Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: January 10 To January 16, 2022

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Right Of Preemption A Maligned, Feudal, Archaic And Outmoded Law, Reiterates Supreme CourtCase name: Punyadeo Sharma vs Kamla DeviCitation: 2022 LIVELAW (SC) 23The Supreme Court observed that the right of pre-emption is a maligned law and are characterised as 'feudal, archaic and outmoded'.In this case, the appellants are purchasers of the land in question vide sale deed dated 9.2.1990. The sale deed was presented for registration but the registration was completed on 7.1.1992. The proceedings for pre-emption of the land were initiated in terms of Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1 19611 on 31.3.1992.The bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat held that "any other Court" is wide enough to include the Constitutional Courts i.e. the High Court and the Supreme Court.2. NCLT Must Pass Reasonable Order For Fees & Expenses Of Resolution Professional : Supreme CourtCase Title: Devarajan Raman v Bank of India LimitedCitation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 24The Supreme Court has held that the NCLT/NCLAT must make a reasonable assessment of the fees and expenses payable to the Interim Resolution Profession and cannot pass an order in an ad-hoc manner.The Court held that an order assigning reasons must be passed in respect of fees of resolution professional; otherwise, it will amount to abdication.A judgement delivered by a Bench of Justices D.Y.Chandrachud and A.S.Bopanna, while considering a dispute relating to the payment of costs and expense incurred by a Resolution Professional, set aside impugned order and judgement of NCLAT and NCLT that awarded an ad-hoc amount to the Interim Resolution Professional without any consideration of the actual amount due as per technical and financial bid.3. Preventive Detention Order Liable To Be Quashed If Detenu's Representation Is Considered After Long Delay :Supreme CourtCase Title: S. Amutha v. The Government Of Tamil Nadu & OrsCitation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 25The Supreme Court recently quashed a detention order after noting that the authority considered the representation of the detenu after a long delay.The Court observed that in the matter of considering representation made against detention order, the Competent Authority is duty-bound to do so with "utmost despatch".The bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar was considering a special leave petition assailing order dated November 18, 2021 passed by the Madras High Court, Bench at Madurai ("impugned order").4. Suo Motu Orders Extending Limitation Apply Also To Delay Which Could Have Been Condoned : Supreme CourtCase Title: Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. v. Stanford Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. SLP(C) No. 17298 of 2021Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 26The Supreme Court has observed that the period of limitation which could have been condoned by a Court or a Tribunal is also excluded from the limitation period up to 07.10.2021 in view of the orders passed suo motu by the Top Court to extend limitation period in the wake of COVID-19."Even as held by this Court in the subsequent orders even the period of limitation which could have been extended and/or condoned by the Tribunal/Court is excluded and/or extended even up to 07.10.2021", observed the Supreme Court.Holding so, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of Madras High Court, which relied on its direction dated 08.03.2020 in Suo Moto Writ (Civil) No 3 of 2020 titled In Re Cognizancefor Extension of Limitation to condone the delay in filing written statements in a commercial suit.5. Class 12 Exam: Supreme Court Quashes CBSE Policy To Treat Improvement Exams Marks As Final; Directs To Give "Better Of Two" Option To StudentsCase Title: Sukriti & Ors v CBSE & Ors | WP(c) 1214/2021Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 27The Supreme Court has struck down Clause 28 of CBSE Policy which held that marks in the later (improvement) exams will be considered final for the assessment of Class 12 exams for the last academic year. The Bench further directed that the CBSE shall provide the option to the candidate to accept the better of the two marks obtained for the final declaration of the results.The Supreme Court in December had asked the Central Board of Secondary Education(CBSE) to reconsider its policy of treating the marks in the improvement exams of Class 12 as final over the marks tabulated as per the Standard Formula.6. Employees Of Autonomous Bodies Can't Claim Same Service Benefits As Government Employees : Supreme CourtCase name: State of Maharashtra vs BhagwanCitation: 2022 LIVELAW (SC) 28The Supreme Court observed that the employees of the autonomous bodies cannot claim, as a matter of right, the same service benefits on par with the Government employees.The State Government and the Autonomous Board/Body cannot be put on par and the the employees of the latter are governed by their own Service Rules and service conditions, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV...

Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: January 10 To January 16, 2022

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags