Supreme Court Weekly Round Up- November 29 To December 5, 2021

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Arms Act - Illegal Use Of Licensed Weapon Per Se Not Offence Under Section 27 Unless Misdemeanour Under Sections 5/7 Proved : Supreme CourtCase Title: Surinder Singh v State (Union Territory Of Chandigarh)| Criminal Appeal No. 2373 Of 2010Citation : LL 2021 SC 687The Supreme Court has observed that illegal use of a licensed or sanctioned weapon per se does not constitute an offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 ("Act"), without proving the misdemeanour u/s 5 or 7 of the Act. The Court also observed that at best, it could be a 'misconduct' under the service rules. The bench of CJI NV NV Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and AS Bopanna in the present matter was considering a criminal appeal against Punjab and Haryana High Court's order dated May 19, 2010 ("impugned order"). As per the impugned order, the High Court had confirmed the order of conviction and sentence dated July 25, 2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh of the appellant who was convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') and Section 27 of the Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 3 years for both the offences, with a direction that sentences will run concurrently. 2. Disciplinary Proceedings - Reasons Should Be Recorded To Adopt Special Procedure Of Dispensing With Inquiry : Supreme CourtCase Title: Union of India and Ors v Ram Bahadur Yadav| Civil Appeal No. 9334 Of 2010Citation : LL 2021 SC 688The Supreme Court has observed that when Rules contemplate method and manner to adopt special procedure, it is mandatory on the part of the authorities to exercise such power by adhering to the Rule strictly.The bench of Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy in the present matter was considering a Civil Appeal assailing Allahabad High Court's order dated April 7, 2009 ("impugned order"). In the Impugned Order the High Court while dismissing the intra court appeal had confirmed Single Judge's order. The Single Judge by setting aside the dismissal order with a direction for payment of all pensionary benefits and 50% of back wages. of directing the Competent Authority to allow Respondent's ("Ram Bahadur Yadav") writ petition. While dismissing the appeal, the bench in Union of India and Ors v Ram Bahadur Yadav observed that, "Dismissal of a regular member of Force, is a drastic measure. Rule 161, which prescribes dispensing with an inquiry and to pass order against a member of Force, cannot be invoked in a routine and mechanical manner, unless there are compelling and valid reasons. The dismissal order dated 22.10.1998 does not indicate any reason for dispensing with inquiry except stating that the respondent had colluded with the other Head Constable for theft of Non Judicial Stamp Papers. By merely repeating the language of the Rule in the order of dismissal, will not make the order valid one, unless valid and sufficient reasons are recorded to dispense with the inquiry. the Rule mandates recording of reasons, the very order should disclose the reasons for dispensing with the inquiry." 3. High Court Cannot Dismiss Second Appeal In Limine Without Assigning Reasons : Supreme CourtCase Title : Hasmat Ali vs Amina Bibi and othersCitation : LL 2021 SC 689Holding that a High Court cannot dismiss a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure in limine without assigning reasons, the Supreme Court remitted a matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration.In the instant case, the High Court had dismissed the second appeal with a one sentence order stating : "Considering the submission made herein and going through the question of law, this Court does not find any question of law for admitting the Second Appeal for which the Second Appeal stands dismissed". Taking exception to this order, the Supreme Court observed that if the case does not involve any substantial question of law, the High Court has no option but to dismiss the appeal. However, in order to come to a conclusion that the appeal does not involve any substantial of law, the High Court has to record the reasons. 4. Consumer Commission Should Issue Bailable Warrant Only If Party Is Not Represented At All Through Counsel Or Representative : Supreme CourtCase Title : L&T Finance Ltd vs Pramod Kumar Rana and anotherCitation : LL 2021 SC 690The Supreme Court has observed that the Consumer Commission should issue a bailable warrant for the appearance of a party only as a last resort. The issuance of bailable warrant is not justified if the party is represented through counsel or authorized representative."Bailable warrants are to be issued as a last resort and only in a case where it is found that the opponent parties are not cooperating at all and that they are avoiding appearance before the National Commission deliberately and/or they are not represented at all either through their authorised representative or through their counsel", the Court observed. A bench comprising Justices MR Shah...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up- November 29 To December 5, 2021

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags