JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Compromise Decree In Respect Of Land Which Is Not Subject-matter Of Suit But Is Part Of Family Settlement Does Not Require Compulsory Registration : Supreme CourtCase: Ripudaman Singh vs. Tikka Maheshwar Chand [CA 2336 OF 2021]Citation: LL 2021 SC 293The Supreme Court observed that a compromise decree in respect of land which is not the subject-matter of suit but is part...
JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK
Case: Ripudaman Singh vs. Tikka Maheshwar Chand [CA 2336 OF 2021]
Citation: LL 2021 SC 293
The Supreme Court observed that a compromise decree in respect of land which is not the subject-matter of suit but is part of the settlement between the family members does not require compulsory registration.
The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta observed that a compromise decree entered into between the parties in respect of land which was not the subject matter of the suit is valid and a legal settlement.
In this case, the High Court dismissed a suit on the ground that the land even though being subject-matter of compromise, was not the subject-matter of the suit and therefore the decree required registration under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act. So the issue in appeal before the Apex Court was whether a compromise decree in respect of land which is not the subject-matter of suit but is part of the settlement between the family members requires compulsory registration in terms of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act.
2. Bail Condition To Compensate Victims Cannot Be Imposed : Supreme Court
Case: Dharmesh @ Dharmendra @ Dhamo Jagdishbhai @ Jagabhai Bhagubhai Ratadia vs. State Of Gujarat [CrA 432 OF 2021]
Citation: LL 2021 SC 292
The Supreme Court observed that a condition for payment of compensation to victims cannot be imposed at the stage of bail.
"We may hasten to add that we are not saying that no monetary condition can be imposed for grant of bail. We say so as there are cases of offences against property or otherwise but that cannot be a compensation to be deposited and disbursed as if that grant has to take place as a condition of the person being enlarged on bail.", the bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta clarified.
In this case, the accused were granted bail by the High Court with a condition requiring them to deposit Rs.2.00 lakh each as compensation to the victims.
Case: AJAY KUMAR vs. KEWAL KUMAR JAGGI
The Supreme Court set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court order that directed the disbursal of the amount of about Rs. 1.96 crore deposited by Defence Ministry with Collector as compensation to land owners.
Land owners of about 51.57 acres in Jabalpur had filed the writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High court alleging that they were being obstructed by the Defence Ministry from carrying out any kind of activities on their land. This writ petition was disposed of with a direction to authorities to take appropriate steps to determine the damages and payment of damages to the landowners on account of imposition of restrictions.
Case: Franklin Templeton Trustee Services Private Limited vs. Amruta Garg
Citation: LL 2021 SC 295
The Supreme Court this week delivered the judgment in a batch of special leave petitions filed by Franklin Templeton against a judgment of the Karnataka High Court which had restrained Franklin Templeton from winding up the debt funds without obtaining the consent of investors.
The Supreme Court has agreed with the views of the High Court. However, it said that the requirement for consent of majority of shareholders will be post the publication of notices.
The Court held that when the trustees decide to wind up a scheme by majority, they are required to seek consent of the majority of the unit holders, present and voting, under Regulation 18(15)(c). The use of the word "shall" in the provision is couched as a command. A harmonious construction of Regulation 18(15)(c) read with Regulations 39 to 42, would showcase that the even though the "opinion" of the trustees would stand, the consent of the unit holders would be a pre-requisite for winding up.
Case: Madras Bar Association vs. Union of India [WPC 502 of 2021]
Citation: LL 2021 SC 296
The Supreme Court has held by 2:1 majority that the minimum age limit of 50 years prescribed by the Tribunals Reforms(Rationalization and Conditions of Service) Ordinance 2021 for appointment as members in various tribunals to be "arbitrary and discriminatory".
The majority comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and S Ravindra Bhat observed that this minimum age stipulation of 50 years introduced by the Ordinance violated the earlier direction given by the Court in the 2020 Madras Bar Association case that advocates with minimum experience of 10 years should be made eligible for appointment as members of tribunals.
The 3-judge was delivering judgment in the fresh writ petition filed by Madras Bar Association this year challenging the Tribunals Reforms Ordinance. Justice Hemant Gupta dissented from the majority and dismissed the writ petition.
Case: Md. Ghouseuddin vs. Syed Riazul Hussain [SLP (Crl) 3191/2019]
Citation: LL 2021 SC 298
The right to summon document(s) has to be exercised when the trial is in progress and not when the trial is completed, the Supreme Court observed.
The court observed thus while allowing an appeal filed against a judgment of the Telengana High Court. The High Court allowed the revisional application and reversed the decision of the Trial Court in rejecting the application for summoning of the document(s).
Case: Madhya Bharat Gramin Bank vs. Panchamlal Yadav [CA 9792 OF 2010]
Citation: LL 2021 SC 299
The Supreme Court observed that the violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, [Retrenchment conditions] would not automatically entail in the reinstatement with full back wages.
In this case, one Panchamlal Yadav challenged the action of the management of Bundelkhand Kshatriya Gramin Bank, in terminating his services before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT). The Tribunal answered the reference against the claimant and held that he was not a regular employee as he was employed on daily wages. It was further observed that he could not prove that he had continuously worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Later, allowing his writ petition, the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that it was incumbent on the part of the management to produce all the material in their possession to establish and prove that the respondent was appointed on a daily wage basis and did not work continuously for 240 days in a calendar year.
IMPORTANT APEX COURT UPDATES
The Supreme Court this week adjourned to July 27 the hearing of the challenge to the constitutionality of the offence of sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.
A bench comprising Justices UU Lalit and Ajay Rastogi was hearing a writ petition filed by two journalists , each from Manipur and Chattisgarh, challenging the constitutionality of the offence of sedition (Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha and another versus Union of India). Notice was issued to the Attorney General on the petition on April 30.
The Supreme Court this week directed the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to announce the counselling dates for NEET-MDS 2021 within a week.
A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Hrishikesh Roy observed that the delay in counselling will lead to serious consequences to the students, who have been waiting after the test results were announced on December 31, 2020.
The Supreme Court has deferred the hearing pertaining to the petitions by civil services aspirants whose candidatures had been cancelled due to non-submission of educational qualification proof on the specified dated.
A Bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar posted the matter on July 15.
At the previous hearing, the Counsel for UPSC had submitted that a Counter-Affidavit had been filed, contending that "conditions of eligibility cannot be relaxed for certain individuals on different grounds" as the same would be contrary to the tenets of Article 14 and Article 16.
The Supreme Court bench headed by Justice RF Nariman took suo moto cognizance of the decision of Uttar Pradesh Government to allow Kanwar Yatra amid the COVID pandemic.
The bench has issued notice to Union Government and UP Govt. Matter will be heard on Friday.
The neighboring state of Uttarakhand yesterday decided to call off the Kanwar Yatra, citing the pandemic risk. However, Uttar Pradesh has decided to allow the pilgrimage yatra with certain curbs.
Also Read: Kanwar Yatra In Uttar Pradesh Cancelled After Supreme Court's Warning
BJP leader Suvendu Adhikari has moved the Supreme Court seeking transfer of the election petition filed by West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee out of the State of West Bengal.
The Chief Minister had moved an Election Petition before the Calcutta High Court challenging Suvendu Adhikari's election win from the Nandigram constituency in the West Bengal Assembly Polls.
While defending its schemes for welfare of minority communities at various levels, the Union of India has informed the Supreme Court that the schemes are not in contradiction to the principles of equality as enshrined in the Constitution and do not violate rights of members of other Communities.
The Union has further stated that the schemes are meant only for the economically weaker sections or underprivileged children/ candidates/ women of the minority communities and not for everyone belonging to a minority community.
The submissions have been made through an affidavit filed in the plea filed before the top Court challenging the constitutional validity of the National Commission for Minorities Act 1972. A Bench comprising Justices R F Nariman and Ravindra Bhat had in January last year issued notice in the plea that has also challenged various financial benefits and educational grants given to minorities, while alleging that Centre is treating Muslims above law.
7. Supreme Court Sets Aside Allahabad High Court's Blanket Ban On DJ Services In Uttar Pradesh
The Supreme Court this week set aside the 2019 order of the Allahabad High Court imposing a blanket ban on the use of DJ services in the state of Uttar Pradesh.
A Division Bench of Justice Vineet Saran and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari issued the direction in plea challenging the ban, filed by multiple persons in the business of providing DJ services on special occasions such as marriage ceremonies and other similar functions. Overturning the blanket ban imposed by the High Court, the Supreme Court said that DJ services can resume after obtaining necessary licenses.
The Supreme Court this week ordered that all prisoners who have been released by the High Powered Committees of states in the wake of COVID pandemic pursuant to the May 7 order in the suo motu case should not be asked to surrender until further orders.
The top court also directed all state governments to submit a report before it by next Friday detailing how the May 7 order was implemented and the criteria adopted by the HPCs to release the prisoners on emergency parole taking note of the COVID situation.
The bench observed that there is no uniform criteria across the states. The States have to explain if they have considered factors like age, comorbidities while granting parole. The states should also explain if prisoners whose appeals are pending in higher courts were also considered for release by HPCs.