Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

Mere Error In Framing Substantial Question Of Law Would Not Render A Judgment In Second Appeal To Be Set Aside [Illoth Valappil Ambunhi (D) vs. Kunhambu Karanavan] The Supreme Court observed that mere error in framing a question of law would not render a judgment in Second Appeal liable to be set aside, if it is found that a substantial question of law existed and such question has in fact been answered by the High Court. The bench comprising Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Sanjiv Khanna also observed that perversity in arriving at a factual finding by Courts below can give rise to a substantial question of law, attracting intervention of the High Court in a Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Augusta Westland: SC Quashes Delhi HC Order Staying Proceedings Against Gautam Khitan, Asks HC To Decide Afresh [Union of India V. Gautam Khaitan] The Supreme Court quashed a Delhi High Court order which stayed the proceedings against Gautam Khaitan under the Black Money Act in the Agusta Westland Case. The Bench comprising of Justices Arun Mishra, MR Shah, and BR Gavai also asked Delhi High Court to consider the plea of Khaitan afresh allowing the Centre's plea against the order. SC Upholds U'khand Rule Of Accelerated Promotion Quota On The Basis Of Higher Edu Qualifications [State of Uttarakhand vs. SK Singh] The Supreme Court upheld a service rule of providing accelerated promotion on the basis of higher educational qualifications. The court was concerned with the promotion quota pertaining to the Irrigation Department cadre of the Uttarakhand State, for promotion from the post of Junior Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer. It carved out a provision for accelerated promotion to the extent of 7.33% for the JEs holding a more advanced qualification, of a Degree in Civil Engineering. Section 33(2)(b) ID Act- SC Explains Scope Of Enquiry By Labour Court While Granting/Refusing Approval For Discharge/Dismissal Of Workman [John D'Souza vs. Karnataka SRTC] The Supreme Court observed that a Labour Court or Tribunal while holding enquiry under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot invoke the adjudicatory powers vested in them under Section 10(i)(c) and (d) of the Act. They also cannot dwell upon the proportionality of punishment in the process of formation of their prima facie view under Section 33(2)(b), the bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Surya Kant observed . State Legislature Cannot Enact Law Providing Direct Appeal To Supreme Court [H. S. Yadav V. Shakuntala Devi Parakh] The Supreme Court held that a State Legislature cannot enact a law providing an appeal directly to the Supreme Court of India. The bench comprising Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose struck down Section 13(2) of Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, in so far as it provides an appeal directly to the Supreme Court, holding that the same is totally illegal, ultra vires the Constitution and beyond the scope of the powers of the State Legislature. Section 24 RFCTLARR Act- Subsequent Purchasers Cannot Seek Declaration That Land Acquisition Proceedings Have Lapsed [Shiv Kumar vs. Union of India] The Supreme Court, held that a subsequent purchaser of the property after issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot invoke the provisions contained in section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The three judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra, observed that the judgment in GNCTD vs Manav Dharam Trust is per incuriam and contrary to several binding precedents. Execution Of Power Of Attorney Cannot Transfer Title To The Grantee [Shiv Kumar vs. Union of India] The Supreme Court reiterated that GPA sales and SA/GPA/WILL transfers are not legally valid modes of transfer and they do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized or valid mode of transfer of immoveable property. The bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra, Justice MR Shah and Justice BR Gavai made this observation in Shiv Kumar vs. UoI in which it held that a subsequent purchaser of the property after issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot invoke the provisions contained in section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Article 226- HC Cannot Relax Terms & Conditions Of A Tender Notice [Durgawati Devi vs. Union of India] The Supreme Court observed that, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a High Court has no power to relax the terms and conditions of a tender notice. While upholding the Allahabad High Court order that dismissed a challenge...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags