Supreme Court Weekly Roundup [January 31- February 6]

Judgements This Week 1. Rules Made To Exercise Powers And Privileges Of State Legislature Constitute Law Within The Meaning Of Article 13: Supreme CourtCase Title: Ashish Shelar And Ors. Versus The Maharashtra Legislative Assembly & Anr.| W.P.(C) No. 797/2021 & Connected CasesCitation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 91In its judgment quashing Maharashtra Assembly's Resolution to suspend 12 BJP MLAs, the Supreme Court held that the rules made to exercise the powers and privileges of State Legislature constitute law within the meaning of Article 13."The Rules framed by the Legislative Assembly under Article 208 of the Constitution is the procedure established by law for the purpose of Article 21 of the Constitution," the bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar observed.2. Registration Act Does Not Contemplate Inquiry Into Whether PoA Holder Who Executed Document Had Valid Power Of Attorney: Supreme CourtCase Title: Amar Nath vs Gian Chand|CA 5797 OF 2009Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98The Supreme Court observed that the production of the original power of attorney is not necessary, if the document is presented for registration by the power of attorney holder who executed the document on the strength of it."The inquiry contemplated under the Registration Act, cannot extend to question as to whether the person who executed the document in his capacity of the power of attorney holder of the principal, was indeed having a valid power of attorney or not to execute the document or not," the bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and PS Narasimha.In this case, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he is the owner in possession of that property and the mutation showing the sale in favor of the first defendant, by the second defendant, was null and void, and that the second defendant was not having any authority to sell the land owned by the plaintiff, and hence the defendant be restrained from interfering with the ownership and possession of the plaintiff.3. MACP Scheme Has Noting To Do With Next Promotional Post; Employee Merely Entitled To Immediate Next Higher Grade Pay : Supreme CourtCase Title: The Director, Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. v. K. Sudheesh Kumar & Ors.| Civil Appeal No.442 OF 2022Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 99The Supreme Court has observed that Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme has nothing to do with the next promotional post and what the employee would be entitled would be the immediate next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands.The bench of Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna was considering a civil appeal assailing Kerala High Court's order dated October 23, 2019 in which the court while setting aside Central Administrative Tribunal's order declared that the respondents are entitled to grade pay of Rs 6600 on their third financial upgradation as per the MACP Scheme and thereby be paid the pension accordingly with effect from April, 2015.4. NDPS Act- Recovery Made Otherwise Not Vitiated Merely Because Personal Search Violated Section 50: Supreme CourtCase name: Dayalu Kashyap Vs State Of Chhattisgarh|CrA 130 of 2022Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 100The Supreme Court, in an order passed, rejected an interpretation that if the personal search is vitiated by violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the recovery made otherwise also would stand vitiated."We cannot give such an extended view", the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh said while dismissing an appeal filed by an accused who was concurrently (by the Trial Court and Chhattisgarh High Court) convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act.5. Civil Court Jurisdiction Excluded From Landlord-Tenant Disputes Covered Specifically By State Rent Acts : Supreme CourtCase Title: Subhash Chander And Ors. v. M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.| Civil Appeal No. 7517 of 2012Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 101The Supreme Court bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka has held that the jurisdiction of civil courts are excluded from landlord-tenant disputes when they are specifically covered by the provisions of the State Rent Acts, which are given an overriding effect over other laws.The Court held this while explaining the interplay between the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings) Act, 1976 and the Haryana (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973.6. Workmen's Compensation Act- Interest On Compensation Shall Be Paid From Date Of Accident And Not Date Of Adjudication Of Claim: Supreme CourtCase Name: Ajaya Kumar Das Vs. Divisional Manager| CA 5797 OF 2009Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 102The Supreme Court observed that interest on compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923, shall be paid from the date of the accident and not the date of adjudication of the claim. In appeal, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Dinesh Maheshwari noted that Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act stipulates that the Commissioner shall direct the...

Supreme Court Weekly Roundup [January 31- February 6]

Shruti Kakkar

Tags