Supreme Court Weekly Round Up, October 4 To October 10, 2021

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Part-Time Employees Can't Seek Regularization As Matter Of Right Contrary To Govt's Regularization Policy: Supreme CourtCase Title: Union of India and Ors v Ilmo Devi and Anr| Civil Appeal No 5689 of 2021Citation : LL 2021 SC 561The Supreme Court observed that part-time temporary employees in a Government-run institution cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work.The bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna in the present matter was dealing with an appeal filed by the Centre assailing order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein the Court had directed the Centre to revisit the whole issue related to regularisation policy, complete the exercise to reformulate their regularization/absorption policy and take a decision to sanction the posts in a phased manner.2. Civil Court Lacks Jurisdiction To Entertain A Suit Structured On Provisions Of Industrial Disputes Act: Supreme CourtCase name: Milkhi Ram vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity BoardCitation: LL 2021 SC 557The Supreme Court observed that a civil court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a suit structured on the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.In this case, the plaintiff, who was a daily wage employee under the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, challenged his termination by filing a suit before a civil court. The suit was decreed ordering reinstatement of the plaintiff with back wages. This decree was upheld by the Appellate Courts.3. Conviction Or Acquittal Cannot Be Set Aside Merely Because There Was A Possibility Of A Joint Or Separate Trial: Supreme Court Formulates PrinciplesCase name: Nasib Singh vs State of Punjab Citation: LL 2021 SC 552The Supreme Court observed that a conviction or acquittal of the accused cannot be set aside on the mere ground that there was a possibility of a joint or a separate trial.To set aside the order of conviction or acquittal, it must be proved that the rights of the parties were prejudiced because of the joint or separate trial, the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna observed.The bench was considering an appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which in a batch of nine criminal appeals remitted the orders of acquittal and conviction arising out of two separate FIRs [one on rape and another for abetment of suicide] for fresh trial and directed that the proceedings arising out of both the FIRs be clubbed together under Section 223 CrPC and be tried together by one court.4. NGT Not Merely An Adjudicatory Forum; Inquisitorial Functions Also Available With It To Protect Environment : Supreme CourtCase Details Case Title : Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha and other and connected cases Citation : LL 2021 SC 549The Supreme Court has declared that the National Green Tribunal is vested with suo motu powers to cognizance on the basis of letters, representation and media reports.A Bench comprising of Justices A.M.Khanwilkar, Hrishikesh Roy and C.T.Ravikumar delivered the judgment on a batch of petitions (Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha and other and connected cases) which raised the issue whether NGT has suo motu jurisdiction. The judgment authored by Justice Hrishikesh Roy held that NGT is vested with suo motu power in discharge of its functions under the NGT Act.5. Custody Of Child Obtained By Playing Fraud On Court Liable To Be Declared Void Ab Initio : Supreme CourtCase Title : Smriti Madan Kansangra v. Perry KansangraCitation : LL 2021 SC 555The Supreme Court has recalled an order granting custody of a child to a Kenyan citizen of Indian origin after finding that he had played fraud on the court and had approached it with "unclean hands" by suppressing material facts( Smriti Madan Kansangra v. Perry Kansangra).The Court declared its earlier order granting custody to the father who played fraud as "illegal" and "ab initio void".Observing that the party has defied the conditions imposed by the Court for taking the child to Kenya after securing his custody, the Court directed the CBI to initiate proceedings to secure and entrust the custody of the child to his mother. The Court also asked the Centre and the Indian mission in Kenya to help the mother and ordered registration of a suo motu contempt case against Perry Kansagra, the father of the child. The Court has directed Perry Kansagra's physical presence before it on November 16 and asked the registry to pay Rs 25 lakh as litigation cost, from the amount deposited earlier by him with it, to his wife.6. Schools At Liberty To Take Appropriate Legal Action To Recover Outstanding Fee From Students : Supreme CourtCase Title: Progressive Schools Association vs State of Rajasthan & Anr Citation : LL 2021 SC 543In a plea seeking clarification of top Court's order directing schools to not debar any student from attending classes on account of nonpayment of fees, ...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up, October 4 To October 10, 2021

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags