Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
25 Nov 2019 3:03 AM GMT
Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up
x

Seniority Cannot Be Claimed From A Date When The Incumbent Was Not Borne In Service [K. Meghachandra Singh vs. Ningam Siro] The Supreme Court observed that, under Service Jurisprudence, seniority cannot be claimed from a date when the incumbent is yet to be borne in the cadre. The bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hrishikesh Roy was...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

Seniority Cannot Be Claimed From A Date When The Incumbent Was Not Borne In Service [K. Meghachandra Singh vs. Ningam Siro]

The Supreme Court observed that, under Service Jurisprudence, seniority cannot be claimed from a date when the incumbent is yet to be borne in the cadre. The bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hrishikesh Roy was considering appeals against Manipur High Court judgment in cases pertaining to an inter-se seniority dispute in the Manipur Police Service Grade II Officers Cadre.

Order VIII Rule 6A CPC: No Embargo On Filing Counter-Claim After Filing Written Statement [Ashok Kumar Kalra vs. Wing Cdr. Surendra Agnihotri]

The Supreme Court held that a Court can exercise its discretion and permit the filing of a counter-claim after the written statement, till the stage of framing of the issues of the trial. The three judge bench headed by Justice NV Ramana held that Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC does not pose an embargo on filing the counter-claim after filing the written statement.

Section 376 R/w 511 IPC: Offence Of Attempt To Rape Can Be Attracted Even If Accused Had Not Undressed Himself [Chaitu Lal vs. State of Uttarakhand]

The Supreme Court upheld conviction of a man under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code for attempt of rape of a woman.In the appeal, the contention raised on behalf of the accused was that, since he did not committ any overt act such as; any attempt to undress himself in order to commit the alleged act, his actions do not constitute the offence under Section 511 read with Section 376.

MV Act: Compensation Can Be Granted In Excess Of Amount Claimed [Jabbar vs. Maharashtra SRTC]

The Supreme Court reiterated that it is permissible to grant motor accident compensation of any amount in excess to that one which has been claimed. In this case, the claimant had claimed that he is entitled for compensation of Rs.9,05,000/-. But since he was suffering from financial crisis and was unable to pay court fees on the said amount and therefore restricted his claim to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-. The Tribunal allowed the claim and granted compensation of Rs.1.50 Lakhs. The High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.2.50 Lakhs.

Right To File Regular Appeal Cannot Be Curtailed Merely Because Application To Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree Was Dismissed [N. Mohan vs. R. Madhu]

The Supreme Court observed that a defendant cannot be deprived of the statutory right to appeal under Section 96(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure merely on the ground that earlier, the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was dismissed. The bench of Justice R.Banumathi, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hrishikesh Roy said that the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC cannot be filed after dismissal of appeal under Section 96(2) CPC.

Private Counsel Engaged By Victim To Assist Public Prosecutor Cannot Make Oral Argument/Cross Examine Witnesses [Rekha Murarka vs. State of West Bengal]

The Supreme Court observed that, though a victim can engage a private counsel to assist the prosecution, such counsel could not be given the right to make oral arguments or examine and cross-examine witnesses. The bench of Justice Mohan M. Shanthanagoudar and Justice Deepak Gupta observed thus while upholding the Calcutta High Court judgment dismissing the application made by a victim in a criminal case seeking permission for her counsel to cross-examine witnesses after the Public Prosecutor.

No Bar In Dismissing 'Admitted' Writ Petition On Ground Of Alternative Remedy [Genpact India Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax]

The Supreme Court has reiterated that after admitting a writ petition, there is no bar on High Court to dismiss it on the ground of alternative remedy. Before the Apex Court the order of the High Court was impugned raising two issues. One, whether the High Court was justified in refusing to entertain the writ petition because of availability of adequate appellate remedy. The second was whether after admission, the Writ Petition could be dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy.

COFEPOSA: Detention Order Can Be Passed Even If A Person Is In Judicial Custody [Union of India vs. Ankit Ashok Jalan]

The Supreme Court observed that even if a person is in judicial custody, he can be detained Detention Laws like COFEPOSA. The Court further noted that the detenus were granted bail by the Court on the very date the orders of detention were quashed by the High Court. Therefore, the apprehension in the mind of the Detaining Authority that the detenus are likely to be released on bail was well founded and fortified, said the bench while setting aside the High Court order.

'Not A Murder': 'Short- Tempered' Retd. Army Officer Who Shot A Boy For Plucking Fruits From His Compound Gets Relief From SC [Kandaswamy Ramaraj V. State]

The Supreme Court acquitted of murder charges a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the Indian Army accused of killing a boy who was plucking fruits from his defence enclave, and modified the conviction to Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder. Kandaswamy Ramaraj was convicted under Section 302 IPC by the Trial Court and the same was upheld by the Madras High Court.

A Male Between The Age of 18 And 21 Yrs Cannot Be Punished For Marrying A Female Adult

The Supreme Court held that a male aged between 18 and 21 years, who contracts into a marriage with a female adult, cannot be punished under Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

Other Significant Orders and Proceedings

  • Upheld the decision of the Manipur High Court to quash Manipur Public Service Commission 2016 (Main) exam, with directions to conduct the Main Examination, 2016 afresh. In its order dated October 18, the high court had held that the examination was liable to be quashed, on account of numerous irregularities and illegalities, in the process of conducting the said exam.
  • Effectively stayed the order of the Allahabad High Court which imposed blanket ban on the use of DJs. Granting interim relief to the petitioners who challenged the ban, the bench of Justices UU Lalit and Vineet Saran asked the concerned authorities to decide on the applications seeking permission to play DJ.
  • Said that it 'expects' the State of Kerala to place before it a legislation with regard to the administration of the Sabarimala Sree Ayyappa Swamy Temple as the Government submitted to the Court earlier. The Court noted that, during the last date of hearing in August, the State had submitted that it is considering enacting a separate legislation with regard to the administration of the Sabarimala Sree Ayyappa Swamy Temple.
  • Dismissed review petitions filed by the accused in the murder case of former Gujarat Home Minister Haren Pandya in 2003. The bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Vineet Saran observed that its judgment restoring conviction of the accused does not suffer from any error apparent warranting its reconsideration. It also refused the plea seeking hearing of the Review Petitions in Open Court.
  • Issued notice to Enforcement Directorate on the petition filed by former Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram challenging the November 15 judgment of the Delhi High Court that had denied him bail in the INX media case. The bench comprising Justice Banumathi, Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy has posted the case next on November 26.
  • Issued notice on appeal filed by SEBI against the SAT's order) quashing the SEBI order imposing a two year ban on the accounting firm Price Waterhouse(PW) for its alleged involvement in the Satyam scam. Further, the apex court has also stayed the part of decision, insofar as it held that SEBI did not have the jurisdiction to debar auditors and auditing firms from auditing the books of a listed Company or from certifying any report of a listed Company.
  • Issued notice on appeal filed by SEBI against the SAT's order) quashing the SEBI order imposing a two year ban on the accounting firm Price Waterhouse(PW) for its alleged involvement in the Satyam scam. Further, the apex court has also stayed the part of decision, insofar as it held that SEBI did not have the jurisdiction to debar auditors and auditing firms from auditing the books of a listed Company or from certifying any report of a listed Company.
  • Issued notice to the Central Government and the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) on a petition questioning the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Act 2019, which allows private entities to use Aadhaar data of citizens.
  • Asked the makers of RO (Reverse Osmosis) water purifiers to approach the Union Ministry of Environment , Forests and Climate Change within ten days with relevant materials on their grievance against the ban imposed by the National Green Tribunal.

Next Story
Share it