• Enforcement Directorate Has No Right To Impound Passport [Assistant Director Enforcement Directorate v. Ashok Ramchander Chugani & Anr.]

The Supreme Court has reiterated that the Enforcement Directorate has no right to impound the passport and the same can only be impounded by the Passport Authorities. The division bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Indira Banerjee was considering the appeal filed by the Enforcement Directorate against the Bombay High Court order upholding the order of Special Judge who directed it to return of Passport, Resident permit, PAN Card of Ashok Ramchander Chugani.

● [Section 340 CrPC] Is Preliminary Inquiry Mandatory Before A Complaint U/s 195 CrPC Is Made? SC Refers To Larger Bench [The State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh]

The Supreme Court referred to a larger bench the issue whether Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates a preliminary inquiry and an opportunity of hearing to the would-be accused before a complaint is made under Section 195 of the Code by a Court? The bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar also referred the question on the scope and ambit of such preliminary inquiry.

● Disciplinary Action Against Employee For Conviction In Criminal Case Not Barred Due To Suspension Of Sentence [LIC v. Makesh Poonamchand Shah]

The Supreme Court has reiterated that disciplinary action against an employee for conviction in a criminal case is not barred due to the suspension of sentence. On this premise, a division bench comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta set aside a judgment passed by a division bench of Gujarat High Court which restrained the Life Insurance Corporation from taking a final decision on the show-cause notice issued to an employee during the pendency of the criminal appeal.

● Mortgage By A Corporate Debtor To Secure Debts Of Third Party Not 'Financial Debt' Within Meaning Of Sec 5(8) IBC [Anuj Jain Interim Resolution Professional for Jaypee v. Axis Bank Ltd.]

The bench comprising Justice AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari upheld the order of National Company Law Tribunal which cancelled the mortgages made by Jaypee Infratech Ltd (JIL) to secure the debts of its holding company Jaiprakash Associates Ltd (JAL). The NCLT Ahmedabad bench had allowed the application filed by Interim Resolution Professional(appointed for JIL CIRP) seeking avoidance of these mortgage transactions, which pertained to nearly 758 acres of land, as being "preferential, undervalued and fraudulent", in terms of Sections 43, 45 and 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

● Judicial Officer's Integrity Must Be Of A Higher-Order And Even A Single Aberration Is Not Permitted [Arun Kumar Gupta v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.]

The Supreme Court in its judgment delivered on Thursday summed up the law on the subject of compulsory retirement of Judicial officers. The bench comprising of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta observed that 'washed off' theory does not apply in the case of adverse entries with regard to the integrity of Judicial Officers. A judicial officer's integrity must be of a higher order and even a single aberration is not permitted, said the bench while dismissing the Writ Petitions filed by Judicial officers of Jharkhand who were compulsorily retired.

● Boycott Of Courts Can't Be Justified As Freedom Of Speech & Expression: SC On Lawyers' Strikes [District Bar Association Dehradun, through its Secretary v. Ishwar Shandilya & Ors.]

The Supreme Court came down heavily on the advocates in the districts of Dehradun, Hardwar and Udham Singh Nagar in the State of Uttarakhand for holding strike by boycotting courts. The SC also noted that despite directions in precedents such as Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India, lawyers' strikes were happening. In this backdrop, suo moto notices were issued to the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils to suggest the further course of action and to give concrete suggestions to deal with the problem of strikes/abstaining the work by the lawyers. A bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra and M R Shah categorically held that boycott of courts by advocates was illegal, and cannot be justified as an exercise of right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

● Suits With Basic Relief Of Challenging Decree Passed By DRT Not Maintainable [Canara Bank v. P. Selathal and Ors. etc.]

The Supreme Court has observed that the suits with the basic relief of challenging the decree passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) are not maintainable. the issue considered by the Apex Court bench in the appeal filed by the bank was whether the suits filed by the plaintiffs were liable to be rejected in the exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC or not? Allowing the appeal, the bench comprising of Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice MR Shah noted the judgment in Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan and others, (2001) 6 SCC 569. Which had held that, without exhaustion of the remedies under the RDDBFI Act, the High Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction under Article 227.

• SC Dismisses Rajeev Chandrasekhar's Challenge Against Karnataka HC Order Directing Him To Pay Rs 50 Crore To IFCI Ltd [Rajeev Chandrasekhar v. IFCI Ltd. & Ors.]

The Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by Member of Parliament Rajeev Chandrasekhar challenging the order of the Karnataka High Court directing him to pay Rs 50 crore to IFCI Limited. A bench led by the Chief Justice of India, S A Bobde, said "We see no reason to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed." The amount pertains to the undertaking given by Chandrasekhar as the director of a company named India Paging Services Ltd.

● SC Frees Man Accused Of Sodomizing A Minor Allowing His Juvenility Claim

The Supreme Court has directed to release a person convicted for sodomizing on the ground that he was juvenile at the date of offence. While considering the appeal, the bench comprising Justice NV Ramana and Justice V. Subramanian directed the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad to conduct an enquiry and submit a report with regard to the claim of juvenility. The report submitted by him stated that he was juvenile or child on the date of occurrence. Objecting to the report, the state contended that the school certificate was not conclusive and the certificate issued by the school in which he studied at the earliest point of time alone could be conclusive evidence.

Notice Issued/Petition files/Others

● Plea Seeking Investigation Into Discrepancies In 17th Lok Sabha Election Results:SC Grants 4 Weeks To EC To Reply

● Mumbai Coastal Road Project : SC Seeks Response On Plea To Stop Reclamation Work

● Plea Seeking Guidelines on International Parental Child Abduction: Hearing Progressing In Supreme Court

● SC Issues Notice On Iltija's Habeas Plea Against Detention Of Former J&K CM Mehbooba Mufti On Condition

● UP Sugar Mills Case: SC Constitution Bench Reserves Order On Reference To Seven Judge Bench

● 'Unfortunate That Lives Are Lost; Problem Is Lack Of Independence & Professionalism In Police', SC Makes Oral Remarks On Delhi Riots

● SC Begins Hearing On The Question "Is Requirement Of Certificate U/s 65-B(4) Evidence Act Mandatory for Production Of Electronic Evidence?"