Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Ashok Kini

14 July 2019 3:52 PM GMT

  • Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

    Marital Discord Between Parents Adversely Affects Child's Personality [Sheoli Hati V. Somanth Das] The ill consequences of the discord between mother and father effect the child in her normal upbringing and is a negative factor on child's personality and upbringing, said the Supreme Court while declining to interfere with a High Court order directing to admit a child in a boarding...

    Marital Discord Between Parents Adversely Affects Child's Personality [Sheoli Hati V. Somanth Das]

    The ill consequences of the discord between mother and father effect the child in her normal upbringing and is a negative factor on child's personality and upbringing, said the Supreme Court while declining to interfere with a High Court order directing to admit a child in a boarding school.

    Classification Of Pensioners By Providing Cut-Off Date For The Purpose Of Grant Of Revised Pension Unconstitutional [All Manipur Pensioners Association vs. State of Manipur]

    The Supreme Court held that the classification of pensioners into two categories by providing cut-off date for the purpose of grant of revised pension is unconstitutional. The bench observed that there is no valid justification to create two classes, viz., one who retired pre-1996 and another who retired post-1996, for the purpose of grant of revised pension

    No Exceptional Treatment To Be Given To The Government While Considering The Application For Stay Of Arbitral Award [Pam Developments Private Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal]

    The Supreme Court has observed there is no exceptional treatment to be given to the Government while considering the application for stay under Section 36 filed by the Government in proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The bench comprising of Justice RF Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran set aside a Calcutta High Court order which granted unconditional stay of the award passed against the Government after relying on the provisions of Order XXVII Rule 8A, Code of Civil Procedure.

    Victim Need Not Obtain Leave For Filing Appeal Against Acquittal, It Should Be Dealt As A Regular Appeal [Naval Kishore Mishra v. State of U.P.]

    Reiterating that victim has a right to file the appeal against acquittal of the accused without seeking leave to Appeal, the Supreme Court observed that such appeal has to be dealt as a regular appeal. The bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice KM Joseph set aside the High Court judgment which had dismissed appeal of the victim (in fact styled as leave to appeal) on the ground that leave had not been granted to the Government to file the appeal.

    Plant 100 Trees Within A Year: SC Frees Man Found To Be Juvenile At The Time Of Alleged Attempt To Murder [Solemen S.K. V. State of West Bengal]

    Ordering release of a 'convict' who was later found to be a juvenile at the time of incident of crime, the Supreme Court directed him to plant 100 trees within a period of one year. Solemen SK was convicted under Section 307 IPC [Attempt to Murder] and sentenced to three years imprisonment. The conviction and sentence was later upheld by the High Court. The special leave petition filed by him before the Apex Court was also dismissed.

    Summary Court Martial Should Be Ordered Only In A Situation Where It Is Absolutely Imperative That Immediate Action Is Necessary [Randhir Singh vs. Union of India]

    The Supreme Court reiterated that the power to order a Summary Court Martial is a drastic power which must be exercised in a situation where it is absolutely imperative that immediate action is necessary.

    SC Pronouncement Binding On HCs Even If It Cannot Be Strictly Called 'Ratio Decidendi' [The Peerless General Finance And Investment Company Ltd. V. Commissioner Of Income Tax]

    A pronouncement by the Supreme Court, even if it cannot be strictly called the ratio decidendi of the judgment, would certainly be binding on the High Court, the Supreme Court held. The bench comprising Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Sanjiv Khanna observed that when the character of the transaction is a capital receipt in the hands of the assessee, it cannot possibly be taxed as income in the assessee's hands.

    Principle Of 'No Work No Pay' Applies When Employee Was Not Kept Away From Work By Any Order Of Employer [Chief Regional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Siraj Uddin Khan]

    The Supreme Court observed that the principle of 'No Work No Pay' can be applied when the employee was not kept away from work by any order of the employer. The bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Navin Sinha, reiterated the settled principle that nobody could be directed to claim wages for the period that he remained absent without leave or without justification.

    Annual Performance Appraisal Reports Must Be Communicated To Public Servants [Pankaj Prakash vs. United India Insurance Co Ltd.] 
    The Supreme Court reiterated that entries in an Annual Performance Appraisal Report must be communicated to a public servant.

    State Empowered To Levy Charges On Foreign Liquor (IMFL) Manufactured By Use Of Imported Rectified Spirit [State of Jharkhand vs. Ajanta Bottlers & Blenders Pvt. Ltd]

    The Supreme Court held that the State of Jharkhand is empowered to levy charges on foreign liquor (IMFL) manufactured by use of imported rectified spirit. The bench comprising of Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice Ajoy Rastogi set aside the Jharkhand High Court judgment which had held otherwise and held that the challenge to the amended Rule 106 (Tha) framed under under section 90 of the Jharkhand Excise Act, 1915, is unfounded and is based on erroneous assumption that it purports to authorise the State to levy charges on the imported rectified spirit as such.

    Adjudication Of Litigation Is To Be Done On Merits As Far As Possible [Robin Thapa V. Rohit Dora]

    While affirming an order of setting aside an ex-parte decree, the Supreme Court, observed that as far as possible, adjudication of cases is to be done on merits. "Litigation should not be terminated by default, either of the plaintiff or the defendant" the court held.

    Even Brief Judgments Of Supreme Court Passed After Grant Of Special Leave Are Binding Precedents [S.E. Graphites Private Limited vs. State of Telangana.]
    The Supreme Court has observed that its judgments which are passed in exercise of appellate jurisdiction are binding precedents, even if they are brief. After the grant of special leave, the order impugned before the Supreme Court becomes an order appealed against and any order passed thereafter would be an appellate order and attract the doctrine of merger despite the fact that the order, speaking or non-speaking one, is of reversal or of modification or of affirming the order appealed against, the bench comprising Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice Ajay Rastogi observed.

    Other Important Orders and Proceedings

    •  The bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi issued notice to the Centre and states on a plea to specify and set up Human Rights Courts for each district across the country, as required under sections 30 and 31 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
    • Dismissed a petition filed by Akhila Bharat Hindu Mahasabha seeking an order permitting entry of women in mosques."Let a Muslim woman challenge it", remarked the Chief Justice of India, while dismissing the petition.
    • Dismissed the petition filed by Brahman Samaj seeking a ban on the screening of the film 'Article 15'. The bench headed by Justice S A Bobde said that the petitioner can approach the 'appropriate authority' with their grievances against the name and content of the movie.
    • Issued notice on the Enforcement Directorate's challenge to a Delhi High Court order which allowed Antigua-based Aditya Talwar, an accused in a money laundering case, to appear through his lawyer in a lower court here.
    • Agreed to finally adjudicate the question of whether the members of the Rohingya community are entitled to refugee status and hence, immunity from deportation in August.
    • Asked all States and Union Territories, and Registrar General of the jurisdictional High Courts to submit details of filling up of the vacancies in different cadres of the District and subordinate judicial services.
    • Agreed for an early listing of the petition challenging the constitutionality of Article 370 of the Constitution by virtue of which the state of Jammu & Kashmir is accorded a special status.
    • Dismissed the plea of P Rajagopal, the founder of 'Saravan Bhavan' chain of restaurants, to extend time on health reasons to surrender to serve sentence in a murder case.
    • While considering an application for early hearing of appeals in the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid title dispute case, the Constitution Bench called for a status report from the mediation panel headed by former SC judge Justice Khalifulla regarding the progress.
    • As the political crisis in Karnataka is developing, the Supreme Court passed a significant order directing the rebel MLAs to appear before the Speaker at 6 PM today to submit their resignations.
    • Dismissed the review petitions filed by builders against the May 8 judgment of the Court directing the demolition of five apartment complexes in Maradu, Kochi, for violations of Coastal Regulation Zone notification.
    • Refused to stay the judgment passed on July 27 by the the Bombay High Court which had upheld the validity of reservation granted to the Maratha community by the state government under the socially and educationally backward class category (SEBC) in government jobs and educational institutions.
    • Directed the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils to explain what action it has taken against lawyers who indulge in illegal strikes.
    • Appointed Senior Advocate Anand Grover as amicus curiae to assist the Court in a matter regarding the suo moto powers of National Green Tribunal. The bench of Justices S A Bobde and B R Gavai made the appointment based on the consent of the parties who were represented by ASG ANS Nadkarni, Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta, Advocates Prashant Kumar, Amir Singh etc.
    • Dismissed the appeals preferred by the Union of India and Puducherry Lieutenant Governor Kiran Bedi against the April 30 Madras High Court order ruling that she could not interfere in the day to day administration of the elected government.

    Next Story