Supreme Court Weekly Round Up, August 30 To September 5, 2021

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Conditions To Attract Presumption As To Abetment Of Suicide By Married Woman U/s 113A Evidence Act: Supreme Court ExplainsCase: Gumansinh @ Lalo @ Raju Bhikhabhai Chauhan Vs. State Of Gujarat ; CrA 940-941 OF 2021Citation: LL 2021 SC 415The Supreme Court observed that to attract the applicability of Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, three conditions are required to be fulfilled: first, the woman has committed suicide; second, suicide committed within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and third, the charged-accused had subjected her to cruelty.If all the three conditions stand fulfilled, presumption can be drawn against the accused and if he could not rebut the presumption by leading evidence, he can be convicted, the bench observed.The bench observed that the Court has to appreciate the evidence of any interested witness it has to be very cautious in weighing their evidence or in other words, the evidence of an interested witness requires a scrutiny with utmost care and caution. 2. Magistrate While Accepting Chargesheet Has To Invariably Issue Summons And Not Arrest Warrant: Supreme CourtCase: Aman Preet Singh vs. CBI ; CrA 929 OF 2021Citation: LL 2021 SC 416The Supreme Court observed that, while accepting charge-sheet, the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest.The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M Sundresh also observed that, if an accused in a non-bailable offence has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, it would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail to suddenly direct his arrest merely because charge sheet has been filed.3. Employee Not Estopped From Challenging Terms & Conditions Of Employment If It Violates Statutory Requirement: Supreme CourtCase: Somesh Thapliyal Vs. Vice Chancellor, H.N.B. Garhwal University ; CA 3922-3925 OF 2017Citation: LL 2021 SC 414The Supreme Court observed that employee is not estopped from questioning terms and condition of employment at a stage where he finds himself aggrieved."It is open for the employee to challenge the conditions if it is not being in conformity with the statutory requirement under the law and he is not estopped from questioning at a stage where he finds himself aggrieved.", the bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi observed.In this case, the teachers who were substantively appointed after going through the process of selection provided under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, had challenged the arbitrary conditions of the letter of appointment restricting it to be on contract basis limited for a period of three years in contravention to the statutory scheme of the Act. They filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that they are substantively appointed teachers(Associate Professor/ Assistant Professor) and members of service of the Central University HNB Garhwal University for all practical purposes, entitled for a pay scale and notional consequential benefits admissible to a regularly appointed teacher in the service of the Central University under the Act.4. Repeated Inquiries For Verification Of Caste Certificate Detrimental To SC-ST Members: Supreme CourtCase: J. Chitra vs. District Collector and Chairman State Level Vigilance Committee ; CA 5160 of 2010Citation: LL 2021 SC 413Repeated inquiries for verification of caste certificates would be detrimental to the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the Supreme Court observed.The bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose said that the purpose of verification of caste certificates by Scrutiny Committees is to avoid false and bogus claims and reopening of inquiry can be only in case they are vitiated by fraud or when they were issued without proper inquiry.5. Second Appeal- Question Of Law Doesn't Arise In Abstract; Mere Reference To Facts Does Not Amount To Reappreciation Of Evidence: Supreme CourtCase: Balasubramanian vs. M. Arockiasamy (dead) ; CA 2066 OF 2012Citation: LL 2021 SC 411The Supreme Court observed that merely because the High Court, while considering a second appeal, refers to certain factual aspects in the case to raise and conclude on the question of law, the same does not mean that the factual aspect and evidence has been re-appreciated.Question of law for consideration will not arise in abstract but in all cases will emerge from the facts peculiar to that case and there cannot be a strait jacket formula, the bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices AS Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy said.6. Repeat Of OBC Reservation In Mayor Post Before SC Reservation Not Violation Of Rotation Policy As Per Maharashtra Act : Supreme CourtCase Title : Sanjay Ramdas Patil v. Sanjay and othersCitation : LL 2021 SC 412The Supreme Court has set aside a judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) which had quashed a notification issued...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up, August 30 To September 5, 2021

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags