JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Writ Jurisdiction Not For Deciding 'Hotly Disputed Questions Of Facts', Reiterates Supreme CourtCase: Shubas Jain vs. Rajeshwari Shivam [ CA 2848 OF 2021]Citation: LL 2021 SC 335The Supreme Court has reiterated that a High Court cannot invoke its writ jurisdiction to adjudicate 'hotly disputed questions of facts'.It is not for the High Court to make a comparative...
JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK
1. Writ Jurisdiction Not For Deciding 'Hotly Disputed Questions Of Facts', Reiterates Supreme Court
Case: Shubas Jain vs. Rajeshwari Shivam [ CA 2848 OF 2021]
Citation: LL 2021 SC 335
The Supreme Court has reiterated that a High Court cannot invoke its writ jurisdiction to adjudicate 'hotly disputed questions of facts'.
It is not for the High Court to make a comparative assessment of conflicting technical reports and decide which one is acceptable, the bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian said.
The case arises out of a dispute between landlord and a tenant regarding repair of an old building. The Bombay High Court, in writ petition filed by a tenant passed the order granting liberty to commence the work of removal of a wall with the assistance of architects, at his own risk and costs. The writ petition was filed challenging the notice issued by the Municipal Corporation under Section 354 of the Municipal Corporation Act.
Case: Medical Council of India vs. Ritwik [CA 4438 of 2021 ]
Citation: LL 2021 SC 335
The Supreme Court observed that the benefit of S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh judgment can be availed only if the NEET candidate approached the Court without delay.
In Krishna Sradha, the Supreme Court has observed that, in exceptional cases, a direction can be issued to grant admission to meritorious candidates to MBBS Course even after cut-off date.
One crucial condition is that the student has to approach the Court at the earliest and without any delay, the bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose noted.
Case: Tek Chand vs. Bhakra Beas Management Board [CA 4482 OF 2021]
Citation: LL 2021 SC 334
Seniority-cum-merit means that given the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration, the senior though the less meritorious shall have priority, the Supreme Court reiterated in a judgment delivered this week.
In this case, the appellants were promoted to the post of Leading Fireman under the Bhakra Beas Management Board Class III and Class IV Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1994. Their promotions were annulled by the High Court while allowing a writ petition filed by another employee who was junior to then. The court held them to be ineligible for promotion under the Regulations.
Case: Orator Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs. Samtex Desinz Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: LL 2021 SC 333
The Supreme Court observed that a lender who advanced interest free loans to finance the business operations of a corporate body is a Financial Creditor and competent to initiate the Corporate Resolution Process under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
"There is no discernible reason, why a term loan to meet the financial requirements of a Corporate Debtor for its operation, which obviously has the commercial effect of borrowing, should be excluded from the purview of a financial debt", the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian observed.
Title : M/s Supreme Bhiwandi Wada Manor Infrastructure Pvt Ltd vs State of Maharashtra and another
Citation : LL 2021 SC 330
The Supreme Court has reiterated that there is no requirement of examining the complainant on oath under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(CrPC) before a Judicial Magistrate orders police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC.
Holding so, the Supreme Court set aside an order passed by the Bombay High Court which had granted anticipatory bail on the ground that order of magistrate to direct registration of FIR under Sec 156(3) CrPC was given without examining the complainant on oath as under Section 200 CrPC.
Case: PSA Sical Terminals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Board Of Trustees Of V.O. Chidambranar Port Trust Tuticorin [CA 3699-3700 OF 2018]
Citation: LL 2021 SC 329
The Supreme Court observed that an arbitration award which ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision or rewrites a contract is liable to be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act on the ground of patent illegality.
The bench comprising Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai observed that a finding based on no evidence at all or an award which ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision would be perverse. Rewriting a contract for the parties would be breach of fundamental principles of justice, the court said.
Case : The State Of Kerala vs K Ajith [SLP(Crl) No. 4009/2021]
Citation : LL 2021 SC 328
The Supreme Court, in its judgment dismissing the plea seeking withdrawal of prosecution in assembly ruckus case, also formulated the principles on the withdrawal of a prosecution under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed that while deciding a plea to withdraw prosecution, the court must be satisfied that the grant of consent sub-serves the administration of justice; and that the permission has not been sought with an ulterior purpose.
Case: Brijesh Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [CrA 646 of 2021]
Citation: LL 2021 SC 331
The Supreme Court reiterated that brief reasons must be given in an order disposing an application for leave to appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 against an order of acquittal.
Merely observing that the order of the trial Judge has taken a possible view without an application of mind to the evidence and the findings is not consistent with the duty which is cast upon the High Court while determining whether leave should be granted to appeal against an order of acquittal, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah said.
Case: South Eastern Coalfields Ltd vs. S. Kumar's Associates AKM (JV)
Citation: LL 2021 SC 325
A Letter of Intent is not a binding contract unless such an intention is evident from its terms, the Supreme Court observed while dismissing an appeal filed by South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, a Government company.
The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta observed that such intention must be clear and unambiguous as LoI normally indicates a party's intention to enter into a contract with the other party in future.
IMPORTANT APEX COURT UPDATES
The Supreme Court this week took suo motu cognizance of the killing of an Additional District Judge in Jharkhand, Uttam Anand, who was knocked down by a vehicle while on his morning jog at Dhanbad on July 28.
A bench headed by the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana directed the Chief Secretary and Director General of Police Jharkhand to submit a report on status of inquiry in 1 week.
The suo moto case is given the name "In Re Safeguarding Courts and Protecting Judges (Death of Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad).
2. Pegasus Snooping : Supreme Court To Hear Next Week Senior Journalists' Plea For Judicial Probe
In a significant development, the Supreme Court this week agreed to list next week a PIL filed by veteran journalists N Ram and Sashi Kumar seeking a probe by a retired or a sitting Supreme Court judge into the Pegasus snooping row.
The PIL was mentioned today before the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal today morning. Mr. Sibal urged that Pegasus has wide-reaching consequences so far as civil liberties are concerned, not only in India but world-wide also, and that the matter is urgent, concerning national security, involving surveillance of opposition leaders, journalists and even the judiciary.
3. Rape Survivor Moves Supreme Court Seeking Permission To Marry POCSO Convict Ex-Catholic Priest
The survivor of the Kottiyoor rape case from Kerala has approached the Supreme Court expressing willingness to marry the former Catholic priest Robin Vadakkumchery, who was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment under POCSO for raping and impregnating her while she was a minor.
The woman was filed an application in the special leave petition filed by Robin Vadakkumchery challenging the refusal of the Kerala High Court to suspend his sentence to marry the rape survivor.
Seeking permission to marry 56-year old Robin, the woman in her plea says that the child is of school-going age, and hence the father's name need to be mentioned in the school admission application form. She supported Robin's application seeking suspension of sentence.
A review petition has been filed before the Supreme Court against the top Court's recent judgement dated 30th June, 2021 about the ex-gratia compensation for families of Covid-19 victims.
A third party review petition filed through Advocate P Somasundaram has sought review of the impugned judgement passed on June 30 by a Bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and MR Shah in two PILs namely Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India and Reepak Kansal v. Union of India. The pleas were filed seeking directions to the Centre & States to provide ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 4 lakh to the family members of those who have succumbed to the COVID-19 disease and post COVID19 complications
The Supreme Court this week granted the Union Government the final opportunity to file counter affidavit in a petition which seeks to allow eligible women candidates into National Defence Academy (NDA), where only men can join now.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy noted that though notice was issued in the petition on March 10 this year, no counter-affidavit has been filed yet. On being told that the next round of examination is on September 5, the bench posted the matter to August 18 to consider the issue of grant of interim relief.
In a new development in the Enrica Lexie case, seven fishermen who were on board the fishing boat which was attacked by the Italian Marines in the 2012 sea-firing incident have approached the Supreme Court seeking compensation out of the amount of Rupees 2 crores, which the Republic of Italy has deposited in favour of the owner of the boat.
The fresh application has been moved on behalf of 7 persons, who were among the 12 fishermen who were traveling in the 'St.Antony' boat, which faced the sniper attack from Italian Marines in February 2012 at sea waters near Kerala coast. The applicants say that they were also injured in the incident and are therefore entitled to compensation.
7. Future Group Agreed To Emergency Arbitration, Amazon Argues; Supreme Court Reserves Judgment
Amazon this week told the Supreme Court that the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court erred in staying the order of the Single Judge for enforcement of the Emergency Arbitrator's interim injunction against the transaction relating to the transfer of Future Retail's retails assets to Mukesh Dhirubhai Ambani Group.
The bench of Justices Rohinton Nariman and B. R. Gavai was hearing Amazon's challenge to an order dated March 22 passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court staying a Single-Judge order which had upheld the Emergency Award passed by a Singapore Tribunal halting the Reliance-Future deal worth Rs. 24,713 crores.
The Supreme Court this week dismissed the Review Petition which sought for cancellation of proposed Class 12 CBSE exams for Private/Compartment/Patrachar students, and the review of the June 22 order which had approved CBSE's decision to cancel regular Class 12 exams and its scheme for objective assessment.
A Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari rendered an Order stating that no case for review had been made out and accordingly dismissed the same.
While noting that the identification of children who have lost both or one parent after March 2020 cannot afford any further delay, the Supreme Court has directed the States and Union Territories to take assistance from several agencies at the grass root level for completing the process.
A Division Bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose ordered "the District Magistrates to issue necessary instructions to the Child welfare & protection Officers to take assistance of the Police, DCPU, Civil Society Organisations, Gram panchayats, Anganwadi and Asha networks for identification of orphans".
The Supreme Court this week refused to entertain a petition filed by Gautam Gambhir Foundation against the order passed by the Delhi High Court for enquiry into alleged hoarding of COVID-19 drugs by the trust headed by former Indian team cricketer and present BJP MP from Delhi Gautam Gambhir.
A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah made oral observations disapproving the distribution of essential COVID drugs by a single individual when people were running 'helter-skelter' to procure the same during the peak of the second wave in April-May this year.
"We read the papers. People were going helter skelter to procure drugs during the second wave. And then suddenly one person started distributing drugs. This is not done", Justice Chandrachud observed.