Supreme Court Weekly Roundup May 10 To May 16, 2021

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Existence Of Arbitration Clause Does Not Debar Court From Entertaining A Writ Petition In Contractual Matter: Supreme CourtCase: Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. Vs. CG Power And Industrial Solutions Limited [SLP(C) 8630 OF 2020] Citation: LL 2021 SC 255Supreme Court Bench headed by Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Indira Banerjee observed that the existence of an arbitration clause does not debar the court from entertaining a writ petition."It is well settled that availability of an alternative remedy does not prohibit the High Court from entertaining a writ petition in an appropriate case. The High Court may entertain a writ petition, notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy, particularly (1) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of a fundamental right; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice or (iii) where the impugned orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or (iv) the vires of an Act is under challenge.", the Court held.The bench reiterated that relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be granted in a case arising out of contract.2. Will Habeas Corpus Petition Lie Against Remand Order? Supreme Court AnswersCase: Gautam Navlakha vs. National Investigation Agency [CrA 510 OF 2021]Citation: LL 2021 SC 254The bench comprising Justices UU Lalit and KM Joseph observed that a Habeas Corpus petition challenging a remand order can be entertained only if the remand is absolutely illegal or the remand is afflicted with the vice of lack of jurisdiction, of if it is passed in an absolutely mechanical manner.These observations were made while considering the appeal filed by Gautam Navlakha seeking default bail in the Bhima Koregaon case. The appeal was against the order passed by the Delhi High Court in the Habeas Corpus petition filed before it.The court noted that in Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat (2013) 1 SCC 314, it was held that a writ of habeas corpus is not to be entertained when a person is committed to judicial custody or police custody by the competent court by an order which prima facie does not appear to be without jurisdiction or passed in an absolutely mechanical manner or wholly illegal. It also referred to judgment in Serious Fraud Investigation Office and Ors. vs. Rahul Modi (2019) 5 SCC 266 in which it was observed that the act of directing remand of an accused is thus held to be a judicial function and the challenge to the order of remand is not to be entertained in a habeas corpus petition.Read Also: Courts Can Order House Arrest U/s 167 CrPC In Appropriate Cases: Supreme Court3. Mere Language Problem Of A Party Not A Ground To Transfer A Case U/s 406 CrPC: Supreme CourtCase: Rajkumar Sabu Vs. Sabu Trade Private Limited [T.P.(Crl) 17 OF 202] Citation: LL 2021 SC 253Bench comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose held that a criminal case cannot be transferred under Section 406 CrPC merely because the party does not understand the language of the Court which has jurisdiction to hear the case.The court observed thus while dismissing a transfer petition filed by one Rajkumar Sabu, against whom a criminal case is pending in Salem Court, that he is not being able to understand Tamil language, and therefore the case ought to be transferred to a Court in Delhi. He relied on the decision in Sri Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal (II), T.N. vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. [(2005) 8 SCC 771]. "....But language was not the criteria based on which transfer of the case was directed. The language factor weighed with this Court while deciding the forum to which the case was to be transferred after decision was taken to transfer the case for certain other reasons", the court said.4. Motor Accident Compensation - Self-Employed Deceased Aged Below 40 Years Entitled To 40% Addition As Future Prospects : Supreme CourtTitle : Rahul Sharma and another vs National Insurance Company Ltd and othersCitation : LL 2021 SC 252Bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose has reiterated that addition of 40% income must be given towards future prospects while computing motor accident compensation if the deceased was self-employed and was aged less than aged 40 years."This Court in a Five Judge Bench decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680,clearly held that in case the deceased is self-employed and below the age of 40, 40% addition would be made to their income as future prospects. In the present case, the deceased was self-employed and was 37 years old, therefore, warranting the addition of 40% towards future prospects", the Supreme Court observed. The High Court had held that the deceased in the case was ineligible for future prospects as she was self-employed. It had also deduced 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased. The Supreme Court found fault with this approach, as the Pranay Sethi judgment had held that deduction towards personal expenses...

Supreme Court Weekly Roundup May 10 To May 16, 2021

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags