Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

Candidate Not Estopped From Challenging Selection Process When Misconstruction Of Statutory Rules Is Alleged [Meeta Sahi v State of Bihar] 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...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags