Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

A Dying Declaration Is Not Invalid Merely Because It Was Not Certified By A Doctor [Poonam Bai V. State of Chhatisgarh] The Supreme Court acquitted a convict by setting aside the judgment of the High Court of Chhattisgarh which had convicted her for murder, after finding lacunae in the dying declarations. Considering the appeal, the bench of Supreme Court comprising of Justice N.V.Ramana, Justice Mohan.M.Shantanagoudar and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer observed that the dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction only when it is "trustworthy, voluntary, blemishless and reliable". Section 498A IPC: Complaint Need Not Be Filed By The Woman Subjected To Cruelty Herself [Rashmi Chopra vs. State of UP] The Supreme Court held that the Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code does not contemplate that complaint for offence under Section 498A should be filed only by women, who is subjected to cruelty by husband or his relative. Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) [Rajbir Surajbhan Singh V. Chairman, IBPS Mumbai] The Supreme Court held that the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) is not a 'State' and thus not amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court or the Supreme Court. Upholding the Bombay High Court judgment, the bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice MR Shah observed that conducting recruitment tests for appointment in banking and other financial institutions, is not a public duty. Limitation Act Applicable To Suits, Appeals, Application Filed In Courts, Not Before Statutory Authorities [Ganesan V. The commissioner, TN Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board] The Supreme Court observed that the suits, appeals and applications referred to in the Limitation Act, 1963 are suits, appeals and applications which are to be filed in a Court, and not before a statutory authority. The bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph held that the 'Commissioner' under Hindu Religious Endowment Charitable Act, 1959 while hearing the appeal under Section 69 of Act, is not a 'Court' within the meaning of the Limitation Act. Mere Summary Disposal Of SLP Does Not Conclude The Issue On Merits [State of J&K vs. Farid Ahmed Tak] Mere summary disposal of a Special Leave Petition does not conclude the issue on merits, the Supreme Court observed while setting aside a Jammu and Kashmir High Court judgment. The bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra made this observation in response to the contention raised by respondent in an appeal filed against the High Court judgment. Minimum Wages Act: Categorization Of Unskilled Employees As Semi-Skilled And Semi-Skilled As Skilled On The Basis Of Their Experience Is Ultra Vires [Hindustan Sanitaryware and Industries Ltd. V. The State of Haryana] The Supreme Court held that the categorization of unskilled employees as semiskilled and semi-skilled as skilled on the basis of their experience in the notification issued for fixing/revising the minimum rates of wages is beyond jurisdiction of Government. 'No Public Interest'-SC Sets Aside The First Forced Merger Of Two Companies Ordered By Central Govt [63 Moons Technologies Ltd. V. Union of India] In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court set aside the forced merger of two companies ordered by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, which was the first ever instance of invocation of Section 396 of the Companies Act 1956. Manager Of A Nationalized Bank Though A Public Servant Can't Claim Protection U/S 197 CrPC [S. K. Miglant V. State NCT of Delhi] The Supreme Court observed that a public servant working in a nationalized bank cannot claim benefit of Sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. To hold thus, the bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph relied on a 1987 judgment of the Supreme Court in K.CH. Prasad Vs. J. Vanalatha Devi. Legal Principles Governing Suspension Of Conviction Cannot Be Applied To Suspend The Sentence [N. Ramamurthy V. State] The Supreme Court set aside a High Court judgment which applied principles governing suspension of conviction to reject a plea seeking suspension of execution of sentence. The Apex Court bench comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari observed that the High Court erred in observing that sentence comes to 45 years of imprisonment. It noted that the sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the Trial Court and hence, the maximum period of imprisonment is 7 years apart from certain default stipulations, which would come in operation only if the fine is not paid. Solitary Confinement Of Death Convict Prior To Rejection Of Mercy Petition Palpably Illegal [Union of India V. Dharam Pal] The Supreme Court observed that solitary confinement...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Ashok Kini

Tags