Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up


18 Aug 2019 1:41 PM GMT

  • Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

    Cheque Bounce Cases: Costs Not To Be Imposed If Settlement Is Reached At The Stage Of Issuance Of Summons [Ritesh Ajmera vs. Dainik Bhaskar] There is no necessity of imposing cost when the parties to a cheque bounce case have amicably settled the matter at the stage of issuance of summons itself, the Supreme Court reiterated. Alienation Of Suit Property Not Illegal Merely...

    Cheque Bounce Cases: Costs Not To Be Imposed If Settlement Is Reached At The Stage Of Issuance Of Summons [Ritesh Ajmera vs. Dainik Bhaskar]

    • There is no necessity of imposing cost when the parties to a cheque bounce case have amicably settled the matter at the stage of issuance of summons itself, the Supreme Court reiterated.

      Alienation Of Suit Property Not Illegal Merely Because It Was Done During Pendency Of Suit [Madhukar Nivrutti Jagtap vs. Pramilabai Chandulal Parandekar]

      The Supreme Court observed that the effect of doctrine of Lis Pendens is not to annul all the transfers effected by the parties to a suit but only to render them subservient to the rights of the parties under the decree or order which may be made in that suit.

      Section 292BB Income Tax Act Does Not Save Complete Absence Of Notice [Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal]

      The Supreme Court observed that Section 292BB of the Income Tax Act applies only to cure the infirmities in the manner of service of notice of assessment/reassessment, but not intended to cure complete absence of notice itself. In this case the High Court had held that since the issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax for completion of regular assessment in the case of the assessee was a statutory requirement as per the provisions of the Act and non issuance thereof is not a curable defect.

      Deceased Bachelor's Age Is The Basis For Computing Multiplier In Motor Accident Claims [Joginder Singh vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company]

      The 'Multiplier' to be applied in the case of a deceased bachelor, should be computed on the basis of the age of the deceased, not the age of the parents, the Supreme court has reiterated. The bench comprising Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Sanjiv Khanna were considering an appeal filed by parents of a deceased girl, who was just twenty year old and unmarried at the time of accident.

      Certificate Issued By Institutions Incompetent To Confer 'Degrees' Cannot Be Granted Equivalence To 'Degree'[Institution Of Mechanical Engineers (India) Through Its Chairman V. State Of Punjab & Ors.]

      The Supreme Court observed that a certificate issued by an institution or an authority or person other than those specified in Section 22 (1) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 cannot be equivalent to a 'degree'. The bench noticed that right to confer degrees can be exercised only by a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act or by an institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the UGC Act or by an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees.

      Transferee Pendente Lite Has Locus Standi To File Application At The Stage Of Order IX Rule 13 CPC [Menka Gupta V. Umashree Devi]

      The Supreme Court held that a transferee pendente lite has locus standi to file an application seeking substitution of the original defendant who filed a petition to set aside ex parte decree.

      A Doctor Cannot Be Subjected To Travails Of Criminal Prosecution On Vague Allegations Of Medical Negligence [Dr. V. K. Jain V. State of Rajasthan]

      While setting aside criminal proceedings initiated against a Doctor accused of medical negligence, the Supreme Court reiterated that to prosecute a medical professional for negligence under criminal law, it must be shown that he did something or failed to do something which in the given facts and circumstances no medical professional in his ordinary senses and prudence would have done or failed to do.

      Seniority Cannot Be Claimed From The Date Of Initial Appointment As Ad-Hoc District Judges [Kum C. Yamini V. State of Andhra Pradesh]

      The Supreme Court held that the District Judges who previously served as ad-hoc District Judges, cannot claim seniority from the date of their initial appointment as ad-hoc District Judges.

      Second Appeal Not To Be Dismissed Merely On The Ground Of 'Concurrent Findings' [State of Rajasthan vs. Shiv Dayal]

      The Supreme Court observed that a High Court cannot dismiss a second appeal merely on the ground that that there is a concurrent finding of two Courts (whether of dismissal or decreeing of the suit), and thus such finding becomes unassailable. In this case the High Court dismissed a second appeal filed by the state on the ground that that since two Courts have decreed the suit, resulting in passing of the decree against the State, there arises no substantial question of law in the appeals.

      HC Can't Reappreciate Evidence While Exercising Revisional Jurisdiction U/s 20 Of Kerala Rent Control Act [Thankamony Amma vs. Omana Amma N.]

      While exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the High Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence, the Supreme Court reiterated.

      Children Born After Dec 3, 2004 Not To Be Included In NRC If Any Of The Parent Is A 'D' Voter, Declared Foreigner Or Pending Case [Assam Public Works V. Union of India]

      While categorically ruling out reopening or re-verification of the National Register of Citizens for Assam, the Supreme Court held that children born after December 3, 2004 are not eligible to be included in the NRC list, if any of the parent is a DV (Doubtful Voter), DF (Declared Foreigner) or PFT (persons with cases pending at Foreigners Tribunals). The bench of CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justice R F Nariman approved the suggestions made by the State NRC Co-ordinator Prateek Hajela regarding the course to be adopted in cases of children of DV, DF and PFT persons.

      Judge Can Recuse From A Case At His Own Volition, But Not At the Mere Asking Of Litigant [Seema Sapra V. Court on its own motion]

      While rejecting a prayer seeking recusal of a judge who is part of the bench hearing an appeal, the Supreme Court observed that a judge can recuse at his own volition, but need not at the mere asking of a litigating party. The bench comprising of Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice Ajay Rastogi were considering an appeal filed by Seema Sapra against the Delhi High Court judgment holding her guilty of having committed contempt of Court.

      Other Significant Orders And Proceedings

      • Observed that the Centre should be given some more time for restoring normalcy in the Kashmir valley by lifting the curfew measures. The bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, M R Shah and Ajay Rastogi was considering the petition filed by Tehseen Poonawalla against the curfew measures imposed in Jammu and Kashmir following the Central Government steps to abrogate the special status enjoyed by it under Article 370 of the Constitution.
      • Warned against politicising the demolition of a Guru Ravidas temple in Tughlaqabad forest area here on its order and threatened to initiate contempt proceedings against those provoking dharnas and demonstrations.
      • In a relief to thousands of Jammu and Kashmir students selected for a special scholarship scheme, the Supreme Court extended by a month the deadline for taking admission in various engineering colleges due to situations prevailing in the state after abrogation of its special status.
        • Pulled up Advocate M L Sharma for filing a shoddy petition challenging the August 5 Presidential Order on Article 370 on the very next day of its issuance.The special bench of CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justices S A Bobde and Abdul Nazeer was considering the petitions filed by M L Sharma and Anuradha Bhasin, Executive Editor of Kashmir Times, against the Centre's actions on Jammu and Kashmir.

    Next Story