Supreme Court Weekly Digest April 2023 (Citations 308 - 336) Part 3 [April 17 – 23, 2023]

SUBJECT WISE INDEXAdvocates StrikesThe Supreme Court requested all high courts to constitute grievance redressal committees comprising the chief justice and two other senior judges, one from the Bar and another from services to avert lawyers' strikes. District Bar Association Dehradun v. Ishwar Shandilya, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 331ArbitrationSupreme Court deprecates practice of filing applications in disposed of SLPs to side-step arbitration process. Narsi Creation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 325Civil LawOrder VII Rule 11 CPC - Inconsistencies in plaint averments not a sufficient reason to reject plaint. G. Nagaraj v. B.P. Mruthunjayanna, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 311ConsumerConsumer Protection Act, 1986 - Commercial enterprises can raise consumer disputes in relation to goods or services unconnected to profit generation. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 313Criminal LawIf the prosecution proposes death sentence, it must produce before the Trial Court information about the background of the accused. Vikas Chaudhary v. State of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 336Supreme Court shocked to see police filing closure report in case where FIR was quashed; directs to discontinue such practice. State of Uttarakhand v. Umesh Kumar Sharma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 335Appellate Court should separately hear convict on quantum of sentence when acquittal is reversed. Fedrick Cutinha v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 326Asaram Bapu Case : Supreme Court sets aside Rajasthan HC order to summon IPS officer Ajay Lamba as witness. State of Rajasthan v. Asharam @ Ashumal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 316Trial Courts, Public Prosecutors should be vigilant while framing of charges against accused. Soundarajan v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 314Death PenaltyMitigating Circumstances - Wherever the prosecution is of the opinion that the crime an accused is convicted for, is so grave that death sentence is warranted, it should carry out the exercise of placing the materials, in terms of Manoj vs State of MP, for evaluation. Vikas Chaudhary v. State of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 336E-FilingIt would defeat the purpose if in addition to e-filing, the ITATs insist on filing of the appeals in the physical mode. This has to be discontinued since it imposes an unnecessary burden on litigants. If there is a training deficit in respect of the Members of the ITAT, this shall be attended to immediately so that all Members of the ITAT are equipped to handle e-filed cases. CCE & ST, Surat I v. Bilfinder Neo Structo Construction Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 333ElectricityContract Process - The Supreme Court has reiterated the requirement of a specific show-cause notice before imposing penalty. Noting that the show-cause notice issued by the Madhya Pradesh Power Distribution Company (M.P. DISCOM) was only about debarment, the court remarked that the action of imposing penalty without even putting the tenderee/ appellant to notice with respect to the same, cannot be approved. Isolators and Isolators v. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 330DISCOMS to pay ‘change in law’ compensation for all additional charges levied by state instrumentalities to power generating companies. GMR Warora Energy Ltd. v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 329Appellate Electricity Tribunal cannot casually render findings of coercion without proper pleading, proof or probe. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam v. Renew Wind Energy (Rajkot) Pvt. Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 315EnvironmentAarey Case - The Supreme Court imposes Rs. 10 lakh fine on Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (MMRCL) for seeking to cut more trees than allowed; but allows it to cut 177 trees. In Re: Felling of Trees in Aarey Forest (Maharashtra), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 334Land AcquisitionThe State or its instrumentalities cannot be permitted to adopt an attitude of pick and choose. If the State has accepted the award of the Reference Court in respect of some of the claimants, it cannot be permitted to adopt a different treatment to the other claimants. Such an attitude smacks of patent discrimination. Shivappa v. Chief Engineer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 312HysterectomyUnnecessary Hysterectomies - From the counter affidavits filed by the States of Rajasthan, Bihar and Chhattisgarh, it emerges that there is a considerable degree of substance in the facts. Dr. Narendra Gupta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 310Unnecessary Hysterectomies - Union government shall take all necessary steps in accordance with the Guidelines to effectuate the public interest which is sought to be achieved. Dr. Narendra Gupta v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 310Unnecessary Hysterectomies - All the States and Union Territories must take stringent action for blacklisting hospitals once it is detected that any unnecessary hysterectomy was carried out or that the procedure was taken recourse to without the informed consent of the patient. We direct that necessary action be...

Supreme Court Weekly Digest April 2023 (Citations 308 - 336) Part 3 [April 17 – 23, 2023]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags