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 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 ...

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

Shruti Kakkar

Tags