Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

Writ Petition Under Article 227 Challenging Judicial Orders Are Maintainable, But Not Under Article 226 [State of Jharkhand v. Surendra Kumar Srivastava]The Supreme Court reiterated that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of certiorari against judicial orders passed by civil courts is not maintainable. The bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Indu Malhotra observed that writ petition under Article 227 challenging the orders passed by Civil Courts refusing to grant interim injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, will be maintainable. Contempt Jurisdiction Can't Be Invoked On The Basis Of Impressions Drawn By Litigants About Court Order [Badri Vishal Pandey vs. Rajesh Mittal]The Supreme Court, while dismissing a contempt petition, observed that contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked on the basis of impressions about a court order drawn by the litigants, but only when there is willful disobedience to the court orders. Offence Under Sec. 307 IPC Can't Be Quashed On The Basis Of Settlement Between Parties [State of Madhya Pradesh V. Kalyan Singh & Ors.]The Supreme Court observed that under Section 307 of the IPC (Attempt to Murder) cannot be quashed, even when there is any settlement between the complainant and the accused, as it is a non-compoundable offence. Sec. 452 CrPC Doesn't Mandate That Custody Should Be Handed Over To The Person From Whose Possession It Was Seized, Overriding The Claim Of Genuine Title Asserted By Third Party [Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. V. Suryanarayanan & Anr]The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered last month, held that where a claim is made before the court that the property does not belong to the person from whom it was seized, Section 452 of the CrPC does not mandate that its custody should be handed over to the person from whose possession it was seized, overriding the claim of genuine title which is asserted on behalf of a third party. Regularization By Management Does Not Give Any Right To Retrenched Employee For Claiming Re-Employment [Management of the Barara cooperative Milk Marketing-Cum-Processng Society Ltd. V. Workman Pratap Singh]Highlighting the difference between expressions 'employment' and 'regularization of the service', the Supreme Court observed that regularization of an employee already in service does not give any right to retrenched employee to invoke Section 25 (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act for claiming reemployment in the services. Former Employee Not Disqualified From Acting As An Arbitrator, Even After 2015 Amendment [The Govt. of Haryana PWD Haryana (B and R) V. M/s G. F. Toll Road Pvt. Ltd.]The Supreme Court held that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not disqualify a former employee from acting as an arbitrator, provided that there are no justifiable doubts as to his independence and impartiality. The bench of Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Indu Malhotra observed that, even after 2015 amendment, the position remains the same, as Entry 1 to 5th Schedule of the Act does not include "past/former employees." SC Upholds Claim Of Scientists Working Under Defence Ministry To Treat Special Pay For Pensionary Benefits [Union of India & Ors. V. Dr. O. P. Nijhawan & Ors.]Dismissing appeals filed by the Centre, the Supreme Court upheld the claim of scientists working under Ministry of Defence for treating the special pay for pensionary benefits. The Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal and other benches had allowed the claim of these scientists working in Department of Defence Research and Development Organisation, Department of Atomic Energy and Department of Space, for treating the sanctioned special pay of Rs 2,000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and Rs 4,000 w.e.f. 01.01.2006, for pensionary benefits If The Promise To Marry Was Not Made With Sole Intention To Seduce A Woman To Indulge In Sex, It Is Not Rape [Dr. Dhruvaram Muralidhar Sonar V. State of Maharashtra]In a judgment passed on November 22nd last year, the Supreme Court held that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape. The bench comprising Justice AK Sikri and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer was considering an appeal filed by Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar against the High Court order refusing to quash 'rape case' filed against him. The bench noticed that the complainant herself had stated that she had fallen in love with the accused because she needed a companion as she was a widow. Mentally Disabled Person Is Still A Human Being, His Dignity Can't Be ViolatedWhile hearing a writ petition raising issues about patients suffering from mental illness being kept in chains in an asylum, the Supreme Court observed that even a person suffering from mental disability is still a human being and his dignity cannot be violated. The bench of Justice AK Sikri and Justice S Abdul...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

ashok kini

Tags