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

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
9 Dec 2019 12:09 PM GMT
Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up
x

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...

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?

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 that the deceased employee's husband is entitled to invalid pension under Rule 39 of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules- 1992.

Section 482 CrPC: HC Should Not Embark Upon An Enquiry Into Validity Of Evidence Available [M. Jayanthi vs. KR Meenakshi]

While invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing a complaint or a charge, the High Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available, the Supreme Court has reiterated.

Unreasoned Order Granting/Rejecting Bail Raises Presumption Of Non Application Of Mind [Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia]

Where an order refusing or granting bail does not furnish the reasons that inform the decision, there is a presumption of the non-application of mind, the Supreme Court observed while setting aside an order passed by Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur bench.

Fresh Environmental Clearance Must For Expansion Beyond Limits Approved By Prior EC [Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. Shri Anil V Tharthare & Ors]

The Supreme Court held that a fresh Environmental Clearance is necessary for the expansion of a project beyond the limits approved by the prior EC. The Court added that such fresh EC is mandatory, even if the expanded project is within the upper limits prescribed under the Environmental Impact Assessment notification 2006.

GST: HC Should Be Loathe To Entertain Writ Petitions Questioning Seizure Of Goods [The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. V.Vm/S Kay Pan Fragrance Pvt. Ltd.]

High Court should be loathe to entertain the Writ Petitions questioning the seizure of goods, the Supreme Court observed. The court made this observation while considering the appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against interim order passed by the Allahabad High Court directing it to release the seized goods under Central Goods and Service Tax, subject to deposit of security other than cash or bank guarantee or in the alternative, indemnity bond equal to the value of tax and penalty to the satisfaction of the Assessing Authority.

For Sales Tax On Transfer Of Right To Use Goods, Place Of Contract Is Relevant Than Location Of Goods [The Great Eastern Shipping Company Ltd v State of Karnataka]

In a significant judgment in the context of 'deemed sale', the Supreme Court has clarified that for the purposes of levy of sales tax, the place of the contract for transfer of right to use of good is relevant than the location of the goods. This ruling was given by a three judges bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, M R Shah and B R Gavai.

Victim Girl Being Habitual To Sex Cannot Be Valid Defence To Act Of Rape [Abdul Sattar V. The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.]

The Supreme Court observed that the fact that victim of rape is habituated to sex, cannot be a valid defence to the act of rape. The bench also comprising of Justices BR Gavai and Surya Kant then cancelled the bail and directed the accused to surrender before the concerned Judicial Magistrate in Muzaffarnagar,Uttar Pradesh within a period of four weeks.

Fresh Environmental Clearance Must For Expansion Beyond Limits Approved By Prior EC [Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. Shri Anil V Tharthare & Ors]

The Supreme Court held that a fresh Environmental Clearance is necessary for the expansion of a project beyond the limits approved by the prior EC. The Court added that such fresh EC is mandatory, even if the expanded project is within the upper limits prescribed under the Environmental Impact Assessment notification 2006.

[Section 197 CrPC] No Protection Of Sanction Where The Acts Are Performed Using The Public Office As A Mere Cloak For Unlawful Gains [Station House Officer, CBI vs. B.A. Srinivasan]

The Supreme Court observed that protection of sanction to public servants under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not available where the acts are performed using the office as a mere cloak for unlawful gains. The Court also observed that the protection of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act would not be available to a public servant after he had demitted his office or retired from service.

Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory In All Corruption Cases [State of Telangana vs. Sri Managipet @ Mangipet Sarveshwar Reddy]

The Supreme Court observed that a preliminary inquiry before registration of First Information Report (FIR) is not required to be mandatorily conducted in all corruption cases. The bench of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta was considering state's appeal against the High court judgment which quashed the criminal proceedings against a Police Officer who was said to be in possession of assets worth Rs.3,18,61,500 alleged to be disproportionate to his known sources of income.

Other Significant Orders and Proceedings

  • Quashed Criminal Cases registered against Bollywood Actor Salman Khan in connection with the controversy surrounding the release of the movie "Loveratri– a journey of love".
  • Reserved its order on a plea moved by DMK seeking postponement of local body elections in Tamil Nadu, which are scheduled for December 27 and Dec 30, on grounds that delimitation of 9 newly bifurcated districts have not taken place.
  • Allowed the local body elections in Tamil Nadu to be conducted as per schedule, except in nine newly bifurcated districts. In those nine districts, elections should be held within four months after delimitation process is complete, ordered the bench.
  • Expressed its concern about disturbing trend of making judicial officers scapegoats. The bench of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice BR Gavai observed thus while upholding the Calcutta High Court judgment reinstating a judicial officer who was compulsorily retired from service.
  • Permitted Vyapam scam accused, Sanket Vaidya, to travel abroad for further studies, on the condition that he furnishes a fixed deposit of Rs 1.26 crore with the trial court and a surety from his father that he will appear for hearings.
  • A group of residents of the Golden Kayaloram complex - one of the four apartments in Maradu which have been directed to be demolished- became unsuccessful in persuading the Supreme Court to direct the Attorney General to grant sanction for initiating criminal contempt against the members of the Committee, which was constituted by the Court for probing the violations. "Several orders have already been passed on the issue and you are making mockery of it. Dismissed, " a bench comprising justices Arun Mishra and Sanjiv Khanna said while dismissing the plea

Next Story
Share it