Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

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 Violated

While 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 Nazeer was hearing a writ petition in which petitioner Gaurav Kumar Bansal alleged that some of the patients suffering from mental illness, who are lodged in Faith-Based Mental Asylum situated near Mohalla Kabulpur, Badayun District, Uttar Pradesh, are kept under chains. Certain photographs were also placed on record along with the petition.

Maggi Row: SC Revives Govt's 640Cr Class Action Suit Before NCDRC Against Nestle

The Supreme Court on Thursday revived the government's case in National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) against Nestle India seeking damages of Rs 640 crore on charges of unfair trade practices, false labelling and misleading advertisements. A bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud said the report from CFTRI (Central Food Technological Research Institute, Mysuru), where the testing of the Maggi noodle samples was conducted, will form the basis for the proceedings.

No Benefit To Disabled Dependent Till Proposer Survives: SC Urges Centre To Re-look LIC's Jeevan Aadhar Policy

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday upheld a condition in Jeevan Aadhar Policy from the Life Insurance Corporation of India that no benefit can be paid to the dependant till the proposer/life assured survives. The bench comprising of Justice AK Sikri, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer urged the Central Government to have a relook on this condition, taking into account the fact that there could be harsh cases where handicapped persons may need the payment on annuity or lumpsum basis even during the lifetime of their parents/guardians

Sabarimala Purification Row : CJI Declines Early Hearing Of Contempt Action Against Chief Priest Of Temple

Stating that the shutting down of Sabarimala temple for "purification ritual" after the entry of two women violated SC verdict, contempt action was sought against the Chief Priest of the temple. However, the CJI turned down the request for urgent consideration of the matter. "We cannot constitute separate bench for contempt petition", the CJI remarked in response to the oral mentioning.

"We Are Not Satisfied, It Is A Question Of Life And Death": SC On Rescue Operations in Meghalaya Mine Incident

The Supreme Court Thursday told the Meghalaya government that it was not satisfied with the steps taken so far for the rescue of 15 people who are trapped in an illegal coal mine in the state since December 13. A bench comprising Justices A K Sikri and S Abdul Nazeer asked the Meghalaya government as to why it was not successful in rescuing these people.

SC Declines Urgent Hearing Of PIL Against Centre's Order On Monitoring Of Computers

The Supreme Court Bench led Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi declined urgent hearing of Advocate Manohar Lal Sharma's PIL challenging Central Government's order authorizing ten central agencies to intercept, monitor and decrypt information on computers of any citizen. The bench, also comprising Justice S K Kaul, said it will hear his plea only after Sharma paid the cost of Rs 50,000 imposed on him last month for filing a PIL against Finance Minister Arun Jaitley.

SC Refuse To Entertain Plea Against Bifurcation Of AP High Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a plea of Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates Association (APHCAA) seeking to defer the bifurcation of High Court at Hyderabad.

SC Dismisses Plea For Speedy Hearing In Ayodhya Land Dispute Case

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition to hear the Ayodhya land dispute on an urgent and day-to-day basis. The PIL had been filed by Advocate Harinath Ram in view of the "inordinate delay" in the adjudication of the Ram Janam Bhumi Matter, and in "recognition of the prevailing sentiments, surrounding, the entire nation and there is imminent danger of public outburst which can engulf our country in flames of violence on Ram Janam Bhumi issue".

Lokpal Search Committee: SC directs Centre To File Affidavit On Steps Taken Since Sept 2018

The Supreme Court on Friday directed the Centre to place on affidavit steps taken since September last year to set up a search committee for the Lokpal. The apex court asked Attorney General K K Venugopal to file the affidavit on the matter by January 17.