Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

In a notable judgment in service law, the Supreme Court held that a candidate will not be estopped from challenging a selection process on the ground of having participated in it when there is allegation of "misconstruction of statutory rules and discriminating consequences arising therefrom". This was held by a bench comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Surya Kant while deciding a preliminary objection against the maintainability of an appeal.

Hospital Vicariously Liable For Medical Negligence Committed By Its Doctors [Maharaja Agrasen Hospital vs. Master Rishabh Sharma]

The Supreme Court observed that a hospital is vicariously liable for the acts of negligence committed by the doctors engaged or empanelled to provide medical care. The bench of Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra observed thus while upholding an NCDRC order holding a Hospital to be vicariously liable for medical negligence of the Doctors who allegedly failed to carry out the mandatory check up of Retinopathy of Prematurity of a pre-term baby, which led to his total blindness.

Article 142 Can Be Invoked To Dissolve A Marriage Found To Be A Dead Letter

Marriages are said to be made in heaven. They are broken on earth, said the Supreme Court while dissolving a marriage on the ground of its irretrievable breakdown. The bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice KM Joseph observed that Article 142 of the Constitution of India can be invoked to dissolve a marriage in cases where a marriage is found to be a dead letter

SC Sets Aside Death Sentence In A 13 Day Trial, Says 'Fast Tracking Must Not Result In Burial Of Justice' [Anokhilal V. State of Madhyapradesh]

The Supreme Court observed that expeditious disposal of criminal cases must never result in burying the cause of justice. The bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Krishna Murari set aside a death penalty awarded to a rape and murder accused in a trial that finished within thirteen days.

SC Directs Bank To Compensate A School Who Lost Money In Online Banking Fraud [DAV Piblic School V. Indian Bank, Midnapur Branch]

The Supreme Court directed a bank to give compensation of Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs to a school whose money from the bank account was siphoned out by the miscreants. The bench comprising Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hrishikesh Roy noted the finding of the State Commission, the Banking Ombudsman and also by the NCDRC, that, the bank has rendered themselves liable by enabling net banking facility by linking the individual account of the school's Principal, to the school's account.

Inadequacy Of Reasons In Arbitral Award And Unintelligible Awards: SC Explains Difference [Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd vs. Crompton Greaves Ltd]

The Supreme Court, in a judgment highlighted the difference to be noted by the Courts between inadequacy of reasons in an award and unintelligible awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench headed by Justice NV Ramana observed that ordinarily unintelligible awards are to be set aside, while the challenge on inadequacy of reasons, has to be adjudicated based on the degree of particularity of reasoning required having regard to the nature of issues falling for consideration.

[Section 304B IPC] Seeking Financial Assistance Can Also Constitute Demand For Dowry [Jatinder Kumar vs. State of Haryana]

The Supreme Court observed that seeking financial assistance can also constitute 'demand for dowry'. In a criminal appeal related to dowry death case, the contention raised by the accused was that the money demanded by him was for extension of clinic, and not as dowry. Relying on the judgment in Appasaheb & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra (2007) 9 SCC 721, it was urged that a demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry.

Landlord's Derivative Title Has To Be Established When It Is Challenged By Tenant [Vinay Eknat Lad vs. Chiu Mao Chen]

The Supreme Court observed that, though in a landlord-tenant suit, the landlord is not required to prove his title in the subject property as in a title-suit, but when his/her derivative title is challenged, the same has to be established in some form. In this case

Detention Order Cannot Be Based On 'Stale & Irrelevant' Incidents [Khaja Bilal Ahmed V. State of Telengana]

The Supreme Court observed that stale and irrelevant incidents cannot be the basis of an order of detention. The court noted that the order of detention in the present case contains a reference to fourteen cases which were instituted against the appellant between 2007 and 2016.

Ex-Parte Order Of State Consumer Commission Can Be Challenged Before NCDRC [Shiur Sakhar Karkhana Pvt. Ltd vs. State Bank of India]

The Supreme Court held that an ex-parte order passed by State Consumer Commission can be challenged before the National Commission. In this case the Bombay High Court, to hold that writ petition can be entertained against an Ex Parte order passed by State Consumer Commission, observed that an appeal does not lie before the National Commission under Section 21 of the Act and consequently there was no alternative remedy available.

Disciplinary Proceedings Are Not Quasi Criminal In Nature [Uttarakhand Transport Corporation V. Heera Singh Parihar]

The Supreme Court observed that disciplinary proceedings are not quasi criminal in nature. The bench of Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hrishikesh Roy was considering an appeal against High Court judgment which set aside the findings of the disciplinary inquiry holding that the nature of a disciplinary inquiry is quasi criminal.

Non Speaking Order Dismissing SLP Does Not Attract Doctrine Of Merger [P. Singaravelan vs. District Collector, Tiruppur]

The Supreme Court reiterated that a non-speaking order dismissing a special leave petition, does not constitute a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution, nor attracts the doctrine of merger. The issue in this case was in connection with the interpretation of Government Order issued by the State of Tamil Nadu. The court noticed that there are several orders of the supreme Court dismissing SLPs against the grant of relief to drivers, but all of them were passed at the stage of admission itself.

Other Significant Orders and Proceedings

• The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and AS Bopanna dismissed the last pending review petition in the Nirbhaya gang rape -murder case, which was filed by Akshay Kumar Sing, one of the four convicts awaiting execution of death sentence
• In a decision set to bring cheers to 1.8 million investors who lost their savings of Rs 8,500 crore in two "ponzi schemes" run by Royal Twinkle Star Club and Citrus Check Inns, the Supreme Court directed the Sale cum Monitoring Committee (SMC) headed by Justice J P Deodhar (Retd) to proceed with the sale of 114 properties/investments identified by the Resolution Professional and endeavor to complete the process within six months.
• Asked the petitioners to approach the concerned High Courts with their prayers for a Court-monitored probe into the reports of police atrocities against students of Jamia Milia Islamia and Aligarh Muslim University during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act.
• Chief Justice of India S A Bobde recused from hearing the review petition of Akshay Kumar Singh, one of the four death row convicts in the Nirbhaya gang rape -murder case. This was after CJI Bobde happened to spot the name of his nephew, Advocate Arjun Bobde, in the orders of the review petitions filed by the other three convicts.
• In a major relief to the Maharashtra government, the Supreme Court stayed the Bombay High Court judgment that quashed the Coastal Road Zone clearances granted to the city civic body's Rs 14,000 crore coastal road project.
• Issued notice to all petitions challenging the Constitutional Validity of Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019. The Bench comprising CJI Bobde and Justices BR Gavai and Surya Kant asked the Centre to file the response by the second week of January.
• Being concerned over the growing anger and agitation by the public over delay in justice in the cases of rape and sexual offences and to ensure speedy justices to the victims, the Supreme Court registered a suo motu petition and sought status report from Centre through Home Secretary, all states and Union Territories (UT) through Chief Secretaries and DGPs with regard to investigations into rape cases, medical examination of the victim and also speedy trial of such cases .
• Issued notices on a plea challenging the decision of the Uttar Pradesh government to cut around 64,000 trees along the Gomti river in Lucknow, for holding different programmes during the next year's Defence Expo.