Supreme Court Judgements Person Who Secures Appointment On The Basis Of A False Caste Certificate Cannot Be Permitted To Retain Benefit Of Wrongful Appointment : Supreme Court Case title: Chief Executive Officer Bhilai Steel Plant Bhilai vs Mahesh Kumar Gonnade | CA 4990 OF 2021 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 572 The Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan...
Supreme Court Judgements
Case title: Chief Executive Officer Bhilai Steel Plant Bhilai vs Mahesh Kumar Gonnade | CA 4990 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 572
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy observed that when a person secures appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate, he cannot be permitted to retain the benefit of wrongful appointment.
Case Title: Union of India vs United Planters Association Of Southern India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 573
The Supreme Court observed that the likelihood of divergence of views cannot be a ground for transfer under Article 139A of the Constitution of India.
The bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari dismissed the Transfer petitions under Article 139A(1) read with Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, filed by Union of India and other parties who prayed for transfer of various writ petitions, pending before different High Courts challenging the constitutional validity of the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015 to the Supreme Court.
Case Name: Mohamed Ali vs V. Jaya | CA 4113 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 574
The Supreme Court observed that a writ petition/Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India ought not to be entertained when a statutory alternative remedy by way of an appeal is available.
The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed thus while allowing the appeal against the order of the High Court of Madras which, in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, set aside the exparte judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.
Case Title : State Bank of India and others vs Dr.Vijay Mallya
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 575
The Supreme Court has sentenced fugitive liquor baron Vijay Mallya to four months imprisonment and a fine of Rupees 2000 for contempt of court.
Mallya was found guilty in 2017 for transferring USD 40 million to his children in violation of the orders passed in a case filed by a consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India.
Pronouncing the sentence today, the Court said that Mallya did not show any remorse for his conduct and did not appear before it during the sentence hearing. The Court added that adequate sentence must be imposed on him to "uphold the majesty of law" and that directions need to be issued to ensure that the amount in dispute is available for execution of the orders. Therefore, the Court has directed Mallya to deposit 40 million US Dollars with 8 percent interest within 4 weeks with the concerned recovery officer, failing which attachment proceedings will be initiated against his properties.
Case Name: In Re Perry Kansagra | SMC(C) 3 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 576
The Supreme Court observed that the tendering of affidavits and undertakings containing false statement would amount to contempt of court.
A person who makes a false statement before the Court and makes an attempt to deceive the Court, interferes with the administration of justice and is guilty of contempt of Court, the comprising Justices UU Lalit and PS Narasimha observed.
Case Title: Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau Of Investigation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577
The Supreme Court observed that any non-compliance of Section 41 and 41A of Criminal Procedure Code at the time of arrest would entitle the accused for grant of bail.
The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh observed that Section 41 and 41A are facets of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
"The investigating agencies and their officers are duty-bound to comply with the mandate of Section 41 and 41A of the Code and the directions issued in Arnesh Kumar judgment..Any dereliction on their part has to be brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the court followed by appropriate action", the bench said.
Section 436A CrPC Applicable To Special Acts In Absence Of Any Specific Provision : Supreme Court
Case Title: Abu Salem Abdul Kayyum Ansari v. The State of Maharashtra Criminal Appeal No. 679 of 2015
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 578
The Supreme Court has held that the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on Abu Salem in the 1993 Bombay Blasts case has to remitted upon the completion of 25 years from the date of his extradition to India, as the sovereign commitment made by the Government of India to the Republic of Portugal at the time of extraditing Salem to India was that his sentence will not exceed 25 years.
"On the appellant completing 25 years of sentence, the Central Government is bound to advise the President of India for exercise of powers under Article 72 of the Constitution of India and to release the appellant in terms of the national commitment as well as the principle based on the comity of courts", the Court ordered.
Case Name: Nanda Dulal Pradhan vs Dibakar Pradhan | CA 4151 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 579
The Supreme Court observed that by setting aside the exparte decree, the defendants can be permitted to participate in the suit proceedings and cross-examine the witnesses.
Case Name: State of West Bengal vs Rakesh Singh @ Rakesh Kumar Singh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 580
The Supreme Court observed that the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act will not apply in a case where applicability of Section 27A NDPS Act is seriously questionable and there was no recovery from the accused and quantity in question was intermediate quantity.
Case Name: Delhi Development Authority vs Diwan Chand Anand
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 581
The Supreme Court observed that an appeal as a whole cannot be treated as abated merely for failure to substitute the legal representative of some of the respondents who died during pendency of the appeal.
While considering whether the suit/appeal has abated due to non bringing the legal representatives of plaintiffs/defendants or not, the Court has to examine if the right to sue survives against the surviving respondents, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.
Case Name: Amrik Singh vs State of Punjab
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 582
Clarifying an important aspect regarding Test Identification Parade (TIP), the Supreme Court on held that it would not be prudent to convict an accused solely on the basis of their identification for the first time in court.
A Division Bench comprising of Justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose held that,
"Even applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions and looking to the facts narrated hereinabove, we are of the opinion that it would not be safe and/or prudent to convict the accused solely on the basis of their identification for the first time in the Court."
Case Name: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-III Bangalore vs Wipro Limited
Citation; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 583
For claiming the benefit under Section 10B (8) of the Income Tax Act, the twin conditions of furnishing a declaration before the assessing officer and that too before the due date of filing the original return of income under section 139(1) are to be satisfied and both are mandatorily to be complied with, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment.
Case Name: National Highways Authority of India vs P. Nagaraju @ Cheluvaiah
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 584
The Supreme Court observed that, under Section 34 or 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, a Court cannot modify the award passed by the Arbitrator. The option would be to set aside the award and remand the matter, the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and AS Bopanna said.
Case Name: Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. vs Alok Kumar Lodha Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 585
The Supreme Court observed that a Court would not be justified in allowing the amendment of plaint if the nature of the suit is likely to be changed.
The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna also observed that the Plaintiffs cannot be permitted to join any party as a defendant who may not be necessary and / or proper parties at all on the ground that the plaintiffs is the dominus litus.
Case Title: NHAI v. Transstroy (India) Limited, Civil Appeal No. 6732 of 2021
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 586
The Supreme Court has held that the counter-claim of a party cannot be dismissed merely because the claims were not notified before invoking the arbitration.
The Division Bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Sanjiv Khanna held that there is a difference between the word "Claim" and "Dispute" where the former may be a one-sided thing while the latter by its definition has two sides. It observed that once the conciliation failed, the entire gamut including the counter-claim/set off would form the subject matter of arbitration.
Case Name: Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. vs Axis Bank Limited | CA 4633 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 587
The Supreme Court observed that it is not mandatory for the Adjudicating Authority to admit an application to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process even if a debt existed and the Corporate debtor is in default.
However, such discretionary power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari cautioned.
The court observed that, ordinarily, the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) would have to exercise its discretion to admit and initiate CIRP on satisfaction of the existence of a financial debt and default on the part of the Corporate Debtor in payment of the debt, unless there are good reasons not to admit the petition.
Case Name: U N Krishnamurthy vs A M Krishnamurthy
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 588
The Supreme Court observed that continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the Plaintiff is a condition precedent for grant of the relief of Specific Performance.
The court added that there is a distinction between readiness and willingness to perform the contract and both ingredients are necessary for the relief of Specific Performance.
Case Name: Bhola Kumhar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 589
The Supreme Court has directed the State of Chhattisgarh to pay Rs 7.5 Lakhs as compensation to a rape convict who was kept in prison beyond the period of sentence.
"When a competent court, upon conviction, sentenced an accused and in appeal, the sentence was modified upon confirmation of the conviction and then the appellate judgment had become final, the convict can be detained only up to the period to which he can be legally detained on the basis of the said appellate judgment.", the bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar observed in a judgment delivered in May 2022.
Case Title: MOHAMMAD IRFAN VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 590
The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction and life sentence of four persons for causing the terror attack at the Indian Institute of Science in Bengaluru in December, 2005.
While doing so, a three judge bench of Justices UU Lalit, Hemant Gupta and S Ravindra Bhat observed that under section 121 A of the Indian Penal Code [Conspiracy to commit offences punishable by section 121-waging war against India], the expression "overawe" would imply creation of an apprehension or situation of alarm and it would not be necessary that the danger should be one of assassination or bodily injury.
Case Name: New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Shashikala J Ayachi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 591
The Supreme Court observed that an insurer cannot be held guilty of deficiency in service solely for delay in processing the claim and delay in repudiation. "They could be one of the several factors for holding an insurer guilty of deficiency in service. But it cannot be the only factor", the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed.
Case Name: Principal Director Of Income Tax (Investigation) vs Laljibhai KanjiBhai Mandalia
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 592
The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered on Wednesday, restated the principles in exercising the writ jurisdiction in the matter of search and seizure under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act.
"The sufficiency or inadequacy of the reasons to believe recorded cannot be gone into while considering the validity of an act of authorization to conduct search and seizure", the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed.
Case Name: Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu And Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 593
The Supreme Court has held that when the Juvenile Justice Board does not comprise a practicing professional with a degree in child psychology or child psychiatry, it would be obligated to take assistance of experienced psychologists or psychosocial workers or other experts under proviso to Section 15(1) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (Act).
Initially all children below the age of 18 years were to be treated as juvenile and tried by the Board. Only after the 2015 Act came into force, a separate category for juveniles between 16 to 18 years involved in heinous crime, was culled out, who were subjected to a preliminary assessment to ascertain if they are to be tried as a child by the Board or as an adult by the Children's Court under Section 15 of the Act.
Case Title: State of UP & Anr v Akhil Sharda| CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.840 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594
While considering a criminal appeal wherein High Court had delivered the judgement after reserving it for six months, the Supreme Court has observed that it is always advisable that the High Court delivers the judgment at the earliest after the arguments are concluded and the judgment is reserved.
Case Title: Union of India vs Sharvan Kumar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 595
Very many times, fixing of time period for completing disciplinary proceedings causes more complications and harm rather than serving the cause of justice, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment recently.
The bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari observed that fixing of such period could only be justified if there are strong and compelling reasons for the same.
Case Name: Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh vs State Of Maharashtra
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 596
The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered in a criminal appeal, laid down principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case.
In assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are (1) whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and (2) whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence, the bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala observed.
Case Name: Dhananjay Rai @ Guddu Rai vs State of Bihar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 597
The Supreme Court observed that an already admitted appeal against conviction cannot be dismissed on the ground that the accused is absconding.
Case Name: Himanshu Kumar And Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh And Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 598
The Supreme Court held that when a citizen, who is a de facto complainant, approaches the Court seeking direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate allegations of commission of cognizable offence by high Government officials or influential persons, the same ought not to be granted on mere asking. Indicating that it is trite law, the Apex Court referred to the judgment in the State of West Bengal And Ors. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal (2010) 3 SCC 571, wherein the Apex Court had held that investigation can be handed over to the CBI only in 'rare and exceptional case' - where it becomes imperative to provide credibility and to instil confidence in the investigation or in incidents having national and international ramification or for doing complete justice and for enforcing fundamental rights.
Case Title: ANSAAR MOHAMMAD v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 599
Remarking that where a woman has willingly been staying with a man and had a relationship with him, and if the relationship is not working out now, the same cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for the offence of committing rape repeatedly on the same woman (Section 376(2)(n)), the Supreme Court on Thursday granted pre-arrest bail to the man accused of rape for failing to fulfill promise to marry in a relationship where even a child was born.
"...the complainant has willingly been staying with the appellant and had the relationship. Therefore, now if the relationship is not working out, the same cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC", the Court's order recorded.
Case Title: Amarendra Kumar Pandey vs Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 600
The Supreme Court explained the scope of judicial review of action of administrative authority based on it's subjective opinion or satisfaction.
"The action based on the subjective opinion or satisfaction can judicially be reviewed first to find out the existence of the facts or circumstances on the basis of which the authority is alleged to have formed the opinion", the bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala observed.
The Supreme Court, on Thursday, held that it is not open for High Courts to implead third parties in exercise of powers under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the provision that deals with anticipatory bail.
Case Name: Subrata Roy Sahara v. Pramod Kumar Saini And Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 601
In a plea assailing interim orders of the Patna High Court which had issued notice seeking appearance of Sahara Chief Subrata Roy in anticipatory bail proceedings of one Promod Kumar Saini and co-accused, a Bench comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and J.B. Pardiwala observed -
"We hold that it is not open to the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to add third parties to the proceedings, as if it is invoking powers under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure much less those parties who are neither necessary nor proper parties to the application under consideration."
Case Title: Gregory Patrao vs Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 602
The Supreme Court observed that its subsequent decisions which have considered and distinguished the earlier decisions are binding on High Courts.
Not following the binding precedents of this Court by the High Court is contrary to Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna said.
Case Name: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs Nemichand Damodardas
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 603
The Supreme Court observed that prices mentioned in the Ready Reckoner meant for calculation of the stamp duty cannot be the basis for determination of the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.
Case Title: Mekala Sivaiah Vs State Of Andhra Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 604
In a judgment dismissing a criminal appeal, the Supreme Court explained the scope of criminal appeals by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
The power under Article 136 is exercisable only when this Court is satisfied that it is necessary to interfere in order to prevent grave or serious miscarriage of justice, the court said. Referring to earlier judgments, the bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari made the following observations
Case Name: Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu And Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 605
The Supreme Court held that in petition seeking writ of habeas corpus in matter relating to custody of child, the Court exercises an inherent jurisdiction, independent of any statute and therein the paramount consideration of the Court is to ascertain what is in the best interest of the child.
Supreme Court Updates
The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Speaker to keep in abeyance the disqualification proceedings initiated against the members of Shiv Sena amid the ongoing political developments in the State.
Both the rival camps of Shiv Sena, led by former Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray and current Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, have initiated disqualification proceedings against the MLAs belonging to the rival camps.
The Supreme Court, on Monday, sought the response of the Central Government on a Public Interest Litigation filed by a Chartered Accountant seeking directions for implementation of a system of electronic (digital) generation of Document Identification Number (DIN) for all communications sent by GST officers to the tax payers and other concerned persons.
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed as withdrawn the petition filed by BJP leader Jagjit Singh seeking CBI probe into the murder of Punjabi singer Sidhu Moosewala, after his counsel said that he was not pressing the petition as the "Punjab police is taking steps".
The State of Punjab on Monday told the Supreme Court that the police wants to investigate the conspiracy by alleged gangster Lawrence Bishnoi with an accused in foreign in connection with the murder of Punjabi singer Sidhu Moosewala.
Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the State of Punjab, made this submission in a plea preferred by the father of Lawrence Bishnoi challenging the transit remand order issued by a Delhi Court for the production of his son in Mansa Court in Punjab in Siddhu Moosewala murder case.
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a writ petition filed by an Additional Sessions Judge from Madhya Pradesh challenging the termination of her service for passing a wrong judicial order while on probation.
The Court held that there was "nothing wrong" in the decision of the State of Madhya Pradesh to terminate the services of the judge on a recommendation made by the Full Court of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
While hearing a plea alleging State of Andhra Pradesh has transferred funds from the State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF), from where the ex-gratia compensation is being disbursed to the kin of the person who have lost their lives to COVID-19, to its personal deposit (PD) account, the Supreme Court, on Monday, noted money from the SDRF cannot be diverted or used for any other purpose and it would be proper to revert the diverted amount to the SDRF.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned to July 19 the hearing of the petition filed by octogenarian P Varavara Rao seeking bail in the Bhima Koregaon case.
A bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia granted the adjournment at a request made by Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta.
The SG requested for adjournment and agreed that the interim protection given by the Bombay High Court to Rao from surrender, which is expiring today, can be extended.
Senior Advocate Anand Grover, appearing for Rao, did not object to the request of the SG.
Accordingly, the bench posted the matter to July 19 and extended the interim protection enjoyed by Rao.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday extended the 5 days' interim bail granted to Mohammed Zubair, the co-founder of fact checking website AltNews, in connection with the FIR registered against him by the Sitapur police in Uttar Pradesh for a tweet in which he allegedly called 3 Hindu seers- Yati Narasinghanand Saraswati, Bajrang Muni and Anand Swaroop as 'Hate mongers'.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday requested Justice HP Sandesh of Karnataka High Court, who has been passing several adverse remarks and directions against the Anti-Corruption Bureau of Karnataka, to defer the hearing in the case for three more days.
A bench led by the Chief Justice of India made this request as the order passed by Justice Sandesh yesterday, where he recorded that he had received a threat of transfer from a sitting judge for passing orders against the ACB Chief, is not yet uploaded.
A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking to declare the result declared on January 15, 2020 by National Testing Agency of Joint CSIR – UGC NET Examination – 2019 as final result.
The petition raises the issue whether the Joint CSIR – UGC NET Examination – 2019 declared by National Testing Agency (NTA) on 15th January 2020 is only a Score Card, not amounting to declaration of its final results.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to urgently list the case involving dispute between Delhi Government and Central Government regarding power of postings & transfers over civil servants belonging to All India Services serving GNCTD.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday posted to Friday the appeals filed by the Employees Provident Fund Organization(EPFO) in the issue related to payment of EPF pension to employees in proportion to their salary to decide the composition of the three-judge bench which should hear the matter.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana in a plea alleging that elections are held in the District Bar Association, Ludhiana without complying with the provisions of the 2015 Bar Associations (Constitution and Registration) Rules, with the voters' list comprising non-advocates and others without any voting rights.
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, made it abundantly clear that suggestions of the Commission appointed by the Maharashtra Government to ascertain the extent of OBC reservation required to be provided in its local bodies elections cannot be accommodated for the areas for which the election programme has already been notified.
In a plea filed by Samajwadi Party Leader, Azam Khan assailing the order of the Allahabad High Court, which had refused to quash chargesheet and proceedings in the birth certificate forgery case, the Supreme Court, on Tuesday, wanted to have a look at the charges framed in the matter and in that regard granted time to Senior Advocate, Mr. Kapil Sibal representing Khan, to file the same.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to list next week the petitions challenging the Karnataka High Court's judgment which upheld the ban of hijab in educational institutions.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice of India for urgent listing.
"These are the Hijab Matters from Karnataka. Not been listed at all. Filed in March. Students are facing difficulties", Bhushan submitted,
"Two benches are not functioning. So we had to re-distribute. Let us see some time it'll come next week. List next week before appropriate bench", CJI Ramana said.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to hear on July 26, 2022 the plea seeking National Heritage Status for Ram Setu. A three-judge Bench of CJI Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Hima Kohli issued the direction after a request was made by BJP Leader Dr Subramanian Swamy seeking urgent hearing of his plea for directions to the Center for declaring Ram Setu as a national heritage monument.
While hearing PILs filed by the Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind alleging that authorities in states like UP and MP are resorting to "bulldozer" action to demolish the houses of persons accused in cases like riots, the Supreme Court on Wednesday orally asked if it can pass omnibus orders restraining demolition of unauthorised constructions.
A writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Act 2021, which allows the extension of the term of the Director of the Enforcement of Directorate up to 5 years.
The petition filed by Dr.Jaya Thakur, a leader of the Indian National Congress, also challenges the order issued by the Central Government on November 17, 2021 to extend the term of the ED Director Sanjay Kumar Mishra by one more year.
The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, took strong exception to interim orders passed by the Patna High Court in the anticipatory bail application filed before it by Sahara India Group Head, Subrata Roy.
A Bench comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and J.B. Pardiwala was perturbed that the High Court in an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. had exceeded its jurisdiction and passed orders, inter alia, directing the Sahara Group to come up with a plan for return of the investment of the investors before the next date of hearing, and also sought Roy's presence before the Court for the said purpose.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked alleged conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar to divulge the details of the payments made by him to the officials of Tihar Jail, specifying the names of the persons who made the payments on his behalf and to whom such payments were made.
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, agreed to decide the plea of the Uttar Pradesh Government challenging the order of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, which had, in essence, affirmed the Single Judge's direction to the the Government to take necessary steps to approve the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) (Amendment) Rules, 2005 framed by the Chief Justice of the High Court under Article 229(2) of the Constitution for enhancing the pay-scales of Class IV employees of the High Court to that of their counterparts in the Delhi High Court, on merits.
A writ petition has been filed in Supreme Court raising question of law as to whether provisional admission letter downloaded from counseling website is a confirmation of admission and joining of a medical college or partial payment of fee towards the course without submission of enrollment form, scrutiny of original documents and various other undertakings and swearing of affidavits tantamount to admission and joining a medical college.
The Supreme Court recently adjourned the hearing in an appeal in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 to await the decision of the pending reference on the issue as to whether a public servant can be convicted under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) in the absence of direct evidence of demand for illegal gratification.
A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna was hearing an appeal filed by the State of Kerala challenging the acquittal of an Excise Officer in a corruption case.
Can Supreme Court issue directions on administrative side to the High Courts? The Supreme Court said it will examine this 'larger issue' raised by the Attorney General KK Venugopal.
Earlier, the Apex Court had issued certain directions to 'tackle the problem with respect to delay in deciding the matters related to commercial disputes in the State of Uttar Pradesh. During last hearing, the court had expressed displeasure at the delay in compliance of its 28th April order directing constitution of Special Arrears Committee.
"The way in which you are going, it looks like you have a problem with a person for even reading a newspaper," the Supreme Court orally remarked on Thursday while dismissing a plea filed by the National Investigation Agency against the bail granted to an accused in a UAPA case.
The NIA had approached the Supreme Court against the bail granted by the Jharkhand High Court to a General Manager of a company in a UAPA case for allegedly associating with a Maoist splinter group named Tritiya Prastuti Committee(TPC) for extortion.
The Supreme Court, on Thursday, set aside interim orders passed by the Patna High Court in the anticipatory bail application filed by one Promod Kumar Saini and other accused wherein Sahara India Group Head, Subrata Roy, a third party to the bail proceedings, was summoned and asked for a plan to return investments.
