Supreme Court Weekly Round Up: April 25 To April 30, 2022

Supreme Court Judgements 1. 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 The Supreme Court has held that the rule that employees cannot raise a dispute relating to date of birth at the fag end of their service is equally applicable to employers as well. A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Aniruddha Bose set aside the decision of Hindustan Copper Ltd, a Public Sector Undertaking, to reduce the VRS benefits to an employee by altering his date of birth. 2. Anganwadi Workers & Helpers Are Entitled To Payment Of Gratuity As Anganwadi Centres Are "Establishments" Under 1972 Act : Supreme Court Case Title : Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya versus District Development Officer Dahod and others Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 408 In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has held that Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers are entitled to the payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. "The 1972 Act will apply to Anganwadi centres and in turn to AWWs(Anganwadi Workers) and AWHs(Anganwadi Helpers)", a bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka held while allowing the appeals filed against a judgment delivered by a division bench of the Gujarat High Court. Also Read: "Expected To Render Important Services To Society, But Being Paid Very Meagre Remuneration" : Supreme Court On Plight Of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers 3. Arbitral Tribunal Can Grant Post Award Interest On Interest Component Included In The Sum Of The Award: Supreme Court Case Title: Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd v. U.B. Engineering Ltd and Anr. SLP(C) Nos. 24912-24913 of 2013 Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 409 The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna held that the arbitral tribunal can grant post-award interest on the sum of the award which also includes the interest component. The Court reiterated that the word sum used under Section 31(7) of the A&C Act includes the interest awarded on the substantive claims, therefore, the post award interest would be on both the amount awarded in respect of the substantive claims and the interest awarded on such claims. 4. Panchayath/Municipality Which Claims That A Land Was Voluntarily Surrendered Has Burden To Prove It : Supreme Court Case Name: Kalyani (D) vs Sulthan Bathery Municipality | CA 3189 of 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 410 The Supreme Court bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath has observed that the burden to prove that there was a voluntary surrender of land is on the panchayat/municipality which raises such a claim. 5. Prosecution Under UP Gangsters Act Permissible Even In Case Of A Single FIR/Charge-sheet for Anti-Social Activities: Supreme Court Case Title: Shraddha Gupta vs State of Uttar Pradesh | CrA 569-570 of 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 411 The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna has observed that there can be prosecution against a person under Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, even in case of a single offence/FIR/charge sheet for any of the anti-social activities mentioned in section 2(b) of the Act. 6. Inheritance Under Mizo Customary Law Depends On Responsibility Carried Out By Legal Heir To Look After Elders : Supreme Court Case Title: Smt. Kaithuami [L] vs Smt. Ralliani| CA 7159-7160 of 2008 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 412 The Supreme Court observed that the inheritance under Mizo customary law depends upon the responsibility carried out by a legal heir to look after the elders in the family. The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai agreed with the view taken in a 2012 judgment of Gauhati High Court that under Mizo customary law "even if a natural heir does not support his parents, he would not be entitled to inheritance and that "even if there is a natural heir, a person who supports the person until his death could inherit the properties of that person". 7. High Courts Should Be Slow To Grant Relief Of Quashing Complaint U/Sec 138 NI Act At A Pre Trial Stage: Supreme Court Case Title: Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan vs State (Govt Of NCT Of Delhi)| CrA 694-695 OF 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 413 The Supreme Court observed that a High Court should be slow to grant the relief of quashing a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act at a pre-trial stage. In a situation where the accused moves Court for quashing even before trial has commenced, the Court's approach should be careful enough to not to prematurely extinguish the case by disregarding the legal presumption which supports the complaint, the bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy said. 8. BCI May...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up: April 25 To April 30, 2022

Shruti Kakkar

Tags