Supreme Court Weekly Round Up- December 6 To December 12, 2021

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Supreme Court Upholds RBI Regulations For Export Ban On PPE Kits; Says 'Well Being Of Masses Over Right To Business Of Few'Case Title : Akshay N Patel versus Reserve Bank of India and othersCitation : LL 2021 SC 711 The Supreme Court this week upheld the measures adopted by the Reserve Bank of India to implement the ban imposed by the Union Government on the export of Personal Protective Equipment(PPE) Kits in view of the COVID-19 pandemic.A bench comprising Justices Dr DY Chandrachud, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice BV Nagarathna rejected the argument of a business person that the restrictions amounted to violation of his fundamental right to freedom to trade and business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.The Supreme Court examined the restrictions on the basis of the "test of proportionality" evolved in cases like KS Puttaswamy and Modern Dental College. 2. CPC - Obstructor's Claims Over Decree Property Must Be Determined In Execution Proceedings And Not In Separate Suit : Supreme CourtCase Title: Bangalore Development Authority vs N. Nanjappa and anotherCitation : LL 2021 SC 712The Supreme Court of India has held that claims raised by an obstructor including questions relating to right, title or interest in the property in execution proceedings filed by the decree holder against the judgment debtor, has to be adjudicated upon by the Executing Court in the execution proceedings itself.The Bench has held that in accordance with Order XXI Rule 101 CPC, an application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 with respect to resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property have to be determined by the Court dealing with the application and for that a separate suit is not required to be filed. A Bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna has made the observations while delivering its judgement in a civil appeal filed by Bangalore Development Authority challenging the Karnataka High Court's order dismissing writ petitions filed by Bangalore Development Authority against the order passed by the Executing Court dismissing its applications under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC in Execution Case filed by the decree holder (R1) against the judgment debtor (R2) 3. Registration Of Document Subject To Adjudication Of Parties' Rights By Civil Court : Supreme CourtCase Title : Amudhavali and others versus P. Rukmani and others.Citation : LL 2021 SC 713The Supreme Court has reiterated that the registration of a document is always subject to the adjudication of the rights of the parties by the competent civil court."It is settled legal position that registration of document is always subject to adjudication of rights of the parties by the competent civil court", observed a bench comprising Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy in the case Amudhavali and others versus P. Rukmani and others.4. NCDRC Can Direct Deposit Of Entire Or More Than 50% Of Amount Determined By SCDRC For Stay : Supreme CourtCase Title : Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Private Ltd versus Sanjeev Kumar Sharma and othersCitation : LL 2021 SC 714In a significant judgment on the Consumer Protection Act 2019, the Supreme Court held that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission(NCDRC) can direct the deposit of the entire amount or more than 50% of the amount determined by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for conditional stay.The Court added that however to pass such an order, the NCDRC has to pass a speaking order assigning cogent reasons. A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna laid down this dictum in a case involving the interpretation of Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, which prescribes pre-deposit for filing appeal before the NCDRC. 5. Sec 120B IPC - Not Safe To Convict A Person For Criminal Conspiracy In Absence Of Evidence Showing Meeting Of Minds : Supreme CourtCase Title: Parveen @Sonu v State of Haryana| Criminal Appeal No.1571 Of 2021Citation : LL 2021 SC 715The Supreme Court has observed that in absence of any evidence to show meeting of minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act, it is not safe to hold a person guilty for offences under Section 120-B of IPC.The bench of Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy was considering a criminal appeal against the judgement dated March 17, 2020, passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court ("impugned order"). By way of the impugned order the High Court had dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant / accused and upheld the conviction and order of sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari.The bench thus observed that the prosecution had failed to prove its case, that the appellant herein, had conspired with other accused for the offences for which he was charged.6. 'Forum Shopping Cannot Be Approved; A Ground To Refuse Relief' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Interim BailCase Title: State of Maharashtra vs Pankaj Jagshi ...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up- December 6 To December 12, 2021

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags