- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up (26th...
Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up (26th February-02 March, 2024)
Gyanvi Khanna
3 March 2024 5:25 AM GMT
With another week gone at the Supreme Court of India, Live Law is back with its Supreme Court Weekly Digest, dedicated to keeping our readers abreast of the most recent legal developments in the country's apex court. This digest aims to inform you about the latest judgments, orders, and Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed in the Supreme Court during the past week and also the...
With another week gone at the Supreme Court of India, Live Law is back with its Supreme Court Weekly Digest, dedicated to keeping our readers abreast of the most recent legal developments in the country's apex court. This digest aims to inform you about the latest judgments, orders, and Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed in the Supreme Court during the past week and also the updates of the Constitution Bench hearing on the taxation matter of mineral-bearing lands, providing a succinct overview.
Orders/ Judgments
Case Details: K Annamalai v. V Piyush | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2323 of 2024
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court stayed the trial against Tamil Nadu Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader K Annamalai over his alleged remarks against a Christian missionary non-profit.
Case Title: AMOL VITTHAL VAHILE vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 159
Coram: Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court requested the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court to convey its request to all the Judges of the Bombay High Court exercising the criminal jurisdiction to decide the matter pertaining to bail/anticipatory bail as expeditiously as possible.
Case Title: Priyanka Tyagi v. Union of India & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (C) 3045/2024
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court was not persuaded by the argument of the Union Government that there are functional differences in the Indian Coastguard because of which women officers cannot be given permanent commission there unlike the Army, Navy or Air Force.
Case Details: RAM NATH VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS., CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 472 of 2012
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol
The Supreme Court observed that if a case is registered against an accused for food adulteration under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), then by virtue of the overriding effect of Section 89 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (“FSSA”), the proceedings under IPC cannot be continued against the accused.
Case Details: Shailesh Kumar v. State of UP (now State of Uttarakhand)., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 162
Coram: Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti
The Supreme Court has held that an accused has a right to cross-examine a police officer as to the recording made in the case diary whenever the police officer uses to refresh his memory.
Similarly, in a case where the court uses a case diary for the purpose of contradicting a police officer, then an accused is entitled to peruse the said statement so recorded which is relevant, and cross-examine the police officer on that count.
Case Details: GYAN PRAKASH VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 164
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
Expressing concern over the non-removal of unauthorized occupations/encroachments on the national highways, the Supreme Court directed the National Highways Authority of India (“NHAI”), to come out with a scheme that will provide for firstly, regular inspection of the highways, secondly, the establishment of grievance redressal mechanism and thirdly taking prompt action based on the complaints reporting unauthorized occupations/encroachments.
SaleAgreement With Minor Void, Not Enforceable In Law: Supreme Court
Case Details: KRISHNAVENI VERSUS M.A. SHAGUL HAMEED & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 165
Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra
The Supreme Court reiterated that the contract entered by the minor is not enforceable under law. "There is no dispute on the contention raised by the defendants in the suit that the appellant was a minor at the time of the said agreement dated 03.09.2007. Therefore, such contract with a minor, was rightly found to be a void contract by the High Court.", the Bench said.
Case Title : INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION vs. UNION OF INDIA| W.P.(C) No. 000645 - / 2022
Coram: Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah
The Supreme Court came down heavily on Patanjali Ayurved for continuing to publish misleading advertisements regarding medicinal cures, despite making an assurance to the Court earlier in November last year that no such statements would be made.
Case Details: Directorate of Enforcement v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1959-1963 of 2024
Coram: Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court suspended the operation and execution of an interim order issued by the Madras High Court staying the summonses issued to district collectors in Tamil Nadu in connection with alleged illegal sand mining-money laundering cases. The top court today granted interim relief in response to a special leave petition filed by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) against a November 28 ruling of the high court staying the operation of these summonses issued by the central agency under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act but allowing the investigation to continue.
Case Title: M/s Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries Etc. Etc. v. The Assam State Electricity Board and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 163
Coram: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia.
The Supreme Court recently set aside an order passed by one of its Registrars, vide which registration of a curative petition was declined because the underlying review petition was dismissed after open court hearing (not by circulation). The Court held that the order was contrary to the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and the power being judicial in nature ought to have been exercised by a Bench of the Court.
Case Details: Prabir Purkayastha v. State | Diary No, 42896 of 2023
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court, while hearing an application for NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha's release on medical grounds, directed a board to be constituted by All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) to conduct an independent medical evaluation. The court also categorically stated that the State would have to bear the expenses for such evaluation.
Case Title: Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 166
Coram: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
Recently, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a man convicted for abetment to suicide of his wife, almost after 30 years of initiation of trial.
While doing so, the Court lamented that the criminal justice system of India can itself be a punishment for the accused if it took 30 years for the criminal justice system to acquit the accused.
Case Details: SUDHA BHALLA ALIAS SUDHA PUNCHI & ORS. VERSUS RAKESH KUMAR SINGH & ORS., CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 1278 OF 2023., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 174
Coram: Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta.
Recently, the Supreme Court held that the State cannot deprive the citizen of using the land for years and then paying compensation to show graciousness.
"Though, the Right to Property is no more a Fundamental Right, still it is recognized as a Constitutional Right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Depriving a citizen of his Constitutional Right to use the land for 20 years and then showing graciousness by paying the compensation and beating drums that the State has been gracious, in our view, is unacceptable," observed the Bench.
Case Details: WILLIAM STEPHEN VERSUS THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 168
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.
Recently, the Supreme Court acquitted an accused charged under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code i.e., kidnapping for ransom, after finding that the prosecution failed to establish that there was an instant threat of death to the kidnapped from the accused.
In the same case the Court also remarked that the state government (Tamil Nadu) should impart proper training to police officers on obtaining certificate for electronic evidence as stipulated under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
Case Details: Shiv Jatia versus Gian Chand Malick & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 169
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court held that once the Magistrate has called for the police report under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, then the magistrate couldn't issue a summon unless the report is submitted by the police
Case Details: Ashok Kumar Sharma IFS (Retd) & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 170
Coram: CJI, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The interim order passed by a bench led by the Chief Justice of India restricting the establishment of zoos/safaris within forest areas will operate only till the final judgment on the very same issue is pronounced by another coordinate bench.
Case Title: High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 177
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices Abhay S Oka, JB Pardiwala, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra.
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court overturned its 2018 Asian Resurfacing judgment which mandated the interim orders passed by High Courts staying trials in civil and criminal cases will automatically expire after six months from the date of the order, unless expressly extended by the High Courts.
The Court also issued guidelines regarding the procedure to be followed by high courts in passing interim orders of stay of proceedings and dealing with applications for vacating such stays.
Case Details: RAMJI LAL JAT Versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL No.2744 OF 2024
Coram: Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and KV Viswanathan
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Rajasthan Government to disqualify a candidate from applying to a police constable post for having more than two children.
The Court held that Rule 24(4) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, which provides that “no candidate shall be eligible for appointment to the service who has more than two children on or after 01.06.2002" is non-discriminatory and does not violate the Constitution.
'Distributor Not Agent, Independent Contractor': Supreme Court Elaborates Law On Agency
Case Title: Bharti Cellular Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Another, Civil Appeal No. 7257 of 2011 (and connected matters)., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 176
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti
While deciding the question of cellular mobile service providers' liability to deduct tax at source under Section 194-H of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Supreme Court recently summarized aspects that must be kept in mind by Courts while examining whether principal-agent relationship exists in particular case.
Case Details: Vedanta Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10159-10168 of 2020
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
Citing 'repeated breaches' and 'serious violations' on the part of Vedanta, the Supreme Court refused to grant it permission to reopen its Sterlite copper smelting plant in Tamil Nadu's Tuticorin.
Case Title: ASHARAM @ ASHUMAL Versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN, SLP(Crl) No. 2792/2024
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court dismissed self-styled godman Asaram Bapu's challenge to a Rajasthan High Court order, which rejected his plea for suspension of sentence on health grounds in a case where he was convicted for a minor's rape.
Case Details: BASAVARAJ VERSUS INDIRA AND OTHERS., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 178
Coram: Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal
On February 29 (Thursday), the Supreme Court held that an application seeking an amendment to the plaint shouldn't be allowed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC if the amendment alters the nature of the suit.
In the present case, an amendment of the plaint in a partition suit was sought to include a prayer to declare an earlier compromise decree as void. The Court disallowed the application stating that the amendment had the effect of altering the nature of partition suit to a declaration suit.
Case Details: Dr. Surinder Nath Kundra v Union Of India And Anr. W.P.(C) No. 45/2024 PIL-W
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud., Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition writ petition seeking to digitally monitor all the activities of MPs/MLAs to 'ensure transparency and to prevent corruption'.
CJI DY Chandrachud expressed dissatisfaction regarding the substance of the petition and reminded that a mandamus to seek continuous digital monitoring of elected representatives would be in stark violation of the Right to Privacy. He also warned the petitioner before hearing him on merits, that the petitioner would face costs of Rs 5 lakhs if the Court found the matter to be unfit of devote public's time.
Case Title: TR. O. PANNEERSELVAM AND ORS. Versus THE STATE REP BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, Diary No. 9209-2024
Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra
The Supreme Court dismissed former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and AIADMK leader O Panneerselvam's challenge to a Madras High Court order, vide which suo motu revision was initiated against his discharge in a criminal case.
Case Title: VINOD BIHARI LAL Versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR., SLP(Crl) No. 3210/2023 (and connected matters)
Coram: Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court confirmed the interim protection relief granted to Vice Chancellor Dr. Rajendra Bihari Lal, Director Vinod Bihari Lal and others in the SHUATS (formerly Allahabad Agricultural Institute) mass religious conversion case.
Case Details: Savitri Bai and another Versus Savitri Bai, Civil Appeal No. 9035 of 2013.
Coram: Justices Sanjay Karol and Sanjay Kumar
The Supreme Court held that a sale deed executed by the person (not being an owner of the property) in the plaintiff's favor wouldn't entitle the plaintiff to claim ownership/possession over such property.
Case Details: S.P. VELAYUTHAM & ANR. VERSUS M/S EMAAR MGF LAND LIMITED., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 179
Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra
The Supreme Court held that merely because the dispute is related to an immovable property wouldn't per se make it a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 unless the immovable property is 'actually used' exclusively in trade or commerce.
Case Title: M/s Arif Azim Co. Ltd. Versus M/s Aptech Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 180
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra.
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court held that the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to proceedings for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("A&C Act"), and a Court may refuse to make a reference if the claims, on the date of commencement of arbitration proceedings, are ex-facie barred.
All CISF Personnel Entitled To HRA If They Aren't Provided Accommodation : Supreme Court
Case Details: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS PARAMISIVAN M., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 134
Coram: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra
The Supreme Court has endorsed a judgment passed by the Delhi High Court which held that Central Industrial Security Force (“CISF”) personnel are entitled to receive House Rent Allowances (“HRA”) from the Union Government as provided to other paramilitary forces.
Case Title: Vinayak Purushottam Dube (D) vs Jayashree Padamkar Bhat., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 181
Coram: Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court, while allowing an appeal arising out of consumer dispute, observed that the legal representatives are not liable to discharge the party's obligation which had to be discharged in a personal capacity.
Case Title: M/s Arif Azim Co. Ltd. Versus M/s Aptech Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 180
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra.
The court highlighted the absence of a statutory prescription regarding the time limit for such applications and expressed concerns about the unduly long three-year period allowed for filing under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. While recognizing the legislative vacuum, the court urged Parliament to consider amending the Act to prescribe a specific limitation period for filing applications under Section 11(6).
Case Title: Major Gen. Darshan Singh (D) By Lrs. & Anr. v. Brij Bhushan Chaudhary (D) by Lrs., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 182
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol
While denying a plaintiff's plea for specific performance on account of false/incorrect statements made by him, the Supreme Court recently held that grant of a decree for specific performance under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is discretionary and equitable.
Case Details: MOHAMMED KHALID AND ANOTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF TELANGANA, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1610 OF 2023
Coram: Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court held that the accused cannot be held guilty of possessing narcotics and psychotropic substances if the mandate of Section 52A of the NDPS Act isn't fulfilled by the police while sending the collected sample for the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Test.
Supreme Court 9-judge Constitution Bench hearing on the taxation matter of mineral-bearing lands
Case details: Mineral Area Development v. M/S Steel Authority Of India & Ors (CA N0. 4056/1999)
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud comprises Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay Oka, BV Nagarathna, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, SC Sharma and AG Masih.
The key reference question involved in the present matter is to examine the nature and scope of royalty as prescribed under Section 9 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act), and whether it could be termed as tax.
The matter was referred to 9 judge bench in 2011. A three-judge bench headed by Justice SH Kapadia had framed eleven questions to be referred to the nine-judge bench. These include important tax law questions such as whether 'royalty' can be considered as being like tax and can the State Legislature while levying a tax on land adopt a measure of tax based on the value of the produce of land.
Senior Advocate Mr Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the state of Jharkhand, formulated five fundamental questions before the bench. These included inquiries into the true nature of royalty determined under sections 9 and 15(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act), and whether royalty can be classified as a form of tax. The scope of constitutional entries, such as Entry 50 List II and Entry 54 List I, was also scrutinized, with specific emphasis on potential limitations imposed by Parliament. Dwivedi delved into whether the interplay of these entries results in a departure from the established legislative powers distribution.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud raised a pivotal query during the session, questioning whether a tax on mineral-bearing land, while technically a land tax, could impact mineral development. This query concerned whether Parliament could impose limitations under Entry 23 of List I even when a state exercises its power under Entry 49.
The 9-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, on its third day of hearing on the issue relating to royalty on minerals, deliberated whether the Parliament can completely denude the States of their power to levy taxes on mineral rights.
News Update
Case Title: Ram Autar Singh Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).26568/2023
Coram: Justices Dipankar Datta, KV Viswanathan and Sandeep Mehta
In a 83-year-old retired Constable's plea for authorities to act on his recommendation for the Gallantry Award, the Supreme Court recently called for the State of Uttar Pradesh's response.
Case Details: Sanjay Singh v. Directorate Of Enforcement | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2558 of 2024
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Dutta
The Supreme Court sought the Directorate of Enforcement's (ED) response to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and Rajya Sabha member Sanjay Singh's bail plea in a money laundering case connected with the alleged Delhi liquor policy scam.
Case Details: State of Andhra Pradesh v. Nara Chandrababu Naidu | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 15099 of 2023
Coram: Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
During the Supreme Court hearing of Andhra Pradesh's plea against former Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu's regular bail in the skill development scam case, the state government levelled allegations against the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) president and his family, accusing them of making 'disturbing' and 'threatening' statements against state officials.
Case Details: Arvind Kejriwal v. State (National Capital Territory Of Delhi) & Anr. | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2413 of 2024
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
The Supreme Court directed the trial court proceedings in a defamation case against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to be temporarily halted. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief has approached the top court challenging summons in a defamation case lodged against him for retweeting a video on social media platform 'X' making certain allegations related to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) IT Cell.
In a notable development, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising has written a letter to the Secretary-General, Supreme Court, citing concerns with regard to the latest designation of 56 advocates as senior advocates.
Case Title: RANBIR SINGH Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.| SLP(C) No. 4498/2024
Coram: Justices BR Gavai, Rajesh Bindal and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court expressed displeasure at the trend of Special Leave Petitions being filed against High Courts which merely issue notice or grant adjournments.
While dismissing a petition filed against a High Court order posting a matter to April, the Court imposed a token cost of Rs.1 lac to "send a message" to Advocates-on-Record (and Counsels engaged by them) that frivolous petitions should not be filed.
Case Details: ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION vs. UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 001022 / 1989
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra,
The Supreme Court while hearing the matter of the pension scheme for judicial officers, flagged concerns on the plight of the retired district judicial officers who were getting inadequate financial support through the present pension policies. The Court urged the Union to find a 'Just Solution' for the officers who have substantially contributed to the cause of Justice.
Case Details: ARUSHI SINGH vs. UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 000121 - / 2024
A specially-abled woman has approached the Supreme Court complaining of the humiliation she had to face at the Kolkata airport where she was allegedly asked to stand up by the security personnel.
The Supreme Court Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society has undergone a shift in its leadership with the recent appointment of advocates-on-record Vanshaja Shukla and Ravi Raghunath to its Executive Committee.
Case Title: Abhishek Yadav and others v. Army College of Medical Sciences | W.P.(C) No. 730/2022
Coram: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B Varale
The Supreme Court expressed concerns at the complaints of MBBS interns that medical colleges are not adequately paying them stipend. Justice Dhulia orally voiced his discontent with how medical colleges are charging such hefty fees and are not prepared to pay the stipend.
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) has written a letter to Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud calling for fixing of the final daily list at the supplementary stage and disallowing any alteration thereafter.
Case Title: IN RE: TERMINATION OF CIVIL JUDGE, CLASS-II (JR. DIVISION) MADHYA PRADESH STATE JUDICIAL SERVICE, SMW(C) No. 2/2023
Coram: Justices BV Nagarathna and AG Masih
In a suo motu writ petition registered wrt simultaneous termination of services of 6 female civil judges in Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court was recently apprised that the Administrative Committee of the State High Court has resolved to not re-consider its earlier decision.
Petition Filed In Supreme Court Challenging Demolition Drive In Lucknow's Akbar Nagar
A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the demolition of commercial spaces in Lucknow's Akbar Nagar, after the Allahabad High Court dismissed the pleas of 24 occupants yesterday, paving the way for the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) to demolish allegedly illegal establishments in the area. Following the high court's order, the LDA wasted no time in commencing the demolition process on Tuesday evening, targeting shops and other commercial buildings along Ayodhya Road in Akbar Nagar.
Case Title: Potluri Vara Prasad & Ors. v. Directorate of Enforcement & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.2213 of 2024
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court called for a response from the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on the issue as to whether bar imposed by the Court's earlier decision, of any prayer for stay/impeding progress of investigation/trial in Coal Block Allocation cases being maintainable only before it, is applicable to orders passed on complaints under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as well.
Case Details: Veterans Forum for Transparency in Public Life Through Its General Secretary Wing Commander (Retd) Bishwanath Prasad Singh v. Union of India
Coram: Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court criticised the Central Government's failure to specify the range of rates within which private hospitals and clinical establishments can charge for their treatment services. Although a rule in this regard was framed twelve years ago, the Court noted that it has not been enforced yet.
Case Details: Navneet Kaur Harbhajansingh Kundles @ Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2741-2743/2024
Coram: Justices JK Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol
In a plea over the cancellation of Amravati MP Navneet Kaur Rana's 'Mochi' caste certificate, the Supreme Court reserved its judgment.
Case Title: BAR OF INDIAN LAWYERS THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT JASBIR SIGH MALIK vs. D.K.GANDHI PS NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASES., Diary No.- 27751 - 2007
Coram: Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), which has intervened in this matter, brought out four important aspects to argue that these services would not come under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. One of the aspects was that lawyers do not have control over the environment in which services are rendered. Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, representing the advocates' body, explained this by saying how the same can be controlled in other professions.
Case Title: Meena v. State of UP, SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 9265/2024
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta
In a swift response to the recent demolitions of commercial spaces in Lucknow's Akbar Nagar, multiple petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the legality of the demolition orders.
Case Title: BAR OF INDIAN LAWYERS THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT JASBIR SIGH MALIK vs. D.K.GANDHI PS NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASES., Diary No.- 27751 - 2007
Coram: Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court reserved judgment on the issue of whether advocates can be held liable under the Consumer Protection Act for deficiency of services. The Bench heard the matter. On the final day, Senior Advocate V Giri, the amicus curiae in the matter, addressed the bench.
Case Details: Anjuman Intazamia Masazid Varanasi v. First Additional District Judge Varanasi & Ors. | Diary No. 2265 of 2024
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
In the latest development in the Gyanvapi dispute, the mosque committee has moved the Supreme Court challenging an Allahabad High Court order holding that a batch of civil suits by Hindu parties pending before a Varanasi civil court are not barred by the Places of Worship Act, 1991. This suit, filed in 1991 by Hindu worshippers and on behalf of deities, seek the right to worship in the Gyanvapi mosque and the restoration of the temple at the disputed site.
The Supreme Court agreed to post on March 7, 2024, the petition filed by a member of Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) challenging the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker's refusal to disqualify the MLAs belonging to Eknath Shinde group.
Case Title: Tushar Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh | Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 406 of 2023
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
In the latest development in the Muzaffarnagar student slapping case, the State of Uttar Pradesh informed the Supreme Court that it has complied with the recommendations made by the Tata Institute of Social Studies (TISS) on counseling the other children involved in the incident.
Another concern raised was the reimbursement for travel expenses, which, according to the petitioner's lawyer, Advocate Shadan Farasat, had been halted by the state government. While refusing to pass a formal order, Justice Oka categorically stated that the amount must be released. The judge also suggested exploring the option of collaborating with charitable organizations for financial assistance.
Patents Act Prevails Over Competition Act? Supreme Court Issues Notice On CCI's Petition
Case Title: Competition Commission of India v. Monsanto Holdings Pvt Ltd | Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.25026/2023
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra considered the matter.
The Supreme Court issued notice on a petition filed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) against the Delhi High Court's decisions, holding that the Patents Act, 1970 must prevail over the Competition Act, 2002 on the issue of the exercise of rights by a patentee. The Court will be considering the legal nuances of the Right of the patentee as opposed to the powers of the Competition Commission in probing when there is an abuse of such patent.
