Supreme Court Monthly Digest : March 2020

1. Second Complaint On Same Facts Not Maintainable : SC [Read Judgment]A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices UU Lalit & Vineet Saran held that a second complaint on same facts as the first complaint shall not be maintainable. The bench pointed out that if the core of both complaints was same, the second complaint ought not to be maintained.(Case : Samta Naidu and Anr vs State of MP)2. SC Quashes RBI Ban On Banking Services To Cryptocurrency Dealers [Read Judgment] In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court lifted the curbs imposed by the Reserve Bank of India on regulated entities such as banks and NBFCs from dealing with virtual currencies and from providing services to crypto businesses. A bench comprising Justices R F Nariman,Aniruddha Bose and V Ramasubramanian held that the RBI's circular, which prevented regulated entities from providing banking services to those engaged in the trading or facilitating the trading in VCs, was liable to be set aside on the "ground of proportionality".Cryptocurrencies Capable Of Performing Most Functions Of Real Money Though Not Legal Tender : SC(Case : Internet and Mobile Association vs Reserve Bank of India)3. Immovable Property Cannot Be Seized By Police Under Section 102 CrPC, Reiterates SC [Read Order]The Supreme Court has reiterated that an immovable property cannot be seized by Police under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Case : Downtown Temptations Pvt Ltd vs State of WB, Bench of JJ R F Nariman and Ravindra Bhat )4. Section 173(8) CrPC: Courts Not Obliged To Hear Accused While Considering Plea For Further Investigation: SC The Supreme Court has reiterated that a court is not obliged to hear the accused before any direction for further investigation is made under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.(Case : Satishkumar Nyalchand Shah vs. State of Gujarat, bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and MR Shah) 5. Statement U/s 161 CrPC Inadmissible In Evidence And Cannot Be Relied Upon For Conviction: SC The Supreme Court has reiterated that a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon or used to convict the accused. While setting aside a concurrent conviction in a murder case, the bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and MR Shah observed that a statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. can be used only to prove the contradictions and/or omissions.(Case name: Parvat Singh Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh) 6. DRAT Cannot Entertain An Appeal U/s 18 SARFAESI Act Without Insisting On Pre- Deposit: SC The Supreme Court has observed that the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal cannot entertain an appeal under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, without insisting on pre-deposit. The bench of Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court that held that no pre-deposit was required to entertain an appeal by DRAT.Case : UNION BANK OF INDIA vs. RAJAT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. 7. Consumer Forum Has No Power To Extend Time Beyond 45 Days For Opposite Party's Version : SC Constitution Bench The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that the time period for filing opposite party's version in Consumer case cannot be extended beyond the period of 45 days prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act. The Court held that Consumer Protection Act 1986 did not empower the Consumer Forum to extend the time beyond the period of 45 days. The time period prescribed under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act is mandatory, and not directory, held the judgment authored by Justice Vineet Saran for the bench.Case : New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt Ltd, Bench : Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat)8. Appointment Secured On The Basis Of A Fraudulent Caste Certificate Is Void Ab Initio: SC The Supreme Court has observed that an appointment secured on the basis of a fraudulent caste certificate is void ab initio and Government Resolutions and Circulars cannot protect such appointees. The bench of Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice Sanjeev Khanna was considering an appeal filed against a Bombay High Court judgment.Case name: Vijay Kishanrao Kurundkar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors9. Farmer Entering Into Buyback Transaction With Seed Company Is A 'Consumer': SC [Read Judgment] The Supreme Court has held that a farmer is a 'consumer' for the purpose of filing complaints under Consumer Protection Act even when he has entered into a buyback (Case name: M/S NANDAN BIOMATRIX LTD. VS S. AMBIKA DEVI Coram: Justices Mohan M. Shanthanagoudar and R. Subhash Reddy)10. Sexual Harassment At Workplace Is An Affront to Women's Fundamental Rights: SC Sexual harassment at the workplace is an affront to the fundamental rights of a woman, the Supreme Court remarked while...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest : March 2020

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags