Supreme Court Weekly Round Up: April 18 To April 24, 2022

Shruti Kakkar

24 April 2022 8:00 AM GMT

  • Whatsapp
  • Linkedin
  • Whatsapp
  • Linkedin
  • Whatsapp
  • Linkedin
    • Whatsapp
    • Linkedin
    • Whatsapp
    • Linkedin
    • Whatsapp
    • Linkedin
  • Supreme Court Weekly Round Up: April 18 To April 24, 2022

    Supreme Court Judgements 1. Victim Has The Right To Be Heard At Every Stage From Investigation To Culmination Of Trial In Appeal/Revision : Supreme Court Case Title: Jagjeet Singh And Ors. v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu And Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 632 of 2022] Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 376 The Supreme Court has held that a 'victim' as defined under Section 2(wa) of...

    Supreme Court Judgements

    1. Victim Has The Right To Be Heard At Every Stage From Investigation To Culmination Of Trial In Appeal/Revision : Supreme Court

    Case Title: Jagjeet Singh And Ors. v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu And Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 632 of 2022]

    Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 376

    The Supreme Court has held that a 'victim' as defined under Section 2(wa) of the Code of the Criminal Procedure. 1973 has a right to be heard at every step post the occurrence of the offence, including the stage of adjudication of bail application of the accused.

    Also Read: No Accused Can Be Subjected To Unending Detention Pending Trial : Supreme Court Affirms Right To Seek Bail

    2. Onus To Prove That Employee Was Not Gainfully Employed During Period Of Dismissal Is On Employer : Supreme Court

    Case Title: Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology & Natural History, Coimbatore vs Dr. Mathew K. Sebastian | SLP(C) 5218/2022

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 377

    The Supreme Court has observed that the onus to prove that an employee was not gainfully employed elsewhere when his service was terminated is on the employer. An employee is not required to prove the negative that he was not gainfully employed.

    Once he asserts that he is not gainfully employed, thereafter the onus will shift to the employer positively and it would be for the employer to prove that the employee was gainfully employed, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.

    3. Interim Order Comes To An End With The Dismissal Of Proceedings: Supreme Court

    Case Title: State of UP vs Prem Chopra | CA 2417 OF 2022

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 378

    The Supreme Court observed that a stay order is not wiped out from existence, unless it is quashed in the main proceedings.

    Once the proceedings, wherein a stay was granted, are dismissed, any interim order granted earlier merges with the final order, the bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath observed. The interim order comes to an end with the dismissal of proceedings.

    4. Owner Can Bequeath Properties Even To Strangers By Will: Supreme Court

    Case Title: Saroja Ammal vs M Deenadayalan | CA 2828 OF 2022

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 379

    The Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian has reiterated that an absolute owner of a property is entitled to bequeath his properties by Will in favour of strangers.

    5. Supreme Court Extends Use Of Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centres To All Jurisdictions Including Civil, Family Cases

    Case Title: Smruti Tukaram Badade v. The State Of Maharashtra and Anr

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 380

    The Supreme Court bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Aniruddha Bose requested the High Courts to respond to the Model Guidelines for Vulnerable Witnesses Deposition Centres (VWDCs) circulated to the Chief Justices of High Courts by 20th May, 2022, so that the Committee, chaired by Justice Ms. Gita Mittal, former Chief Justice of the Jammu And Kashmir High Court, appointed to implement an All India VWDC Training Programme, can provide a uniform national model for implementation.

    6. Gift Of Ancestral Property Of HUF Can Be For 'Pious Purpose' Only ; It Cannot Be 'Out Of Love & Affection': Supreme Court

    Case Title: KC Laxmana vs KC Chandrappa Gowda | CA 2582 OF 2010

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 381

    The Supreme Court observed that a Hindu father or any other managing member of a Hindu undivided Family has power to make a gift of ancestral property only for a 'pious purpose'.

    The bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari observed that the deed of gift in regard to the ancestral property executed 'out of love and affection' does not come within the scope of the term 'pious purpose'.

    The court also held that the term 'alienation' in Article 109 of the Limitation Act, 1963, includes 'gift' also.

    7. IBC - Wages/Salaries Of Only Those Workmen/Employees Who Actually Worked During CIRP Are To Be Included In CIRP Costs: Supreme Court

    Case Title: Sunil Kumar Jain vs Sundaresh Bhatt| | CA 5910 OF 2019

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 382

    The Supreme Court held that the dues towards the wages/salaries of only those workmen/employees who actually worked during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process(CIRP) are to be included in the CIRP costs.

    The court clarified that the wages and salaries of all other workmen/employees of the Corporate Debtor during the CIRP who actually have not worked and/or performed their duties when the Corporate Debtor was a going concern, shall not be included automatically in the CIRP costs. Such dues will be governed by Section 53(1)(b) and Section 53(1) (c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose observed.

    8. Pre Deposit Of 75% Of Awarded Amount As Per Section 19 MSMED Act Is Mandatory To Challenge The Award : Supreme Court

    Case Title: Tirupati Steels vs Shubh Industrial Component | CA 2941 OF 2022

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 383

    The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed that the pre deposit of 75% of the awarded amount as per section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006, is mandatory to challenge the award under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

    9. Supreme Court Deprecates Recent Trend Of Courts Deciding Bail Pleas Without Giving Specific Reasons

    Case Title: Ms. Y vs State of Rajasthan | CrA 649 of 2022

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 384

    While setting aside the bail granted to a rape-accused, the Supreme Court expressed concerns at the "recent trend" of Courts passing bail orders without providing sufficient reasons.

    "There is a recent trend of passing such orders granting or refusing to grant bail, where the Courts make a general observation that "the facts and the circumstances" have been considered. No specific reasons are indicated which precipitated the passing of the order by the Court. Such a situation continues despite various judgments of this Court wherein this Court has disapproved of such a practice", the Court observed.

    The bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justice Krishna Murari observed that the High Court Court has not considered any of the relevant factors for grant of bail.

    10. DHJS - Supreme Court Reduces Service Years Criteria For Civil Judges To Seek Promotion As District Judges Through LDCE

    Case Title: All India Judges Association And Ors v. Union of India And Ors. WP(C) No. 1022 of 1989

    Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 385

    The Supreme Court bench of Justices LN Rao and BR Gavai modified its previous orders regarding the eligibility criteria for Civil Judges in Delhi Judicial Service to seek promotion to the cadre of District Judges through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE).

    11. Practice Of Pronouncing Final Orders Without A Reasoned Judgment Has To Be Stopped And Discouraged: Supreme Court

    Case Title: Indrajeet Yadav vs Santosh Singh | CrA 577 of 2022

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 386

    The Supreme Court reiterated that the practice of pronouncing the final orders without a reasoned judgment has to be stopped and discouraged.

    Despite the strong observations made by this Court as far as back in the year 1984 and thereafter repeatedly reiterated, still the practice of pronouncing only the operative portion of the judgment without a reasoned judgment and to pass a reasoned judgment subsequently has been continued", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed while setting aside a judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court.

    12. Only That Part Of Statement Of Accused Which Leads To Section 27 Recovery Should Be Recorded : Supreme Court

    Case Title: Venkatesh @ Chandra vs State of Karnataka | CrA 1476-1477 OF 2018

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 387

    The Supreme Court in a judgment criticized the practice of prosecuting agencies recording the entire statement of the accused rather than only that part of the statement which leads to the discovery of facts as per Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

    "Such kind of statements may have a direct tendency to influence and prejudice the mind of the Court. This practice must immediately be stopped.", the bench comprising Justices U U Lalit and P S Narasimha observed.

    Also Read: TV Channel Debates On Matters Relating To Criminal Trial Amount To Direct Interference In Administration Of Criminal Justice: Supreme Court

    13. Supreme Court Deprecates Practice Of Disposal Of Writ Petitions Without Deciding It On Merits

    Case Title: State of Uttarakhand vs Mayan Pal Singh Verma | CA 2905 OF 2022

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 388

    The Supreme Court deprecated the practice of disposal of writ petition without deciding it on merits. The court reiterated that a High Court has a duty to deal with grounds/issues raised in a writ petition. The bench comprising Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna rendered the observation while considering an appeal filed against Uttarakhand High Court judgment.

    14. Arbitral Tribunal Can't Direct Interim Deposit Of Amount In Dispute When Liability To Pay Is Seriously Disputed : Supreme Court

    Case Name: Evergreen LandMark Pvt. Ltd. v. John Tinson And Company Pvt. Ltd. And Anr| Civil Appeal No. 2783 of 2022

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 389

    The Supreme Court bench of Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna held that the Arbitral Tribunal cannot pass an order by way of interim measure under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to deposit the amount involved in the dispute, in a case where the liability to pay such an amount is seriously disputed and the same is yet to be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal.

    15. Every Sinner Has A Future": Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence Imposed On Man For Rape & Murder Of 4 Year Old Girl

    Case Title: Mohd Firoz vs State of Madhya Pradesh | CrA 612 OF 2019

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 390

    The Supreme Court has commuted the death sentence awarded to a man accused of rape and murder of four year old girl. The bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela M. Trivedi observed that the maximum punishment prescribed may not always be the determinative factor for repairing the crippled psyche of the offender.

    16. Doctors Cannot Be Held Liable For Medical Negligence Merely Because They Could Not Save The Patient : Supreme Court

    Case details: Dr. Chanda Rani Akhouri vs Dr. M.A. Methusethupathi | CA 6507 OF 2009

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 391

    The Supreme Court observed that merely because doctors could not save the patient, he/she cannot be held liable for medical negligence.

    "The doctors are expected to take reasonable care, but no professional can assure that the patient will come back home after overcoming the crisis" the bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka observed.

    17. Member Of Disciplined Force Expected To Control Mind & Passion" : SC Upholds SSB Constable's Removal For Entering Women Barracks At Night

    Case Title : Anil Kumar Upadhyay versus The Director General, SSB and others

    Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 392

    The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna affirmed the penalty of removal from service imposed on a Head Constable from the Sashastra Seema Bal(SSB) - a Central Armed Police Force guarding border - for entering the women barracks at midnight. The punishment of "removal from service" was imposed on him for "violation of good order and discipline" by entering the Mahila Barack at midnight. He was charged with indiscipline and misconduct leading to the compromise of the security of the Mahila Barack. He had entered the Mahila Barack allegedly to meet a friend, when he was apprehended by six women constables.

    18. Appointments Made In Contravention Of Statutory Provisions Are Void Ab Initio : Supreme Court

    Case Title: State of Odisha vs Sulekh Chandra Pradhan | CA 3036-­3064 OF 2022

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 393

    The Supreme Court bench of Justices LN Rao and BR Gavai have observed that the appointments made in contravention of the statutory provisions are void ab initio.

    19. Accused Cannot Claim Blanket Exemption From Personal Appearance In Cases Under Section 138 NI Act: Supreme Court

    Case Name: Mahesh Kumar Kejriwal vs Bhanuj Jindal | SLP (Crl) 3382/2022

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 394

    The Supreme Court bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose has observed that an accused cannot claim a blanket exemption from appearance in a case pertaining to the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

    20. Relief Of Possession Is Ancillary To Decree For Specific Performance And Need Not Be Specifically Claimed; Section 22(2) Specific Relief Act Is Directory : Supreme Court

    Case Title: Manickam @ Thandapani vs Vasantha |CA 2726 OF 2022

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 395

    The Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian held that Section 22(2) of the Specific Relief Act is only directory provision and the relief of possession is ancillary to the decree for specific performance and need not be specifically claimed.

    21. Section 482 CrPC- Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Quashed Merely Because Complaint Was Lodged By Political Rival: Supreme Court

    Case Title: Ramveer Upadhyay vs State of UP | SLP(Crl) 2953 OF 2022

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 396

    The Supreme Court observed that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. only because the complaint was lodged by a political rival.

    The fact that the complaint may have been initiated by reason of political vendetta is not in itself grounds for quashing the criminal proceedings, the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and AS Bopanna observed.

    22. Insider Trading Can't Be Presumed Due To Proximity Between Parties; Onus To Prove Is On SEBI : Supreme Court

    Case Name: Balram Garg v. Securities and Exchange Board of India| Civil Appeal No. 7054 of 2021

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 397

    The Supreme Court has held that insider trading cannot be presumed merely on the basis of proximity between the parties.

    The Court held 'communication' of Unpublished Price Sensitive Information under Regulation 3(1) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading), 2015 ought to be proved by producing cogent materials, like, letters, emails, witnesses etc. and not be deemed owing to the alleged proximity between the parties. The Court further held that the onus is on the SEBI to prove such communication.

    A Bench comprising Justices Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose allowed appeals filed assailing the order of the Securities Appellate Tribunal, which had upheld the order of the Whole Time Member of SEBI, penalising the appellants for insider trading.

    23. Interest On Delayed Refunds Covered Under Principal Provision Of Section 56 Of CGST Act Cannot Exceed 6%: Supreme Court

    Case Name: Union of India And Ors. v. M/s. Willowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.| Civil Appeal No. 2995-2996 of 2022

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 398

    The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, held that in cases of delayed refund of integrated tax paid on export of goods governed by the principal provision of Section 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the interest would be payable at the rate of 6% as prescribed by the statute, especially when the delay was not inordinate.

    "...wherever a statute specifies or regulates the interest, the interest will be payable in terms of the provisions of the statute. Wherever a statute, on the other hand, is silent about the rate of interest and there is no express bar for payment of interest, any delay in paying the compensation or the amounts due, would attract award of interest at a reasonable rate on equitable grounds."

    A Bench comprising Justices U.U. Lalit and S. Ravindra Bhat allowed appeals filed by the Union of India to reduce the interest granted by the Gujarat High Court for delay in refunds of integrated tax paid on export of goods from 9% to 6%.

    24. Car Manufacturer Liable For Punitive Damages If Airbag System Did Not Meet Safety Standards As Perceived By Consumer Of Reasonable Prudence : Supreme Court

    Case Name: Hyundai Motor India Limited vs Shailendra Bhatnagar | CA 3001 OF 2022

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 399

    The Supreme Court observed that the failure to provide an airbag system which would meet the safety standards as perceived by a car­buyer of reasonable prudence should be subject to punitive damages which can have deterrent effect.

    "A consumer is not meant to be an expert in physics calculating the impact of a collision on the theories based on velocity and force", the bench comprising Justices Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose observed.

    25. Supreme Court Upholds Constitutional Validity Of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act

    Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs 63 Moons Technologies Ltd |CA 2748-49

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 400

    In its judgment upholding the attachment of properties of 63 Moons Technologies, the Supreme Court also rejected the challenge against the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act 1999.

    26. Presiding Judge Should Give Adequate Reasons In Opinion On Sentence Remission U/Sec 433(2) CrPC : Supreme Court

    Case Title: Ram Chander vs State of Chhattisgarh | WP (Crl) 49 of 2022

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 401

    The Supreme Court observed that a presiding officer of the sentencing court while giving opinion on a remission application should give adequate reasons. Inadequate reasons in the opinion of the presiding officer of the sentencing court would not satisfy the requirements of Section 432 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Aniruddha Bose observed.

    27. Testimony Of A Witness In A Criminal Trial Cannot Be Discarded Merely Because Of Minor Contradictions Or Omissions: Supreme Court

    Case Title: Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh @ Seth Singh vs State of Bihar | CrA 150 OF 2020

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 402

    The Supreme Court observed that the testimony of a witness in a criminal trial cannot be discarded merely because of minor contradictions or omissions.

    The bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli also observed that medical evidence adduced by the prosecution has great corroborative value.

    28. Section 27 Recovery Must Satisfy Court's Conscience; Prosecution May At Times Take Advantage Of Custody Of Accused By Other Means : Supreme Court

    Case Title: Jafarudheen & Ors. v State of Kerala| Criminal Appeal No 430 of 2015

    Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 403

    The Supreme Court bench of bench Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh has acquitted 4 persons affiliated to the National Development Front(NDF) in a case related to the murder of a member of the Communist Party of India(Marxist)(CPI(M)) in Kerala in 2002. The Court set aside the verdict of the High Court which had reversed the acquittal of these 4 accused by the trial court.

    The Court added that it must be cautious in dealing with Section 27 recoveries as "one cannot lose sight of the fact that the prosecution may at times take advantage of the custody of the accused, by other means".

    29. No Leniency To Employee Merely Because He Deposited Defrauded Amount And No Loss Was Caused To Department : Supreme Court

    Case Title: Union of India and Ors vs M. Duraisamy, CA 2665/2022

    Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 404

    While setting aside the order substituting the removal of an employee to that of compulsory retirement, the Supreme Court observed that punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority can't be substituted merely on grounds that the employee had voluntarily deposited the defrauded amount.

    "Being a public servant in the post office, the delinquent officer was holding the post of trust. Merely because subsequently the employee had deposited the defrauded amount and therefore there was no loss caused to the department cannot be a ground to take a lenient view and/or to show undue sympathy in favour of such an employee", the Court said.

    A bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna made the observation in Union of India's special leave petition challenging Madras High Court's order confirming the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal modifying the punishment imposed on a postal assistant from dismissal/removal from service to compulsory retirement.

    30. To Claim Backwages, Dismissed Employees Must Plead That They Were Not Gainfully Employed; Only Then Burden Shifts To Employer : Supreme Court

    Case Name: Allahabad Bank And Ors. v. Avtar Bhushan Bhartiya| SLP (Civil) No. 32554 of 2018

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 405

    The Supreme Court has held that an employee whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is obligated to either plead or at least make a statement at the first instance that they were not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages after being dismissed from service. It added that only then the burden would shift to the employer to prove otherwise.

    A Bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian dismissed appeals assailing the order of the Allahabad High Court, which had set aside the penalty order passed by the disciplinary authority of Allahabad Bank and directed reinstatement of its delinquent officer with 50% back wages and all consequential benefits.

    31.Ad Hoc Employee Can't Be Replaced By Another Ad Hoc Employee; Can Be Replaced Only By Regular Employee : Supreme Court

    Case Title : Manish Gupta and another versus Jan Bhagidari Samiti and others

    Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 406

    The Supreme Court bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai has reiterated that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and can be replaced by only a regularly appointed candidate.

    "It is a settled principle of law that an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and he can be replaced only by another candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed", the Court observed.

    32. Employers Can't Dispute Employees' Date Of Birth At Fag End Of Their Service : Supreme Court

    Case Title : Shankar Lal versus Hindustan Copper Ltd and others

    Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 407

    Supreme Court Updates

    1. Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted To Ashish Mishra In Lakhmipur Kheri Case; Asks Him To Surrender

    The Supreme Court on Monday set aside the Allahabad High Court order granting bail granted to Ashish Mishra, son of Union Minister Ajay Mishra, in the Lakhimpur Kheri case.

    Holding that the High Court passed the order taking into account irrelevant considerations and denying the right of hearing to the victim, the Court set aside the bail order and asked Mishra to surrender within a week.

    The bail application has been remanded back to the High Court for fresh decision on merits after taking note of relevant considerations and after affording right of hearing to the victim.

    Also Read: "Tearing Hurry, Myopic View" : Supreme Court On HC Order Granting Bail To Ashish Mishra In Lakhimpur Kheri Case

    2. 'Don't Demolish Houses Of Accused As Punitive Measure' : Islamic Clerics Body Moves Supreme Court

    Amid the recent action taken by Madhya Pradesh authorities to use bulldozers to raze down the houses of persons accused of rioting during the Ram Navami celebrations, Islamic clerics body Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind has filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court seeking a direction that State authorities should not resort to "precipitative actions" against accused without following due process of law.

    3. Supreme Court Seeks "Clear Stand" Of Karnataka Govt On Lifting Curbs On Iron Ore Export

    While reserving orders on lifting the ban imposed on export of the iron ore in Karnataka and removal of the condition of sale only through e-auctions, the Supreme Court on Monday sought State of Karnataka's 'clear stand' with respect to these issues. The Court issued the direction after Addl. Advocate General Nikhil Goel appearing for the State of Karnataka submitted that the state is scheduled to consider these two issues in its cabinet meeting today, and will have a clear stand after the said meeting.

    4. Involve NGOs, Child Rights Activists In Identification Process Of Children In Streets : Supreme Court Tells NCPCR

    The Supreme Court, on Monday, asked the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights ("NCPCR") to involve Non-Government Organisations and individuals working in the field of Child Rights in the process of identifying the Children in Street Situations ("CiSS"). It also enquired if the access to the Bal Swaraj portal set up by the NCPCR could be provided to such organisations.

    5. Supreme Court Seeks Status Reports From Centre, States On Registration Of Migrant Workers, Community Kitchens & Dry Ration

    The Supreme Court on Monday called for compliance reports from the Union of India and the State governments on what further actions have been taken to comply with its June, 2021 directions in a suo moto case dealing with the problems of migrant workers.

    6. Model Builder-Buyer Agreement : Supreme Court Asks States/UT's To Share Information Sought By Ministry Of Housing

    On a plea seeking a direction to the Center to frame model builder-buyer and agent-buyer agreements to ensure uniformity across the country, the Supreme Court on Monday directed the Chief Secretaries of States Union Territories to circulate the information sought by the the Secretary Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs by May 15, 2022.

    7. PG Medical Admissions : Supreme Court Directs MP Govt To Allot In-Service Quota Seat To Doctor Who Served Tribal, Naxalite Areas

    The Supreme Court on Monday granted relief to a lady doctor who served the tribal and Naxalite hit villages of the State of Madhya Pradesh for more than 11 years. A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant directed the State of Madhya Pradesh to treat her as an "in- service candidate" and allot her a seat in MS Obstetrics and Gynaecology in GMC, Bhopal.

    8. 'Don't Play Games With Us' : Supreme Court Pulls Up GainBitcoin Scam Accused For Non-Compliance Of Direction To Share Passwords, Usernames

    The Supreme Court on Monday deprecated GainBitcoin scam accused Amit Bhardwaj for not complying with the direction to disclose username and password of Crypto Currency Wallets to Enforcement Directorate ("ED"). "The dignity of the Supreme Court has to be maintained. We are not some Tis Hazari Court Court", a bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant told the counsel of the accused.

    9. Pleas Before Supreme Court Seek Court-Monitored Probe Into Communal Violence During Ram Navami, Hanuman Jayanti Celebrations

    In the backdrop of recent incidents of communal violence during Ram Navami and Hanuman Jayanti processions in different states of the country, three petitions have been filed before the Supreme Court of India seeking different reliefs including a court monitored investigation or transfer of probe to the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

    10. NEET Admissions : Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Seeking Time For Fresh Registration In NRI Quota Before Mop Up Counseling

    The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice in a petition filed by NRI students seeking time for fresh registration in the NRI quota before commencement of the Mop-Up counseling. The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant also asked the State of Kerala to apprise the bench about the seats that remain unfilled after the Mop Up round.

    11. Supreme Court Stays Take Over Of Mohammad Ali Jauhar University's Land By UP Govt Authorities

    The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the take over of land allotted to Mohammad Ali Jauhar University at Rampur. A bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar passed the interim order while issuing notice to the State of Uttar Pradesh on the Special Leave Petition filed by Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar Trust challenging the Allahabad High Court's refusal to interfere with the direction issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Rampur, for taking back nearly 400 acres of land allotted to the University. The Trust is headed by Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan.

    12. Delhi-Dehradun Expressway Project : Supreme Court Reconstitutes Oversight Committee

    The Supreme Court on Tuesday reconstituted the expert committee formed by the National Green Tribunal to oversee the compensatory afforestation for the Delhi-Dehradun Expressway project by including additional members.

    The Court directed that the Chairperson of the Committee will be Mr.CP Goyal, Director-General of Forests, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change. As per the NGT order, the Chief Secretary of the Uttarakhand Government was the Committee Chairman. The Supreme Court clarified that the replacement of the Chairperson should not be seen as an expression of lack of confidence on the Uttarakhand Chief Secretary. The Court added that it is recasting the Committee to "ensure that a broad understanding is facilitated in carrying out the work of implementation".

    13. Plea To Ban Firecrackers : Supreme Court Posts For Final Disposal On April 26

    The Supreme Court on Tuesday decided to list the petitions filed seeking a ban on the sale, purchase and use of firecrackers in India on 26th April 2020 for final disposal

    A bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice Bopanna was considering the writ petition filed in 2015 by Arjun Gopal, Aarav Bhandari and Zoya Rao Bhasin, who were then aged between 6 months and 14 months, through their legal guardians, praying for urgent measures to bring down the "fatal" pollution level in the national capital, Delhi.

    Also Read: Judges Are Least Concerned If They Are Liked; We Don't Work For Certificates Of Others, But As Per Our Conscience : Justice MR Shah

    14. When Does Land Acquisition Proceedings Start Under 1894 Act For The Purposes Of Section 24(1) RFCTLARR Act? Supreme Court To Consider

    The Supreme Court on Tuesday considered whether the expression "proceedings" in section 24(1) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act is to be reckoned from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition 1894 or with the date of notification under Section 6 of the old Act.

    Also Read: When Does Land Acquisition Proceedings Start Under 1894 Act For The Purposes Of Section 24(1) RFCTLARR Act? SC Continues Hearing

    15. NEET-PG : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Not Shift Unfilled Quota Seats Of In-Service Compartment To Open/Direct Category

    The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a Special Leave Petition preferred by "in-service candidates" of the State of Madhya Pradesh seeking to not shift the unfilled seats of the reserved category in-service compartment to open/direct category.

    "There has to be some certainty in medical admission and some order in the lives of the students. HC has taken a view that on the interpretation of the rule, we'll be trusting the HC for the same. Now at the last minute for us to start, we'll have to grant a stay and everything will be dislocated. Let students pursue their education, you know," the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Sanjiv Khanna and Surya Kant orally observed.

    16. 'Bhaiya Is Back' Banners After Rape-Accused Got Bail: Supreme Court Reserves Orders In Plea Challenging Bail

    In the matter where Supreme Court had earlier taken serious note of banners being put up to welcome the release of a rape-accused on bail, the Court on Wednesday reserved its orders in plea by the prosecutrix challenging the bail granted to the accused.

    17. Supreme Court Agrees To Urgently Hear Plea To Clear Wage Arrears Of MGNREGA Workers

    The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to allow urgent listing of plea filed seeking directions to redress the situation of workers under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (MGNREGA) in the country. The petitioner is arguing that the pending wages of the MNREGA workers are piling up along with negative balances in funds of most of the states.

    18. Jahangirpuri Demolitions : CJI Asks Registry To Communicate Status Quo Order To NDMC & Police Immediately

    The Chief Justice of India on Wednesday directed the Supreme Court's registry to immediately communicate the status quo order to the authorities of the North Delhi Municipal Corporation with respect to the demolition drive at riots-hit Jahangirpuri area.

    Also Read: Supreme Court Orders Status Quo On Demolition Drive In Delhi's Jahangirpuri

    19. NEET-PG Counselling: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Permission To Participate In Mop-Up Round With Free Exit Option

    The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a writ petition filed by doctors who appeared in NEET-PG 2021-22 seeking permission to participate in Mop-Up round of counselling with a free exit option.

    20. Supreme Court Appoints Ex-Judge Justice AM Sapre To Assist Unitech Board Of Management In Sale Of Assets

    The Supreme Court on Wednesday appointed former Supreme Court Judge, Justice AM Sapre to assist the Board of Management of Unitech for the purpose of sale/monetization of the land assets.

    The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah appointed the former Supreme Court judge for ensuring that the procedure which has been proposed comports with the need to maintain transparency and is in the interest of realizing the best possible price of the assets which would fund the construction of units for homebuyers.

    21. Kerala Actor Assault Case: Supreme Court Issues Notice On Main Accused Pulsar Suni's Plea Seeking Bail

    The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice in plea by Sunil NS alias Pulsar Suni, co accused of Malayalam actor Dileep in the 2017 sexual assault case seeking bail.

    A bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela Trivedi issued notice in the special leave petition filed challenging Kerala High Court's order dated 29th March 2022 dismissing Suni's bail application.

    22. Will Take Serious View Of Demolitions After Mayor Was Informed Of Order" : Supreme Court Extends Status Quo Order On Jahangirpuri Demolitions

    The Supreme Court on Thursday extended until further orders the status quo order against the demolition drive launched by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation(NDMC) in the riot-hit Jahangirpuri area.

    A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai issued notice to the NDMC in the petition filed by the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and sought its counter-affidavit within 2 weeks.

    Also Read: "You Don't Want To Touch Unauthorized Constructions In Sainik Farms Or Golf Links, But Target The Poor In Jahangirpuri" : Dushyant Dave

    "You Require Bulldozers To Remove Stalls & Chairs?": Supreme Court Asks NDMC On Jahangirpuri Demolitions

    Jahangirpuri Demolition: Shop Owner Moves Supreme Court Against Demolition Of His Juice Shop, Seeks Compensation

    23. Supreme Court Orders Status Quo On Bombay HC Direction To Uber To Comply With Motor Vehicle Aggregators Guidelines

    In an interim relief to Uber India, the Supreme Court on Thursday directed status quo with respect to the March 7 order of the Bombay High Court that the cab aggregators should comply with Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines 2020.

    The Aggregator Guidelines were notified by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 93(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988.

    A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai passed the order while issuing notice on a special leave petition filed by Uber India Services Private Ltd against the High Court's order.

    24. Abu Salem's Plea Against Sentence Not Premature : Supreme Court Rejects MHA's Stance

    The stand taken by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs that it is not the "appropriate time" to decide the issue relating to the sovereign commitment made to Portugal while extraditing Abu Salem has irked the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court, on Thursday, expressed that it did not appreciate the tenor of the affidavit filed by the Union Home Secretary in the Abu Salem case with respect to the sovereign commitment made to Portugal at the time of his extradition that his sentence will not exceed 25 years.

    Also Read: Sovereign Commitment To Portugal Binding On India; But Abu Salem Can't Seek Its Benefit Before November 2030 : MHA Tells Supreme Court

    25. BCI May Allow Persons With Other Jobs To Provisionally Enrol As Advocates On Undertaking To Resign From Job Within 6 Months After Clearing AIBE : Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court, on Thursday, accepted the suggestion made by Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate KV Vishwanathan that persons engaged in other employments can be permitted to provisionally enrol with the concerned Bar Council and to appear in the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), and that upon clearing the AIBE, they can be given a period of 6 months to decide whether to join legal profession or continue with the other job.

    The Court said that the BCI may allow provisional enrolment for such persons with a window of 6 months for them to decide after clearing AIBE on giving up their employment to join legal practice.

    26. Karnataka Mining: Supreme Court To Appoint Former Judge Justice Sudarshan Reddy As Oversight Authority

    The Supreme Court on Thursday decided to appoint former Supreme Court Judge Justice B. Sudarshan Reddy as the oversight authority for implementation of the Comprehensive Environmental Plan for Mining Impact Zone (CEPMIZ) with regard to mining operations in the State of Karnataka.

    27. Decided To Give Reservation In Promotion To SC/ST Employees Cadre-Wise : Bihar Govt Tells Supreme Court

    The State of Bihar on Thursday informed the Supreme Court that it has decided now to give reservation in promotion to government employees belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes on the basis of "cadre".

    The submissions were made before the bench of Justices LN Rao and BR Gavai in an application seeking withdrawal of the civil appeals against the judgment of Patna High Court of declaring the resolution dated August 21, 2012 passed by the State which provided for reservation in promotion with consequential seniority as legally unsustainable.

    28. Arbitrators Raising Fees In The Middle Of Arbitration May Amount To Misconduct, Supreme Court Says During Hearing

    Hearing on the issue of fixation of standards for fees for arbitrators, the Supreme Court in order to render confidence in the whole process of arbitration, on Thursday expressed its inclination to hold that there must be an upfront determination of fees by the arbitrator.

    The bench further observed that the practice of the arbitrators demanding a raised fee in the middle should stop as this gives a very wrong name to the arbitrator.

    Also Read: Arbitrator's Can't Unilaterally Fix Fees At A Later Stage : Amicus Curiae Tells Supreme Court

    Arbitrators Must Say Upfront Their Fees For The Number Of Sittings, Opines Supreme Court During Hearing

    29. NEET- PG : Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Alleging Impersonation In Counseling

    The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice in a writ petition preferred by a NEET-PG aspirant alleging impersonation in the Counseling by a candidate who took admission in her name in the State of Karnataka.

    The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant while issuing notice requested Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati to assist the Court in this regard. The Bench also granted liberty to serve the Standing Counsel for the State of Karnataka.

    30. "File Better Affidavit" : Supreme Court Expresses Dissatisfaction At Delhi Police Stand That No Hate Speeches Were Made At Hindu Yuva Vahini Event

    The Supreme Court on Friday expressed its dissatisfaction at the affidavit filed by Delhi Police which stated that the speeches made by Sudarshan News TV Editor Suresh Chavhanke at the Hindu Yuva Vahini meet held in Delhi in December 2021 didn't amount to hate speech against any particular community.

    Also Read: Supreme Court To Hear Army Veteran's Plea For SIT Probe Into Alleged Hate Speech In Dharam Sansad Events

    31. Too Nascent A Stage For Us To Interfere" : Supreme Court Dismisses Nawab Malik's Plea Challenging ED Arrest In Money Laundering Case

    The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by Maharashtra Minister Nawab Malik challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

    The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant dismissed Malik's petition, which was filed against an order of the Bombay High Court which refused him interim relief in the habeas corpus petition filed by him challenging the arrest and the remand in the ED case.

    32. "Filed On Behalf Of 85% Citizens": PIL In Supreme Court Seeks Nationwide Ban On Halal Products

    A Public Interest Litigation petition has been filed in the Supreme Court of India seeking a nation-wide ban on Halal certified products and withdrawal of Halal certification. The petitioner, Advocate Vibhor Anand, stated that he is filing the PIL on behalf of "85% Citizens of the Country" on whom Halal products are being allegedly forced upon.

    33. IT Rules 2021 : Supreme Court Lists Centre's Transfer Petitions & Connected Cases On May 9

    The Supreme Court on Friday directed the listing of a batch of petitions related to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules, 2021) on May 9.

    The matters include the transfer petition filed by the Central Government seeking to transfer to the Supreme Court the petitions filed in different High Courts challenging the IT Rules.

    34. Hate Speech : Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response On Plea To Implement Law Commission Recommendations

    The Supreme Court on Friday sought the Centre's response to a petition seeking directions to regulate hate speech. The petition seeks directions to Centre to examine the international laws relating to 'Hate Speech' and 'Rumor Mongering' and take apposite effective stringent steps to control the same particularly amid elections, and to advise the concerned authorities to file appropriate response.

    35. Supreme Court To Hear Plea Challenging Demolition Of Jhuggis In Delhi's Sarojini Nagar On April 25

    The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to urgently list on 25th April the petition filed by jhuggi dwellers from Sarojini Nagar against the demolition/ eviction orders without rehabilitation or relocation of the Slum Dwellers. The petitioners have sought an ad-interim ex-parte order staying the operation of High Court's impugned judgment and demolition/eviction orders by Union of India dated 04.04.2022.

    36. Install Bird Diverters In Power Lines By July 20 : Supreme Court Directs Gujarat & Rajasthan To Protect Great Indian Bustard

    The Supreme Court has directed the power producers in Gujarat and Rajasthan to take necessary steps to ensure timely completion of installation of bird diverters in power transmission lines to protect the endangered birds Great Indian Bustard and Lesser Florican from deaths due to collision.

    37. Supreme Court Raps VC & Registrar Of Garhwal Central University For Failing To Treat Substantively Appointed Teachers At Par With Regularly Appointed Teachers

    The Supreme Court recently rapped the Vice Chancellor and Registrar of Garhwal Central University on their failure to treat the teachers who were substantively appointed at par with regularly appointed teacher for the purpose of pay scale and notional consequential benefits.

    While granting one more opportunity to comply with the order dated September 3, 2021 the bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar in their order said,

    "We make it clear that once there was a positive direction to comply with the order within the specified period, the authorities are duty bound to comply, failing which their action may be treated to be deliberate disobedience and this Court may take cognizance of alleged contempt of the order of this Court."

    Next Story