Supreme Court Weekly Roundup-April 4 to 10

Supreme Court Judgements 1. Power Of Attorney Must Be Construed Strictly; Agent Can't Sell Without Express Authorisation : Supreme Court Case Title: Umadevi Nambiar Vs Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese | CA 2592 of 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 338 The Supreme Court observed that the power to sell is not to be inferred from a document of Power of Attorney which has to be construed strictly. The agent would have the power to sell only if the document expressly authorize him/her (i) to execute a sale deed; (ii) to present it for registration; and (iii) to admit execution before the Registering Authority, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian noted. 2. "What Kind Of Message He Will Give To Students?": Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal Of Teacher For Suppressing Criminal Case While Joining Case Title : Government of NCT of Delhi and others versus Bheem Singh Meena and others Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 339 The Supreme Court recently upheld the decision of the Delhi Government to dismiss a government teacher from service for suppressing the information about a criminal case against him while applying for the job. "In the present case, the respondent is responsible for shaping career of young students. What kind of message he will be giving to the students by his conduct based on untruthfulness?", a bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramaniam observed. 3. Plaint Liable To Be Rejected When Relief Sought Is To Restrain Defendant From Initiating Prosecution Against Plaintiff : Supreme Court Case Name: M/s. Frost International Limited v. M/s. Milan Developers And Builders (P) Limited And Anr.| Criminal Appeal No. 1689 of 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 340 The Supreme Court has held that reliefs in a suit which seeks to frustrate the defendants from initiating a prosecution against plaintiff or seeking any other legal remedy are barred by law and can be a ground for allowing an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection of plaint. A Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V Nagarathna allowed a plea assailing the order of the Orissa High Court, which had set aside the order of the revisional court rejecting the plaint, on the ground that it exceeded its jurisdiction in doing so, and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. 4. Even If Appointment Was Irregular, State Has To Pay Salary For Work Done By Employee : Supreme Court Case Title : Man Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 341 The Supreme Court has set aside a direction to recover from a person the salary paid to him after his appointment as a teacher was found to be irregular. The Top Court noted that the person had worked for nearly 24 years a teacher before his services were cancelled for the reason that his appointment was irregular. It was found that he was a relative of a member of the selection committee and hence his appointment was contrary to the rules. While cancelling his appointment, the State also directed the recovery of salary paid to him. Though the person approached the High Court challenging the cancellation order, it did not interfere. Aggrieved, he approached the Supreme Court. A bench comprising Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V Ramasubramaniam observed that the High Court ought to have appreciated the fact that he had worked for nearly 24 years. 5. Exemption From Attachment - To Get Benefit Of Section 64(2) CPC, Subsequent Purchaser Must Plead & Prove That He Is A Bona Fide Purchaser : Supreme Court Case Title: Dokala Hari Babu V. Kotra Appa Rao & Anr.| Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 4382/2022 Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 342 The Supreme Court recently observed that to get the benefit of Section 64(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the objector and/or subsequent purchaser has to plead and prove that he is the bona fide purchaser, who has entered into the transaction prior to the order of attachment. The observation was rendered by the bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna while considering a SLP assailing Andhra Pradesh High Court's order dated January 4, 2022 passed by the bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao. 6. AFT Can Interfere With Court-Martial Finding If There Is Material Irregularity : Supreme Court Reinstates Army Officer Case Title : Union of India v. Major R. Metri NO. 08585N Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 343 Observing that the Armed Forces Tribunal has the jurisdiction to interfere with the finding of a Court-Martial, the Supreme Court reinstated an army officer, upholding the setting aside of his conviction in a corruption case. The Court also observed that conviction solely on the basis of extra-judicial confession without corroboration is unjustified "It could thus be...

Supreme Court Weekly Roundup-April 4 to 10

Shruti Kakkar

Tags