Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: July 11 To July 16, 2022

Supreme Court Judgements Person Who Secures Appointment On The Basis Of A False Caste Certificate Cannot Be Permitted To Retain Benefit Of Wrongful Appointment : Supreme Court Case title: Chief Executive Officer Bhilai Steel Plant Bhilai vs Mahesh Kumar Gonnade | CA 4990 OF 2021 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 572 The Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy observed that when a person secures appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate, he cannot be permitted to retain the benefit of wrongful appointment. Likelihood Of Divergence Of Views Cannot Be A Ground For Transfer Under Article 139A Of Constitution : Supreme Court Case Title: Union of India vs United Planters Association Of Southern India Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 573 The Supreme Court observed that the likelihood of divergence of views cannot be a ground for transfer under Article 139A of the Constitution of India. The bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari dismissed the Transfer petitions under Article 139A(1) read with Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, filed by Union of India and other parties who prayed for transfer of various writ petitions, pending before different High Courts challenging the constitutional validity of the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015 to the Supreme Court. Petition Under Article 227 Of Constitution Not To Be Entertained If Statutory Alternative Remedy By Way Of Appeal Is Available: Supreme Court Case Name: Mohamed Ali vs V. Jaya | CA 4113 OF 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 574 The Supreme Court observed that a writ petition/Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India ought not to be entertained when a statutory alternative remedy by way of an appeal is available. The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed thus while allowing the appeal against the order of the High Court of Madras which, in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, set aside the exparte judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Supreme Court Sentences Vijay Mallya To 4 Months Imprisonment For Contempt Of Court; Asks Him To Deposit 40 Million US Dollars Case Title : State Bank of India and others vs Dr.Vijay Mallya Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 575 The Supreme Court has sentenced fugitive liquor baron Vijay Mallya to four months imprisonment and a fine of Rupees 2000 for contempt of court. Mallya was found guilty in 2017 for transferring USD 40 million to his children in violation of the orders passed in a case filed by a consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India. Pronouncing the sentence today, the Court said that Mallya did not show any remorse for his conduct and did not appear before it during the sentence hearing. The Court added that adequate sentence must be imposed on him to "uphold the majesty of law" and that directions need to be issued to ensure that the amount in dispute is available for execution of the orders. Therefore, the Court has directed Mallya to deposit 40 million US Dollars with 8 percent interest within 4 weeks with the concerned recovery officer, failing which attachment proceedings will be initiated against his properties. Also Read: Secure Vijay Mallya's Presence To Undergo Imprisonment In Contempt Case : Supreme Court Directs Centre Tendering Of False Affidavit/Undertakings Can Amount To Contempt Of Court: Supreme Court Case Name: In Re Perry Kansagra | SMC(C) 3 OF 2021 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 576 The Supreme Court observed that the tendering of affidavits and undertakings containing false statement would amount to contempt of court. A person who makes a false statement before the Court and makes an attempt to deceive the Court, interferes with the administration of justice and is guilty of contempt of Court, the comprising Justices UU Lalit and PS Narasimha observed. Accused Entitled To Bail If Arrest Was In Breach Of Sections 41, 41A CrPC : Supreme Court Case Title: Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau Of Investigation Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577 The Supreme Court observed that any non-compliance of Section 41 and 41A of Criminal Procedure Code at the time of arrest would entitle the accused for grant of bail. The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh observed that Section 41 and 41A are facets of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. "The investigating agencies and their officers are duty-bound to comply with the mandate of Section 41 and 41A of the Code and the directions issued in Arnesh Kumar judgment..Any dereliction on their part has to be brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the court followed by appropriate action", the bench said. Supreme Court Recommends Union Govt To Introduce Separate Act...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up: July 11 To July 16, 2022

Shruti Kakkar

Tags