Supreme Court Weekly Round Up, August 9 To August 15, 2021

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Improper To Quash FIR U/s 482 CrPC When There Are Serious Triable Allegations In Complaint, Reiterates Supreme CourtCase: Kaptan Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh; CrA 787 OF 2021Citation: LL 2021 SC 379The Supreme Court observed that it is improper to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code when there are serious triable allegations in the complaint.Appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC, the Supreme Court reiterated while setting aside a High Court judgment.In this case, pursuant to direction of Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC, the police registered FIR against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC. The complaint pertained to non-execution of a sale deed. The accused approached the High Court seeking quashing of FIR and entire criminal proceedings alleging that the same has been lodged only with a view to pressurize the accused handover the plot to the complainant. The High Court allowed the petition.2. Payment Of Gratuity Act - No Retrospective Effect For 2010 Amendment Enhancing Gratuity Upper Limit As Rs 10 Lakhs : Supreme CourtCase: Krishna Gopal Tiwary vs Union of India ; CA 4744 OF 2021Citation: LL 2021 SC 378The Supreme Court has observed that 2010 amendment of Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 is not retrospective.As per the 2010 amendment, the upper-limit of amount of gratuity payable as per Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 was increased as Rupees 10 lakhs from Rupees 3.5 lakhs.The bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna observed that the benefit of higher gratuity is one-time available to the employees only after the commencement of the Amending Act.3. Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Services Rules 2017 Has No Retrospective Operation: Supreme CourtCase: Anand Kumar Tiwari vs High Court of Madhya Pradesh ; WPC 675 of 201Citation: LL 2021 SC 376The Supreme Court observed that Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2017, has no retrospective operation.The roster shall be prepared and maintained only after the commencement of operation of the Rules, the bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose observed. After the introduction of the 2017 Rules, seniority inter-se direct recruits and promotees shall be determined on the basis of Roster, the court added.The court, however, observed that the delay to bring the seniority rule in accord with the directions given in All India Judges' Association case, is not justified.4. There Cannot Be Repeated Test Identification Parades Till Accused Is Identified: Supreme CourtCase: Umesh Chandra vs. State of Uttarakhand; CrA 801 OF 2021Citation: LL 2021 SC 374The Supreme Court observed that there cannot be repeated Test Identification Parades till such time that the prosecution is successful in obtaining identification of the accused.The bench of Justices Navin Sinha and R. Subhash Reddy observed that mere identification in the test identification parade cannot form the substantive basis for conviction unless there are other facts and circumstances corroborating the identification. It reiterated that a test identification parade under Section 9 of the Evidence Act is not substantive evidence in a criminal prosecution but is only corroborative evidence.5. Right To Shelter Does Not Mean Right To Government Accommodation: Supreme CourtCase: Union of India vs Onkar Nath Dhar ; CA 6619 OF 2014Citation: LL 2021 SC 372The right to shelter does not mean right to government accommodation, the Supreme Court observed while setting aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court order allowing a retired Intelligence Bureau Officer to retain Government accommodation.The court observed that government accommodation is meant for serving officers and officials and not to the retirees as a benevolence and distribution of largesse. The bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna added that compassion howsoever genuine does not give a right to a retired person from continuing to occupy a government accommodation.The court also directed the Centre to submit a report of the action taken against the retired Government officials who are in Government accommodation post their retirement by virtue of the orders of the High Courts on or before 15.11.2021.6. Application For Initiating CIRP Has To Be Rejected If A Dispute Truly Exists In Fact And Is Not Spurious, Hypothetical Or Illusory: Supreme CourtCase: Kay Bouvet Engineering Ltd. vs Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India) Private Limited ; CA 1137 OF 2019Citation: LL 2021 SC 370The Supreme Court observed that adjudicating authority has to reject an application seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, if a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory.The bench of Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up, August 9 To August 15, 2021

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags