Supreme Court Weekly Round Up, July 26 To August 1, 2021

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Writ Jurisdiction Not For Deciding 'Hotly Disputed Questions Of Facts', Reiterates Supreme CourtCase: Shubas Jain vs. Rajeshwari Shivam [ CA 2848 OF 2021]Citation: LL 2021 SC 335The Supreme Court has reiterated that a High Court cannot invoke its writ jurisdiction to adjudicate 'hotly disputed questions of facts'.It is not for the High Court to make a comparative assessment of conflicting technical reports and decide which one is acceptable, the bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian said.The case arises out of a dispute between landlord and a tenant regarding repair of an old building. The Bombay High Court, in writ petition filed by a tenant passed the order granting liberty to commence the work of removal of a wall with the assistance of architects, at his own risk and costs. The writ petition was filed challenging the notice issued by the Municipal Corporation under Section 354 of the Municipal Corporation Act.2. Benefit Of 'Krishna Sradha' Judgment Can Be Availed Only If NEET Candidate Approached Court Without Any Delay: Supreme CourtCase: Medical Council of India vs. Ritwik [CA 4438 of 2021 ]Citation: LL 2021 SC 335The Supreme Court observed that the benefit of S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh judgment can be availed only if the NEET candidate approached the Court without delay.In Krishna Sradha, the Supreme Court has observed that, in exceptional cases, a direction can be issued to grant admission to meritorious candidates to MBBS Course even after cut-off date.One crucial condition is that the student has to approach the Court at the earliest and without any delay, the bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose noted.3. Senior, Even Though Less Meritorious, Shall Have Priority: Supreme Court Explains Seniority Cum Merit Principle For PromotionCase: Tek Chand vs. Bhakra Beas Management Board [CA 4482 OF 2021]Citation: LL 2021 SC 334Seniority-cum-merit means that given the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration, the senior though the less meritorious shall have priority, the Supreme Court reiterated in a judgment delivered this week.In this case, the appellants were promoted to the post of Leading Fireman under the Bhakra Beas Management Board Class III and Class IV Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1994. Their promotions were annulled by the High Court while allowing a writ petition filed by another employee who was junior to then. The court held them to be ineligible for promotion under the Regulations.4. Lender Who Advanced Interest Free Loans To Corporate Body Is Also A Financial Creditor; Can Initiate CIRP: Supreme CourtCase: Orator Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs. Samtex Desinz Pvt. Ltd.Citation: LL 2021 SC 333The Supreme Court observed that a lender who advanced interest free loans to finance the business operations of a corporate body is a Financial Creditor and competent to initiate the Corporate Resolution Process under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016."There is no discernible reason, why a term loan to meet the financial requirements of a Corporate Debtor for its operation, which obviously has the commercial effect of borrowing, should be excluded from the purview of a financial debt", the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian observed.5. No Need To Examine Complainant Before Ordering Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC : Supreme CourtTitle : M/s Supreme Bhiwandi Wada Manor Infrastructure Pvt Ltd vs State of Maharashtra and anotherCitation : LL 2021 SC 330The Supreme Court has reiterated that there is no requirement of examining the complainant on oath under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(CrPC) before a Judicial Magistrate orders police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC.Holding so, the Supreme Court set aside an order passed by the Bombay High Court which had granted anticipatory bail on the ground that order of magistrate to direct registration of FIR under Sec 156(3) CrPC was given without examining the complainant on oath as under Section 200 CrPC.6. Arbitration Award Which Ignores Vital Evidence Or Rewrites The Contract Is Liable To Be Set Aside: Supreme CourtCase: PSA Sical Terminals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Board Of Trustees Of V.O. Chidambranar Port Trust Tuticorin [CA 3699-3700 OF 2018]Citation: LL 2021 SC 329 The Supreme Court observed that an arbitration award which ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision or rewrites a contract is liable to be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act on the ground of patent illegality.The bench comprising Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai observed that a finding based on no evidence at all or an award which ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision would be perverse. Rewriting a contract for the parties would be breach of fundamental principles of justice, the court said.7. 'Must Subserve Administration Of Justice':...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up, July 26 To August 1, 2021

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags