Supreme Court Monthly Digest: June 2022

Pension Is A Continuous Cause Of Action; Arrears Can't Be Denied On Ground Of Delay : Supreme Court Case Name: Shri M.L.Patil (Dead) Through LRs v. State of Goa And Anr.| Civil Appeal No. 4100 of 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 537 The Supreme Court, recently, held that arrears of pension cannot be denied on the ground of delay in approaching the Court as pension is a continuous cause of action. A Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna set aside the order of the High Court to the extent it denied arrears of pension. It held that the appellant are entitled to pension at the revised rates from the day they turn 60. Furthermore, arrears of pension were directed to be paid to the appellant within a period of four weeks. GUJCOTOC Act Can't Be Invoked If Only One Chargesheet Has Been Filed Against Accused : Supreme Court Case Title: Mohamad Iliyas Mohamad Bilal Kapadiya V. The State Of Gujarat Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 538 Opining that for invoking the provisions of the draconian Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act, 2015, it is necessary that more than one charge-sheet must have been filed in respect of an activity which can be said to have been undertaken by one as a member of an organised crime syndicate on behalf of such syndicate, the Supreme Court on Monday released the petitioner on bail. The bench of Justices B. R. Gavai and Hima Kohli was hearing an SLP against the January decision of the Gujarat High Court rejecting the application filed by the petitioner/applicant for grant of bail in connection with a 2021 FIR for offense under Sections 3(1)(2), 3(2) and 3(4) of the GUJCTOC Act. "For Benefit Of Devotees" : Supreme Court Dismisses Pleas Challenging Construction Activities In Puri Jagannath Temple By Odisha Govt Case Title: Ardhendu Kumar Das vs State of Odisha & ors, Sumanta Kumar Ghadei vs State of Orissa & Ors Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 539 The Supreme Court dismissed two petitions filed against the construction and redevelopment works undertaken by the Odisha Government at the iconic Shree Jagannath Temple premises at Puri. Terming the petitions as frivolous and contrary to public interest, the Court dismissed them with a cost of Rupees one lakh each. "In the recent past it is noticed that there's a mushrooming growth of PILs.Many such petitions are either publicity interest litigation or personal interest litigation. We deprecate the practice of filing such PIL as it is a waste of judicial time and it needs to be nipped in the bud so that development work is not stalled", the bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Hima Kohli observed. Also Read: Construction Of Essential Facilities Like Toilets, Water Supply Permissible In Prohibited Areas Near Archaeological Monuments : Supreme Court Frivolous PILs Should Be Nipped In Bud; They Encroach Judicial Time, Stall Development Activities : Supreme Court Supreme Court Mandates Minimum 1 KM ESZ For Protected Forests; Bans Permanent Structures There; No Mining In Wildlife Sanctuaries & National Parks Case Title : In Re : TN Godavarman Thirumalpad versus Union of India Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 540 In a significant order, the Supreme Court directed that each protected forest should have an Eco Sensitive Zone (ESZ) of 1 kilometer. The Court further directed that no permanent structure will be allowed within the ESZ. Mining within national wildlife sanctuary or national park cannot be permitted and thus will not be allowed. If the existing ESZ goes beyond the 1 km buffer zone or if any statutory instrument prescribes a higher limit, then such an extended boundary shall prevail. A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and Aniruddha Bose passed the directions in applications filed in the TN Godavarman Thirumulpad case. NCLT/NCLAT Should Not Sit In Appeal Over Commercial Wisdom Of CoC To Allow Withdrawal Of CIRP : Supreme Court Case Name: Vallal Rck v. M/s. Siva Industries And Holdings Limited And Ors| Civil Appeal Nos. 1811-1812 of 2022 Citation: 2022 SC LiveLaw 441 The Supreme Court held that when 90% or more of the creditors decide that it will be in the interest of all the stakeholders to permit Settlement Plan filed by promoter of the Corporate Debtor and withdraw Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process as per Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the adjudicating authority (NCLT) or the appellate authority (NCLAT) cannot sit in appeal over such commercial wisdom of Committee of Creditors (CoC). "Totally Misread The Judgment": SC Sets Aside Bombay HC Judgment That Dismissed A Writ Petition In A Tender Matter By Citing 'N. G. Projects Ltd.' Case Case Title: Jai Bholenath Construction vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Nanded | CA 4140 OF 2022 Citation: 2022...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest: June 2022

Shruti Kakkar

Tags