Stating that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by summoning Roy and asking Sahara to submit a plan for returning money to its investors, a Bench comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and J.B. Pardiwala observed -
"In the present case we have noticed that the High Court kept the application for grant of anticipatory bail pending and issued directions including issuing directions to third parties to appear before court. That in our opinion is impermissible and cannot be countenanced. The High Court has clearly exceeded jurisdiction in that regard. Accordingly, all the observations or notings made by the High Court in respect of matters unrelated to the case of the applicant before the HC must stand effaced from the record in law."
The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Nagaland State Election Commission to inform the Court when they would notify the elections of Municipalities and Town Councils.
A Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh has granted two weeks' time to apprise the Court regarding further details.
The Supreme Court on Thursday turned down a request made by serial PIL litigant Ashwini Upadhyay seeking urgent listing for a writ petition seeking common dress code in all schools.
Upadhyay had mentioned the petition filed by his son seeking it to be listed along with the Hijab case matters next week.
Expressing its disinclination to list Upadhyay's plea, Chief Justice of India NV Ramana said, "I've told you a number of times. If every day you file a PIL, we'll have to constitute a special court. How many times have you filed litigation? What is the urgency? Everyday you file a PIL? Hijab matter was filed long back. Sorry."
The Supreme Court, on Thursday, granted a week's time to State of U.P. to file response in a plea filed by SP leader Azam Khan seeking directions to the State authorities to remove all barriers, barbed wires set up at the premises of Maulana Ali Jauhar University, de-seal the portions of the premises which were sealed by them pursuant to the directions of the Allahabad High Court. Khan has also asked for restoration of peaceful possession of the property sealed between 23.05.2022 and 25.05.2022.
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (Board) has opposed the plea filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 (Act) pointing out that the legislation was enacted with a noble intention to prevent disharmony in the society.
Fact checker Mohammed Zubair has moved the Supreme Court seeking to quash the 6 FIRs registered by the UP Police over his tweets.
The plea challenges the FIRs registered at Sitapur, Lakhimpur Kheri, Muzaffarnagar, Ghaziabad and two at Hathras. The plea also challenges the constitution of the SIT by the UP Police.
The petition also prays in the alternative that the said FIR's may be clubbed with the FIR in Delhi. He also seeks interim bail in all the 6 cases.
Giving one last opportunity, the Supreme Court on Thursday granted two months' time to the Central government to file a comprehensive response in a plea seeking well defined laws/rules to ensure that the citizens perform their Fundamental Duties properly.
In the plea assailing the order of the Gujarat High Court, which had denied relief to the slum dwellers evicted by the Government authorities in September 2020 from the Gandhinagar Railway Station area, the Supreme Court, on Thursday, stated that the slum dwellers eligible for rehabilitation under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana Scheme, but facing difficulty in meeting the payment timeline can approach the concerned authorities.
The Board of Cricket Control for India ("BCCI") has sought urgent listing of its plea in the Supreme Court seeking permission to amend its Constitution.
The matter was mentioned by Senior Advocate PS Patwalia before the Chief Justice of India on Friday.
Urging the bench to list the matter, Patwalia said, "The application was filed 2 years ago and it came up in April. Directions were to list it after 2 weeks but then CoVID came. Amendments are in the pipeline after the judgment. These remain pending."
"We'll see if if can be listed next week," CJI NV Ramana said.
A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia commenced its sitting at 9.30 AM today, one hour before the regular sitting time of the benches.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, after appearing in a matter, lauded this time arrangement and commented that it is more convenient.
"If our children can go to school at 7, why can't we come to Court at 9?", Justice Lalit replied.
The Supreme Court, on Friday, adjourned the hearing of the plea filed by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the order of the Kerala High Court, which had set aside the 60 days' time limit imposed on the pre-arrest bail granted by the Sessions Court to former DGP Siby Mathews, in relation to the ISRO espionage case.
Karnataka IAS Officer J Manjunath,who was arrested by Anti Corruption Bureau in a bribery case recently, has approached the Supreme Court against the remarks made by Justice HP Sandesh of the Karnataka High Court.
Manjunath was the former Bengaluru Deputy Urban Commissioner, who was arrested by the ACB following certain critical remarks made by Justice Sandesh. Justice Sandesh had made scathing remarks against the ACB with respect to its investigation in a bribery case against the office of the Deputy Urban Commissioner.