Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

1. Sabarimala Reference: SC Gives Reasons For Holding That Questions Of Law Can Be Referred To Larger Bench In Review [Kantararu Rajeevaru V. Indian Young Lawyers Association]The Supreme Court passed an order detailing reasons for reference of questions of law, to a larger bench in a review petition. The 9-judge bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde had dismissed objections regarding the maintainability of reference in Sabarimala Review Petitions on February 10. On that occasion, the bench had stated that it will give reasons for the conclusion later.2. 'Usually Court Not Required To Examine Merits Of Interpretation Provided In Award By Arbitrator, If Such Interpretation Was Reasonably Possible': SC [South East Asia Marine Engineering & Constructions Ltd. V. Oil India Ltd.]While setting aside an arbitral award, the Supreme Court held that courts may not examine the merits of interpretation provided in the award by the arbitrator, unless they were of the view that such an interpretation was reasonably not possible. A bench of Justices NV Ramana, MM Shantanagoudar & Ajay Rastogi acknowledged the settled position under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act according to which a Court can set aside an Award only on the grounds at provided in the Act, adding that the Court cannot interfere in the plausible view taken by the Arbitrator, which is supported with reasoning.3. Secondary Evidence Can Be Permitted To Be Produced If The Party Establishes Factual Foundation For The Same: SC [Jagmail Singh & Anr. V. Karamjit Singh & Ors.]The Supreme Court held that a court can permit a party to produce secondary evidence if a factual foundation for producing it is established. A bench comprising Justices Navin Sinha & Krishna Murari observed that merely an admission in evidence and making exhibit of a document, does not prove it automatically unless the same has been proved in accordance with the law. 4. SC Stays Madras HC's Direction To Close Liquor Shops Of TASMAC In Tamil Nadu [TASMAC Ltd. & Ors. V. B. Kumar Adityan]Supreme Court stayed the Madras High Court's order directing closure of liquor stores in the State of Tamil Nadu, during lockdown. While effectively allowing liquor stores in the State to reopen, a bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, SK Kaul & BR Gavai also stayed the additional conditions which had been imposed by the High Court. On May 8, taking note of the huge crowd situation at retail outlets, the Madras High Court was of the view that conditions imposed for regulating the crowd in TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) shops selling liquor, were "blatantly violated".5. SC Stays Gujarat HC Judgment Declaring State Law Minister Bhupendrasinh Chudasama's Election Null And Void [Bhupendrasinh Chudasama V. Ashwin K. Rathod & Ors.]Top Court stayed the Gujarat High Court order which nullified the 2017 election of BJP leader Bhupendrasinh Chudasama to the Gujarat State Legislative Assembly. A bench comprising Justices Mohan M Shantanagoudar & R. Subhash Reddy passed the interim order in a plea challenging the Gujarat High Court order, which had set aside Chudasama's December 2017 election as void and illegal on the grounds of manipulation and malpractice.6. SC Refuses To Pass Orders For 4G Restoration In J&K; Asks Special Committee To Examine Issues Raised By Petitioners [Foundation for media professionals V. Union of India, Private School's Association J&K V. Union of India & Soayib Qureshi V. Union of India]The Supreme Court refused directed Constitution of Special Committee comprising secretaries of Union Ministries of Home Affairs and Chief Secretary of J&K to examine contentions Raised In Pleas Seeking Restoration Of 4g Internet In J&K. A bench of Justices NV Ramana, R. Subhash Reddy & B.R. Gavai observed that even though the Court recognised that the Union Territory had plunged into a crisis, and the court was cognisant to the concerns related to ongoing pandemic and hardships, there was a need to ensure that national security and human rights are balanced.Also Read: Better Internet Desirable During Pandemic Lockdown; But Can't Ignore Terrorism Concerns : SC In J&K Pleas For 4G7. SC Says No Coercive Action Against Employers In Two Pleas Challenging MHA Order On Full Payment Of Wages; No Interim Order In Connected Cases [Hand Tools Manufacturers Association V. Union Of India]The Supreme Court issued an interim order restraining coercive action against employers for a period of one week for non-payment of wages as per MHA direction. A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao, Sanjay Kishen Kaul & B R Gavai passed the interim order in a plea challenging the order issued by Home Secretary on March 29 invoking powers under Section 10(2)(l) of the Disaster Management Act 2005 directing full payment of wages by Industries or shops and commercial establishments to its employees at their work places, on the due date, without any deduction, for the period their establishments are under...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Sanya Talwar

Week Commencing May 11, 2020 To May 16, 2020

Tags