Supreme Court Weekly Round Up : May 30 - June 3,2022

Supreme Court Judgements Order VIII Rule 1A(3) : Refusing To Permit Production Of Additional Documents Even If There Is Some Delay Will Be Denial Of Justice: Supreme Court Case Title: Levaku Pedda Reddamma vs Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma | CA 4096 OF 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 533 The Supreme Court observed that refusing permission to a party in a civil suit to produce additional documents even if there is some delay will lead to denial of justice. In such cases, the trial Court can impose some costs rather than to decline the production of the documents itself, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed. In this case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court affirming the order passed by the trial Court refusing to permit the defendant to produce additional documents in terms of Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The defendant approached the Apex Court. Recovery Certificate Holder Can Initiate CIRP As Financial Creditor Under IBC : Supreme Court Case Name: Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. A. Balakrishna And Anr.| Civil Appeal No. 689 of 2021 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 534 The Supreme Court bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and A.S. Bopanna, held that a liability in respect of a claim arising out of a Recovery Certificate under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 would be a "financial debt" within the meaning of Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and a holder of such Recovery Certificate would be a "financial creditor" under Section 5(7) of the IBC. It further held that a person would be entitled to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) within a period of three years from the date on which such Recovery Certificate is issued. "..we hold that a liability in respect of a claim arising out of a Recovery Certificate would be a "financial debt" within the meaning of clause (8) of Section 5 of the IBC. Consequently, the holder of the Recovery Certificate would be a financial creditor within the meaning of clause (7) of Section 5 of the IBC. As such, the holder of such certificate would be entitled to initiate CIRP, if initiated within a period of three years from the date of issuance of the Recovery Certificate" 'Most Students From Rural & Poor Background' : Supreme Court Says NIOS Must Endeavour To Fix Exam Centres Within 10 KMs Of Institutions Case Title: Pragya Higher Secondary School vs National Institute of Open Schooling | WP(C) 343/2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 535 Allowing a writ petition filed by a school, the Supreme Court observed that National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) has a duty to fix examination centres in a manner to enable students to appear in the examination with certainty and ease. "It is for NIOS to go an extra mile rather than expecting the students to walk long distances from villages and towns to take the examination", the bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and PS Narasimha observed. Change In Government Policy, If Reasonable And In Public Interest, Would Prevail Over Individual Interests: Supreme Court Reiterates Case Name: Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority Etc. v. Shakuntla Education And Welfare Society And Ors. Etc.| Civil Appeal Nos. 4178-4197 of 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 536 Recently, the Supreme Court reiterated that change in policy by the Government, if guided by reason and done in public interest, would prevail over private agreements entered between Governments and private parties. The Court held : "...it is more than settled that a change in policy by the Government can have an overriding effect over private treaties between the Government and a private party, if the same was in the general public interest. The additional requirement is that such change in policy is required to be guided by reason". "when a policy is changed by the State, which is in the general public interest, such policy would prevail over the individual rights/interests" A Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai allowed an appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh assailing the order of the Allahabad High Court, which had set aside its policy decision to issue additional notices seeking additional premium from original allottees of the plots developed by the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority in Gautam Budh Nagar. Pension Is A Continuous Cause Of Action; Arrears Can't Be Denied On Ground Of Delay : Supreme Court Case Name: Shri M.L.Patil (Dead) Through LRs v. State of Goa And Anr.| Civil Appeal No. 4100 of 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 537 The Supreme Court, recently, held that arrears of pension cannot be denied on the ground of delay in approaching the Court as pension is a continuous cause of...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up : May 30 - June 3,2022

Shruti Kakkar

Tags