Supreme Court Monthly Digest- May 2019

Ashok Kini

18 Jun 2019 3:39 AM GMT

  • Supreme Court Monthly Digest- May 2019

    Statutory Appeal Can Be Filed Even If Application To Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree [ Order IX Rule 13 CPC] Is Dismissed Bhivchandra Shankar More vs. Balu Gangaram More The Supreme Court observed that the right of appeal under Section 96(2) CPC is a statutory right and the defendant cannot be deprived of the statutory right of appeal merely on the ground that the application filed by...

    Statutory Appeal Can Be Filed Even If Application To Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree [ Order IX Rule 13 CPC] Is Dismissed

    Bhivchandra Shankar More vs. Balu Gangaram More

    The Supreme Court observed that the right of appeal under Section 96(2) CPC is a statutory right and the defendant cannot be deprived of the statutory right of appeal merely on the ground that the application filed by him under Order IX Rule 13 CPC [to set aside ex-parte decree] has been dismissed.

    Writ Of Habeas Corpus Can Be Issued When The Detention Of A Minor Is By A Person Who Is Not Entitled To His Legal Custody

    Tejaswini Gaud vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari

    The Supreme Court observed that the writ of habeas corpus is maintainable where it is proved that the detention of a minor child by a parent or others was illegal and without any authority of law. The bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice R. Subhash Reddy affirmed a Bombay High Court judgment that directed the relatives of a deceased mother to hand over the custody of the child to the-father. The contention raised in this case

    Specific Performance: Plea Of Hardship Cannot Be Raised If Not Pleaded In Written Statement

    Beemaneni Maha Lakshmi vs. Gangumalla Appa Rao

    The Supreme Court observed that a defendant in a specific performance suit should plead in his written statement the hardship that will be caused if the decree of specific performance of the contract is passed against him. Otherwise, such plea cannot be permitted to be raised in a later stage, the bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice MR Shah said while confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 30.12.1985.

    Information Contained In A Document Is A 'Corporeal Property' And Can Be Subject Matter Of Theft

    Birla Corporation Limited Vs. Adventz Investments And Holdings Limited

    The Supreme Court held that the "document" as defined in Section 29 of the Indian Penal Code is a "moveable property" within the meaning of Section 22 IPC and the information contained thereon in the documents would also fall within the purview of the "corporeal property" and can be the subject matter of the theft.

    Lawyer Is Not Just His Client's Mouthpiece; Be Responsible While Making Presentation To The Court

    Lal Bahadur Gautam V. State of U.P.

    Everyone has to be responsible and careful in what they present to the Court, said the Supreme Court while reiterating that a lawyer demeans himself if he acts merely as a mouthpiece of his client. This observation was made by a bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Navin Sinha on Wednesday while allowing an appeal filed by a lecturer in a private unaided college affiliated to the Chaudhary Charan Singh University.

    Mere Incorrect Statement In Vakalatnama Not Forgery, SC Quashes Criminal Case Against MP Sasikala Pushpa

    Sasikala Pushpa V. State of Tamil Nadu

    The Supreme Court quashed a criminal case lodged against expelled AIADMK Leader and Member of Parliament Sasikala Pushpa and her husband with respect to the alleged forgery committed by them in signing the Vakalatnama.

    Borrower Has No Right To Be Represented By Lawyer Before In-House Committee Probing 'Wilful Default'

    SBI V M/s Jah Developers Pvt. Ltd

    The Supreme Court observed that a borrower has no right to be represented by a lawyer before the In-House Committee of banks constituted for the purpose of determining whether he is a willful defaulter or not. The bench comprising Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran set aside a Delhi High Court judgment that held that a lawyer has the right to represent his client before such in-house committees.

    Quantity Of Narcotic Substance A Relevant Factor To Award Punishment Higher Than The Minimum Under NDPS Act

    Rafiq Qureshi V. Narcotic Control Bureau Eastern Zonal Unit

    The Supreme Court observed that the decision to impose a punishment higher than the minimum prescribed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is not confined or limited to the factors enumerated in clauses (a) to (f) of Section 32B of the. The bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph observed that the quantity of substance with which an accused is charged is a relevant factor, which can be taken into consideration while fixing quantum of the punishment.

    Revision Petition Before NCDRC Not Maintainable Against An Order Passed In Execution Proceedings

    Karnataka Housing Board V. K.A. Nagamani

    The Supreme Court held that a Revision Petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [NCDRC] is not maintainable against an order passed by the State Consumer Commission in execution proceedings. The bench comprising Justice UU Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra observed that orders passed for enforcement of the final order in the Consumer dispute, cannot be construed to be orders passed in the 'consumer dispute'.

    Sec.34 Arbitration Act- Unilateral Addition To Contract By Arbitral Tribunal Violates Most Basic Notions Of Justice

    Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Company Ltd. V. NHAI

    Holding that "a unilateral addition or alteration of a contract can never be foisted upon an unwilling party", the Supreme Court set aside an arbitral award on the grounds of it being in conflict with "most basic notions of justice" and thereby conflicting with "public policy of India" as per Section 34(2)(b)(ii)(iii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.

    Constitutional Validity Of 2018 Karnataka Law Granting Reservation In Promotion For SC-ST Staffs Upheld

    B K Pavitra V. Union of India

    The Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional validity of the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation (to the Posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act 2018. The said enactment provided for consequential seniority to persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes promoted under the reservation policy of the State of Karnataka.

    SC-ST Reservations Are True Fulfillment Of Effective And Substantive Equality

    B K Pavitra V. Union of India

    In its judgment upholding the 2018 Karnataka Law granting reservation in promotion for staffs belonging to Scheduled-Caste and Scheduled-Tribe communities, the Supreme Court observed SC-ST Reservations are the true fulfilment of effective and substantive equality by accounting for the structural conditions into which people are born.

    Judges Are Not Fearful Saints: SC Bars Lawyer Convicted For Criminal Contempt From Entering Allahabad District Court For 3 Years

    Rakesh Tiwari, Adv V. Alok Pandey, CJM

    Judges are not fearful saints, but have to fearless preachers, said the Supreme Court while upholding the Allahabad High Court order convicting an Advocate for criminal contempt for misbehaving and assaulting a Chief Judicial Magistrate. The bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Navin Sinha, however, suspended the sentence of imprisonment of 6 months awarded by the High Court to Advocate Rakesh Tripathi for further period of 3 years subject to his maintaining good and proper conduct with a condition that he shall not enter the premises of the District Judgeship, Allahabad for a further period of three years in addition to what he has undergone already.

    SC Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Share Holders Accused Of 'Stealing' Company Documents To Produce Before Company Law

    Birla Corporation Limited vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited

    The Supreme Court judgment in Birla Corporation Limited vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited drew some parallels with its recent order in Rafale Review Petitions. While in Rafale, the issue was about admissibility of documents allegedly 'stolen' from the Ministry, here the issue before the bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice R. Subhash Reddy was whether the act of some shareholders accused of 'stealing' some documents of a company to present it before Company Law Board [CLB] and other judicial forums amounted to 'theft and misappropriation' under Indian Penal Code.

    In Limine Dismissal Of SLP At Threshold Neither Constitutes Declaration Of Law Nor A Binding Precedent, Reiterates SC

    State of Orissa vs. Dhirendra Sundar Das

    The Supreme Court has reiterated that in-limine dismissal of Special Leave Petition at the threshold without giving any detailed reasons, does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution. In this case

    Unregistered Family Settlement Will Operate As A Complete Estoppel Against The Parties To It

    Thulasidhara vs. Narayanappa

    The Supreme Court observed that even if the family settlement was not registered, it would operate as a complete estoppel against the original plaintiff who was party to such settlement.

    Migrant Scheduled Tribes Can Be Given Benefit Of Reservation In Dadra & Nagar Haveli UT

    Director Transport Dept. UT administration of Dadra and Nagar Haveli V. Mr. Abhinav Dipakbhai Patel

    The Supreme Court observed that that a migrant Scheduled Tribe can be given the benefit of reservation in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. The bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice MR Shah rejected the contention of the Union Territory that a person should be a local in the Union Territory and amigrant Scheduled Tribes cannot be given the benefit of reservation.

    Successive Bail Applications Should Be Placed Before The Same Judge Who Considered The First One

    Gati Limited vs.T. Nagarajan Piramiajee

    The Supreme Court reiterated that successive bail applications filed by an accused should be placed before the same Judge who had refused bail in the first instance, unless that Judge is not available.

    Contract [Niyojit] Teachers Are Not Entitled To Salary At Par With Regular Permanent Teachers: SC Sets Aside Patna HC Judgment

    State of Bihar V. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee Munger

    In a setback to about 4 Lakh Niyojit Teachers (contract Teachers) in Bihar, the Supreme Court set aside a Patna High Court judgment which had held that they are entitled to a salary at par with regular permanent teachers. Allowing the appeals filed by the State, the bench comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit observed that such a situation could create tremendous imbalance and cause great strain on budgetary resources.

    The 'Acid' Undoubtedly A 'Corrosive' Substance Within The Meaning Of S.326 IPC

    Omanakuttan v. The State of Kerala

    With acid attack cases seeing a phenomenal increase in country and victims literally "living under the shadows" for the rest of their lives, Bench of Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari, while dismissing appeal of the accused appellant observed that "the acid is undoubtedly a corrosive substance within the meaning of Section 326 IPC.

    Section 319 CrPC: Persons Named In FIR, But Not Chargesheeted Can Be Summoned Even If Stage Of Protest Petition Is Over

    Rajesh V. State of Haryana

    The Supreme Court observed that a trial court can summon under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, those persons named in FIR, but who were not charge-sheeted, even if the stage of giving opportunity to the complainant to file a protest petition is over.

    Electronic Evidence: Failure To Produce Certificate U/s 65B Evidence Act Along With Chargesheet Not Fatal To Prosecution

    State of Karnataka vs. M. R. Hiremath

    Failure to produce a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act at the stage when the charge-sheet was filed is not fatal to the prosecution, the Supreme Court held. The bench comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta, on appeal filed by the state, observed that the High Court erred in concluding that the failure to produce a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act at the stage when the charge-sheet was filed was fatal to the prosecution. It said:

    Mere Pendency Of Civil Case Between Complainant And Accused Not A Ground To Quash Criminal Case

    Md. Allauddin Khan vs. State of Bihar

    The Supreme Court observed that mere pendency of a civil case between complainant and accused is not a reason to quash criminal case. Terming the High Court view 'erroneous', the bench comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari observed: "The High Court failed to see that mere pendency of a civil suit is not an answer to the question as to whether a case under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC is made out against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 or not…"

    Payment Of Part Sale Consideration Or Stamp Duty Cannot Be Sole Criteria To Hold Transaction As Benami

    Mangathai Ammal vs. Rajeswari

    The Supreme Court observed that the payment of part sale consideration or stamp duty by another person cannot be the sole criteria to hold the sale/transaction as benami.

    Termination Of Arbitration Proceedings U/s 32 Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act Cannot Be Recalled

    Sai Babu vs. Clariya Steels Pvt. Ltd.

    The Supreme Court observed that the termination of Arbitration proceedings by the Arbitrator under Section 32(2) (c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot be recalled.

    Review/Recall/Modification Of Orders/Judgments Barred In Criminal Matters

    Atul Shukla V. State of Madhya Pradesh

    An application for review or modification could not have been entertained, the Supreme Court observed while setting aside a High Court order in a Section 482 CrPC petition.

    No New Appointments To Be Made From In-Service Candidates Against Bar Quota To District Judge Post

    Dheeraj Mor V. High Court of Delhi

    The Supreme Court ordered that no new appointments to the post of District Judges shall be made from in-service candidates against quota reserved for Bar 'now-onwards' The bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Navin Sinha refused to pass any further interim orders either by permitting in service candidates to stake their claims in the examination or for being appointed as against the quota reserved for bar.

    Appeals Against Non Inclusion In NRC Maintainable Only When Foreigners Tribunal Has Not Already Decided Nationality

    Abdul Kuddus V. Union of India

    The Supreme Court observed that right to appeal before the Foreigners' Tribunal against non-inclusion in National Register of Citizens is available only in those cases, where the Tribunal has not already adjudicated upon and decided the issue as to whether the person is an Indian National or a foreigner.

    Accused Can't Be Indefinitely Kept In Jail For His Inability To Produce Registered Surety For Reasons Beyond His Control

    Wasim Ahmed V. State of West Bengal

    The Supreme Court observed that an accused cannot be indefinitely kept in jail for his inability to produce registered surety for reasons beyond his control. The bench comprising Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Sanjiv Khanna directed the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, to consider modifying the orders passed in the bail plea of one Wasim Ahmed, without insisting on registered surety.

    Brother In Law Can Be Ordered To Pay Maintenance To Widow Under Domestic Violence Act

    Ajay Kumar V. Lata@ Sharuti & Ors.

    The Supreme Court observed that a brother in law can be ordered to pay maintenance to a widow. In this case, the lady and her deceased husband were residing at a house which constitutes ancestral Hindu Joint Family Property.The deceased husband and the brother in law jointly carried on a business of a kiryana store.

    Every Person With Mental Illness Shall Have A Right To Live With Dignity

    Accused 'X' V. State of Maharashtra

    The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered last month, noted that under the Mental Health Care Act, 2017, there is a statutory right for mentally ill persons to live with dignity The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Indira Banerjee observed that Section 20 (1) of the Mental Health Care Act explicitly provides that 'every person with mental illness shall have a right to live with dignity'.

    Section 141 NI Act: Company Includes Partnership Firm Or Other Association Of Individuals

    G. Ramesh vs. Kanike Harish Kumar Ujwal

    The Supreme Court observed that the expression "company" used in Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act includes a partnership firm or association of persons. Allowing the appeal, the bench said: "Section 141 undoubtedly uses the expression "company" so as to include a firm or association of persons. The fact that the first accused, in the present case, is a partnership firm of which the remaining two accused are partners has been missed by the High Court."

    Section 148 Of Negotiable Instruments Act Has Retrospective Effect

    Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal vs. Virender Gandhi

    In an important judgment, the Supreme Court held that Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as amended, shall be applicable in respect of the appeals against the order of conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, even in a case where the criminal complaints for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act were filed prior to 2018 amendment Act i.e., prior to 01.09.2018.

    Case Of Death By Single Blow On Vital Part Of Body May Fall Under Section 302 IPC (Murder)

    State of Madhya Pradesh V. Kalicharan

    The Supreme Court reiterated that, even in a case of death by a single blow, but on the vital part of the body, the case may fall under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (Murder). The bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice AS Bopanna were considering an appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh against alteration of the conviction of an accused from Sections 302/149 to Section 304 Part II of the IPC by the High Court.

    GST Evaders Can Be Arrested: SC Upholds Telangana HC Judgment

    P. V. Ramana Reddy V. Union of India

    The Supreme Court dismissed a plea challenging Telangana High Court judgment that held that a person can be arrested by the competent authority in cases of Goods and Service Tax (GST) evasion. The vacation bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Aniruddha Bose, dismissing the Special Leave Petition, said that it is not inclined to interfere.

    A Murder Is A Murder Even If It Arises Out Of Matrimonial Dispute: SC Denies Bail To Murder Convict

    Pankaj Alias Bobby V. State of Uttar Pradesh

    A murder is a murder whether it arises out of matrimonial dispute or otherwise, remarked Supreme Court while rejecting the bail plea of a man who is in custody for about 13 years.

    Termination Of Workmen On The Ground That Their Appointment Is Illegal Will Amount To Retrenchment

    Bihar State Scheduled Caste Cooperative Development Ltd. V. State of Bihar

    The Supreme Court observed that Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act will be applicable even in cases of workmen terminated on the ground that their appointment was illegal. The bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice MR Shah observed that "invalid appointment" is not covered in the Exceptions under section 2 (OO) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

    Other important orders and proceedings

    • In a major relief to the German automobile major Volkswagen, the Supreme Court while staying the order of National Green Tribunal (NGT) which had imposed a fine of 500 Crore on it said that no coercive action as of now should be taken against it. National Green Tribunal had imposed a fine of Rs. 500 Crore on Volkswagen for damaging the environment through use of "cheat device" in its diesel cars in India.
    • filed by former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt against the March 7 judgment of the Gujarat High Court which had dismissed his bail application.
    • Dismissed the plea by two private persons to restrain Congress President Rahul Gandhi from contesting the 2019 General Elections until the determination of the 'dual citizenship' issue upon his supposedly procuring British citizenship.
    • Dismissed the petition filed by former BSF jawan Tej Bahadur Yadav against the dismissal of his nomination from Varanasi Loksabha constituency. "We don't find any merit to entertain this petition", said the bench headed by Chief Justice Gogoi
    • Reiterated that the final NRC for the state of Assam be readied by July 31, regardless of the failure of the objectors to pursue their objections against those whose names have been included in the draft NRC published in July last year.
    • In its order dismissing Harsh Mander's plea seeking recusal of the Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi from hearing the Assam Detention Centre cases, the Supreme Court observed that a litigant should not be permitted and allowed to question a Judge on 'perceived bias' during the course of hearing.
    • Comply terms of Compromise of Face Contempt of Court, the Supreme Court told a couple who obtained a divorce by mutual consent from it. The husband had approached the Apex Court as the Allahabad High Court upheld the District court order refusing his plea for divorce.
    • vacated the stay on declaration of results of the Staff Selection Commission Examination 2017—both Combined Graduate Level Examination and Combined Higher Secondary Level Examination while also constituting a six-member expert committee headed by Justice GS Singhvi, former apex court judge, to decide if the entire examination process was tainted by leakage and precautions to be taken in future examinations.
    • Stayed disqualification proceedings against two AIADMK MLAs who were served notice by the Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker for allegedly indulging in "anti-party" activities.
    • Modified an order of the Bombay High Court directing the BMC to maintain status quo and stop all reclamation work for the coastal road project in Mumbai for now.
    • Refused to review its order of April 8 raising the VVPAT physical verification from 1 to 5 EVMs in each assembly segment of a parliamentary constituency.
    • Said that it cannot examine the merits of the orders passed by the Election Commission of India giving clean chits to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and BJP President Amit Shah in the petition filed by Congress MP Sushmita Dev.
    • Sought the response of Election Commission of India to the petition filed by Ex-BSF jawan Tej Bahadur Yadav challenging the decision of the Returning Officer to reject his nomination as from Varanasi constituency, from where Prime Minister Narendra Modi is seeking re-election.
    • Constitution bench of the Supreme Court extended the time given to the Ayodhya mediation panel to complete the process till August 15. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that the report of the Chairman of the court-appointed mediation committee has been received and the progress made in the process is noted
    • While allowing State of Assam further time to indicate the progress made on the diplomatic level as for the larger issue of deportation of "declared foreigners" and setting up of Additional Foreigners' Tribunals in the state of Assam is concerned, the Supreme Court came to rescue of those who have spent long period of detention in the Assam detention centers' and are awaiting their deportation and said that those amongst them who have completed more than three years of detention should be released.
    • Government working lethargy is not a pretext to condone the delay, said the Supreme Court while imposing cost of Rs. 20,000 on Bihar Government for its extraordinary delay filing special leave petition.
    • Issued notice in the Special Leave Petition filed against the judgment of the Madras High Court that the Lieutenant Governor of Puducherry has no rightto interefere in the daily affairs of the elected government of Puducherry.
    • Bench headed by Justice SA Bobde issued notice to the Centre on a PIL challenging mandatory death penalty under section 3(2)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
    • Issued a notice in a petition raising an issue whether even disciplinary proceedings initiated and action taken against employees would fall under "personal information" as defined in Clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
    • Reserved verdict in the petition seeking review of the December 14 judgment which had declined to order probe into the alleged corruption in the deal to procure 36 Rafale aircraft from French company Dassault aviation.
    • Referred to larger bench three questions on the scope and ambit of power under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code which remains unanswered even after the judgment of the Constitution bench in Hardeep Singh.
    • Expressing dissatisfaction at the investigation by SIT constituted by Chattisgarh government, the Supreme Court directed Central Bureue of Investigation to take over the probe into Edesmeta massacre of May 2013 where 8 tribal including 4 children were allegedly killed by CRPF.
    • Bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna issued notice to Delhi government on a petition against the decision of Delhi Government to install CCTV cameras in the classrooms and also the decision to provide live feed to parents.
    • Refused to interfere with the suspension of Dr.Kafeel Ahmed Khan, and dismissed his special leave petition filed against the March 7 judgment of Allahabad High Court.
    • Issued notice in a petition seeking framing of guidelines by the government to regulate the functioning of online media streaming platforms like Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Hotstar etc.
    • Stayed the Madras HC judgments which had ruled that salaries received by missionaries and nuns of Catholic Church are liable to be subjected to Tax Deduction at Source(TDS) under Section 192 of the Income Tax Act.
    • Observed that dismissal of consumer complaints on mere technical grounds, add to the burden of litigation and defeat the purpose of ensuring justice in the consumer fora.
    • Dismissed a petition challenging Election Commission's order refusing to prepone the voting time during the holy month of Ramzaan to 5 AM, 5:30 or even 6 AM instead of 7 AM on account of the unprecedented heat wave prevailing in several parts of the country.
    • Directed BJP Leader Priyanka Sharma arrested by West Bengal police for allegedly sharing a morphed photo of Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on social media to be released immediately.
    • Observed that cognizance of a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act can be taken by the court even after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such period.
    • Sought responses from the Centre and CBSE on a plea seeking ten per cent reservation for economically weaker sections in the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET), 2019.
    • Granting leave to directly appeal against Chief Judicial Magistrate's order, the Supreme Court noted that there are conflicting views by different High Courts with regard to the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI).
    • In a relief to 20 trainee IAS and IPS officers who had challenged the Centre's cadre allocation process for the 2018 batch, the Supreme Court said they will be accommodated by increasing of one post in the state cadres of their preference this year.
    • Vacated the interim protection from arrest granted to Kolkata Police Chief Rajeev Kumar in connection with the Saradha Chit Fund scam. However the Court has given him 7 days' time to approach appropriate forum.
    • Held that a tribunal's order declaring a person as an illegal foreigner would be binding and prevail over the government decision to exclude or include the name from the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam
    • A Supreme Court bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Indira Banerjee observed that two judgments delivered by another bench 'would not hold the field' as they are contrary to the Constitution Bench judgment in Pankajakshi (Dead) Through L.Rs Vs. Chandrika.
    • Refused to entertain a plea challenging the appointment of two retired bureaucrats as observers in West Bengal for the Lok Sabha polls. A vacation bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra and M R Shah said it was not inclined to entertain the petition as polling was already over.
