Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Employee Not Entitled To Full Back Wages On Acquittal, Unless His Prosecution Was Found Malicious [Raj Narain V. Union of India] The Supreme Court held that the employer cannot be mulcted with full back wages on the acquittal of an employee by a criminal Court, unless it is found that the prosecution is malicious. SC Strikes Down RBI Circular Asking Banks To Take Defaulting Companies To Insolvency [Dharani Sugars &Chemicals Ltd. V. Union of India] The Supreme Court struck down the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India on February 12, 2018 directing banks to initiate insolvency proceedings against companies having bad debts of Rs 2000 crores or above. The court also held that authorization from Central Government is necessary for RBI to direct insolvency process against stressed assets. SC Sets Aside Bail Granted To J&K Businessman In Terror Funding Case [National Investigation Agency V. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali] The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court order which granted bail to Jammu and Kashmir based influential businessman Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali in Terror funding case.Allowing the appeal filed by the National Investigating Agency, the bench comprising Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice Ajay Rastogi observed that the Designated NIA Court had rightly rejected the bail application after adverting to the relevant material/evidence indicative of the fact that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the respondent is prima facie true. One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice [Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. V. Govindan Raghavan] The Supreme Court held that the incorporation of one-sided clauses in a builder-buyer agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice as per Section 2 (r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The bench comprising Justice UU Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra also observed that a builder could not seek to bind a flat buyer with one-sided contractual terms. Employees Of 'Local Bodies' Entitled To Gratuity Under Payment Of Gratuity Act [Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam, Kanpur V. Sri. MujibUllah Khan] The Supreme Courtheld that the employees of the local bodies like Municipalities are entitled for gratuity under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The bench comprising Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Hemant Gupta upheld Allahabad High Court judgments while upholding appeals filed by Kanpur and Gorakhpur Municipalities. Sanction Under Sec.197 CrPC Required Only If Offence Has Nexus With Duties Of Public Servant [Devendra Prasad Singh V. State of Bihar] In order to attract the rigor of section 197 Cr.P.C. the offence alleged against a Government Officer must have some nexus with the discharge of his official duties as Government Officer, held the Supreme Court. No Prohibition In Granting Interim Mandatory Injunctions In Appropriate Cases [Hammad Ahmed V. Abdul Majeed] The Supreme Court observed that grant of interim mandatory injunction is not prohibited, and it can granted in 'appropriate' cases. The bench comprising Justice UdayUmesh Lalit and Justice Hemant Gupta observed that an ad interim mandatory injunction, is to be granted not at the asking but on strong circumstance so that to protect the rights and interest of the parties so as not to frustrate their rights regarding mandatory injunction. Other important orders and proceedings Cancelled the bail it had granted to former Jharkhand Minister Yogendra Sao. Yogendra Sao and his wife Nirmala Devi, are accused in a rioting case of 2016. They were granted bail by the Apex Court in December 2017 and had imposed a condition that they shall stay in Bhopal and not enter Jharkhand except for attending the court proceedings.Refused to accord urgent hearing to Congress leader Hardik Patel's plea challenging the Gujarat High Court order rejecting stay on his conviction in the 2015 Vispur rioting case.Dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed against a Kerala High Court Judgment setting aside Employee's Pension (Amendment) Scheme, 2014 that capped maximum pensionable salary to Rs.15, 000 per month.Held that the High Court registry cannot decide maintainability of petitions which requires judicial application of mind. The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar was considering a special leave petition (P. Surendran vs. State) challenging the action of Madras High Court Registry which had refused numbering of a Anticipatory Bail petition and dismissed it on the issue of the maintainability in view of Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989.Stayed the Delhi High Court's eviction order against Associated Journal's Limited(AJL) - the publisher of Congress mouthpiece National Herald - from ITO premises in New...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Ashok Kini

Tags