Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

Consumer Forums/Commissions Cannot Consider Complaint/Appeal On Merits After Finding That It Is Time Barred [M/S. Singal Udyog V. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.] The Supreme Court observed that a Consumer Forum/Commission after having come to the conclusion that the complaint/appeal was barred by limitation, could not consider the merits of the matter. The bench further observed that, In any case, the delay of 150 days, in the present circumstances, was not so alarming that the matter should have been rejected on the ground of delay. Imposing costs of Rs. 25,000, the bench condoned the delay and restored the appeal before the National Commisssion. Section 228 CrPC: Detailed Reasons Need Not Be Recorded While Framing Charges [Bhawna Bai vs. Ghanshyam] The Supreme Court observed that for framing the charges under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a trial judge is not required to record detailed reasons. The bench of Justice R. Banumathi, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Hrishikesh Roy observed that, at the stage of framing the charge, the court is not required to hold an elaborate enquiry; only prima facie case is to be seen. High Court Can Intervene If NCLT Passes Order In A Matter Pertaining to Public Law [M/s Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. V. State of Karnataka & Ors.] Supreme Court held that the High Court can exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, if NCLT has passed an order pertaining to a matter falling under the realm of public law. The Division Bench of Justice Nariman, Justice Bose and Justice Ramasubramanian held that wherever the corporate debtor has to exercise a right that falls outside the purview of the IBC, 2016, especially in the realm of the public law, they cannot, through the resolution professional, take a bypass and go before NCLT for the enforcement of such a right. Compromise Between Accused & Victim Is Of No Relevance In Deciding Rape Cases [Ramphal V. State of Haryana] The Supreme Court emphasized that compromise between rape accused and victim is of no relevance in deciding criminal cases. The bench of Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Krishna Murari observed thus while disposing of a criminal appeal. SC Paves Way For Release Of P Chidambaram After 105 Days In Jail As He Gets Bail In INX Media [ED] Case [P. Chidambaram V. Directorate of Enforcement] The Supreme Court granted bail to former Union Minister and Senior Advocate P Chidambaram in the case registered by Enforcement Directorate in INX Media scam. The SC bench of Justices R Banumathi, A S Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roya observed that Chidambaram satisfied the triple tests for granting bail, and criticized the Delhi High Court for making observations on the merits of the allegations. Justice A S Bopanna, reading out the judgment, observed that Chidambaram had participated in the investigation. Denial Of Bail On Findings Based On Sealed Cover Documents Presented By Prosecution Is Against Fair Trial [P. Chidambaram V. Directorate of Enforcement] In the judgment granting bail to P Chidambaram in the INX Media case, the Supreme Court made certain pertinent observations regarding the practice of courts relying on sealed cover documents produced by prosecution during bail hearings. The SC observed that recording of findings based on the sealed cover documents submitted by the prosecution as if the offence has been committed, and using of such findings to deny bail would be against the concept of fair trial. Separate Classification In Favour Of Properties Of Religious Institutions For Rent Laws Not Violative Of Article 14 [Harbhajan Singh vs. State of Punjab] The Supreme Court, while upholding the constitutional validity of the Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, observed that separate classification of properties of religious institutions for rent legislation will pass a challenge under Article 14 of the Constitution of India SARFAESI: Only Expressly Created Statutory First Charges Under Central/State Laws Can Take Precedence Over Secured Creditors' Claim [Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. Babulal Lade] Only expressly created statutory first charges under Central and State laws can take precedence over the claims of secured creditors under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI), the Supreme Court reiterated. Minimum Qualifying Service Stipulated In Pension Rules Can't Be Ignored While Considering Claim For Invalid Pension [State of Odisha vs. Manju Naik] The Supreme Court observed that the minimum qualifying service prescribed under the Pension Rules cannot be ignored for the purpose of consideration of invalid pension. In this case, the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, and the High Court held...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags