. The Uttar Pradesh Government had rejected Shor's plea for premature release on the ground that he along with 20 co-accused committed the murder of 11 persons with deadly weapons and injured others. The order passed by the Joint Secretary to the UP Government further stated that "premature release of this kind of prisoner would send a negative message against the justice system in the society". Taking note of Section 2 of the United Provinces Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938, the Court observed that the factors that to be taken into account are (i) antecedents (ii) conduct in the prison and (iii) the person, if released, is likely to abstain from crime and lead a peaceable life. Referring to the reasons stated in the order for refusing remission, the bench comprising Justices RF Nariman & Navin Sinha observed that the order has been passed mechanically and without application of mind to Section 2 of the U.P. Act. [Case: Shor v. State of UP & Anr.] 6. Stringent Provisions Of NDPS Act Does Not Dispense With The Requirement To Establish A Prima Facie Case Beyond Reasonable Doubt: SC Order dated August 5, 2020 The stringent provisions of the Narcotics Drugs...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest: August 2020

Akshita Saxena

Tags