Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

'Second FIR Not Barred Merely Because Motive In Both Offences Are The Same'; SC Upholds Life Sentence Of Saravana Bhavan Founder For Murder [Pattu Rajan V. State of Tamil Nadu] The Supreme Court upheld the life sentence awarded to P Rajagopal - the founder of famous South Indian restaurant chain Saravana Bhavan - and five of his aides for murder of Santhakumar in 2001. The bench of Justices N V Ramana, Mohan M Shantanagoudar and Indira Banerjee dismissed the batch of appeals filed by accused against the 2009 judgment of Madras High Court. Health Of Environment Is The Key To Preserve The Right To Life Under Article 21 [Hanuman Laxman Aroskar V. Union of India] The Supreme Court suspended the Environmental Clearance granted for the development of Greenfield international airport at Mopa in Goa. The bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta directed Expert Appraisal Committee to revisit the recommendations made by it for the grant of clearance. Court Can Appoint Independent Arbitrator Only After Resorting To The Procedure In Arbitration Agreement [Union Of India V. Parmar Construction Company] The Supreme Court observed that the High Court, while dealing with an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking appointment of an 'independent Arbitrator', should first resort to the mechanism in appointment of an arbitrator as per the terms of contract as agreed by the parties. One of the issue in a batch of appeals Drunkenness While On Duty A Serious Misconduct: SC Upholds Dismissal Of A Police Constable [State of Uttarakhand v. Prem Ram]The Supreme Court upheld dismissal of a police constable for drunkenness and misbehavior with the public. "Having regard to the seriousness of the charge of misconduct and the fact that the respondent was a member of the police service, we find no justification for the High Court to interfere with the order of dismissal" the court held. Companies Act Does Not Stipulate Any Period For Completion Of Serious Fraud Investigation [Serious Fraud Investigation Office V. Rahul Modi] Holding that there is no stipulation of any fixed period for completion of a Serious Fraud investigation, the Supreme Court observed that the stipulation in sub-section (3) of Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013, in relation to the submission of the report, is not mandatory, but directory. The bench comprising Justice AM Sapre and Justice UU Lalit were dealing with an appeal filed by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office against Delhi High Court order that termed arrests illegal because the period of investigation was 'over'. State Can Include Proceeds From Inter-State Sale In Total Turnover To Classify Dealers For Sales Tax Slab [M/s Achal Industries V. State of Karnataka]The bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi of the Supreme Court held that state can include proceeds from inter-state sale in total turnover to classify dealers for sales tax slab. Buyer Cannot Be Required To Wait Indefinitely For Possession: SC Asks Developer To Refund The Buyer [Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. vs. Devasis Rudra]A buyer cannot be required to wait indefinitely for possession, said the Supreme Court while affirming Consumer Commission order directing the developer to refund the amount to the buyer. Complaint Under Section 138 NI Act Maintainable Against Dishonour Of Cheques Issued In Pursuance Of Agreement For Sale [Ripudaman Singh vs. Balkrishna] The Supreme Court observed that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is maintainable when there is dishonour of cheques issued under and in pursuance of the agreement to sell. Forest Act- Magistrate Can't Invoke Jurisdiction Under S.451 CrPC To Release A Seized Vehicle, Once Authorized Officer Initiates Confiscation Proceedings [State of Madhya radish V. Uday Singh] Statutory interpretation must remain eternally vigilant to the daily assaults on the environment, said the Supreme Court while it set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court order that directed the Magistrate to order interim release of a vehicle seized for being involved in the illegal excavation of sand from the Chambal River. The bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta held that a Magistrate has no jurisdiction under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure to release a seized vehicle, once the Authorised Officer initiated confiscation proceedings. Averment Of Political Rivalry By Itself Does Not Constitute A 'Plea Of Mala Fides' [V. Krishnamurthy V. State of Tamil Nadu] The Supreme Courtobserved that mere averment of political rivalry by itself would not constitute a plea of malafides to interfere with an administrative decision taken by the state.The bench comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari observed that the State has only ...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Ashok Kini

Tags