    • On the Centre's plea, the Supreme Court stayed the Delhi High Court interim order disallowing the retrospective applicability of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act from July 1, 2015.
    • The vacation bench of the Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed seeking 100% verification of the Voter Verified Paper Audited Trails(VVPAT) with the Electronic Voting Machines(EVM).
    • Vacation bench headed by Justice MR Shah issued notice in a writ petition filed by a BJP leader seeking protection from arrest, taking note of the ongoing lawyers' strike in West Bengal. Interestingly, another bench comprising of Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai and Justice Surya Kant did not entertain a writ petition filed by former Kolkata Police Commissioner Rajeev Kumar who had sought protection from arrest.
    • Declined to entertain erstwhile Kolkata police commissioner Rajeev Kumar's plea for an extension of the immunity from arrest in connection with the Saradha chit fund scam case. The vacation bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra was of the view that the petition was not maintainable in the top court and asked Kumar to move the competent court in the state of West Bengal to decide his application for anticipatory bail.
    • Termed as "extraordinary" the situation in West Bengal where lawyers are observing strike since April 29 impacting the fundamental right of life and liberty of citizens to even seek bail from courts. It directed that the petitioners, arrested for and alleged IPL betting racket, be produced before the Calcutta High Court in connection with their bail pleas.
    • Admissions to law courses in Delhi government's Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIPU) for the 2019-20 academic session will be only through national level Common Law Admission Test (CLAT), the Supreme Court said. A vacation bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra and M R Shah said this while hearing a petition filed by the GGSIPU challenging the Delhi High Court order which had stayed the operation of an order and circular issued in February mandating the varsity to take admission in law courses through CLAT.
    • Declined to direct the UP Police to file the supplementary charge sheet in order to place on record the recently recorder 164 statements in the Hapur lynching case. The vacation bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi however gave liberty to the Petitioners to bring the new 164 statements to the attention of the concerned Trial Court.
    • Dismissed the challenge brought by Maharashtra Government against the Bombay High Court's order granting bail to alleged Maoist sympathiser Konnath Muralidharan, who has been in custody in Pune's Yerwada jail since May 2015.
    • The question of law regarding the power of Goods and Services Tax officers to arrest suspected evaders will be examined by a three-judge bench, said the vacation bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Aniruddha Bose. The bench also issued notice to the Centre and sought its reply on a batch of pleas challenging the provision of arrest under the CGST Act.
    • Granted extension of the term of Justice V.K. Jain as Judicial Member, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The bench comprising the Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Anirudha Bose granted extension of time by one year or till the process of fresh appointment is completed, whichever is earlier.
    • Dismissed a plea of Congress MP Karti Chidambaram seeking return of Rs 10 crore which he had deposited with the court's registry for travelling abroad.
    • Said that 10 per cent EWS quota cannot be applied to PG medical courses in Maharashtra for the academic year 2019-20 as admission process started long before the provision came into force. A vacation bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Aniruddha Bose said 10 per cent EWS quota cannot be granted at the cost of others unless additional seats are created by the Medical Council of India.
    • Urged the state of Assam to follow due procedure in the adjudication of claims for inclusion in the final NRC and not skim through the process to meet the court-set July 31 deadline.
    • In a case similar to Hadiya case, the Supreme Court stayed an order passed by the Chattisgarh High Court on May 15 which directed the psychiatric examination of a woman who had married a man against the wishes of her parents.
    • Set aside a Madras High Court which refused the request of the wife of a murder-convict to stay with her in-laws. The bench, taking into consideration 'the safety and well-being of the detenue', directed her to be housed in a home at Madras Christian Council of Social Service. The court further directed that nobody shall be permitted to see the detenue during this period.
    • In a setback to newly elected BSP MP Atul Rai, the Supreme Court refused to grant him protection from arrest in a rape case while noting that 16 other criminal cases were pending against him.

    Next Story