Supreme Court Judgements 1. Power Of Attorney Must Be Construed Strictly; Agent Can't Sell Without Express Authorisation : Supreme Court Case Title: Umadevi Nambiar Vs Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese | CA 2592 of 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 338 The Supreme Court observed that the power to sell is not to be inferred from a document of Power of Attorney...
Supreme Court Judgements
Case Title: Umadevi Nambiar Vs Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese | CA 2592 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 338
The Supreme Court observed that the power to sell is not to be inferred from a document of Power of Attorney which has to be construed strictly. The agent would have the power to sell only if the document expressly authorize him/her (i) to execute a sale deed; (ii) to present it for registration; and (iii) to admit execution before the Registering Authority, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian noted.
Case Title : Government of NCT of Delhi and others versus Bheem Singh Meena and others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 339
The Supreme Court recently upheld the decision of the Delhi Government to dismiss a government teacher from service for suppressing the information about a criminal case against him while applying for the job.
"In the present case, the respondent is responsible for shaping career of young students. What kind of message he will be giving to the students by his conduct based on untruthfulness?", a bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramaniam observed.
Case Name: M/s. Frost International Limited v. M/s. Milan Developers And Builders (P) Limited And Anr.| Criminal Appeal No. 1689 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 340
The Supreme Court has held that reliefs in a suit which seeks to frustrate the defendants from initiating a prosecution against plaintiff or seeking any other legal remedy are barred by law and can be a ground for allowing an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection of plaint. A Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V Nagarathna allowed a plea assailing the order of the Orissa High Court, which had set aside the order of the revisional court rejecting the plaint, on the ground that it exceeded its jurisdiction in doing so, and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration.
4. Even If Appointment Was Irregular, State Has To Pay Salary For Work Done By Employee : Supreme Court
Case Title : Man Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 341
The Supreme Court has set aside a direction to recover from a person the salary paid to him after his appointment as a teacher was found to be irregular. The Top Court noted that the person had worked for nearly 24 years a teacher before his services were cancelled for the reason that his appointment was irregular. It was found that he was a relative of a member of the selection committee and hence his appointment was contrary to the rules. While cancelling his appointment, the State also directed the recovery of salary paid to him. Though the person approached the High Court challenging the cancellation order, it did not interfere. Aggrieved, he approached the Supreme Court.
A bench comprising Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V Ramasubramaniam observed that the High Court ought to have appreciated the fact that he had worked for nearly 24 years.
Case Title: Dokala Hari Babu V. Kotra Appa Rao & Anr.| Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 4382/2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 342
The Supreme Court recently observed that to get the benefit of Section 64(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the objector and/or subsequent purchaser has to plead and prove that he is the bona fide purchaser, who has entered into the transaction prior to the order of attachment. The observation was rendered by the bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna while considering a SLP assailing Andhra Pradesh High Court's order dated January 4, 2022 passed by the bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao.
Case Title : Union of India v. Major R. Metri NO. 08585N
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 343
Observing that the Armed Forces Tribunal has the jurisdiction to interfere with the finding of a Court-Martial, the Supreme Court reinstated an army officer, upholding the setting aside of his conviction in a corruption case. The Court also observed that conviction solely on the basis of extra-judicial confession without corroboration is unjustified
"It could thus be seen that the extrajudicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Unless such a confession is found to be voluntary, trustworthy and reliable, the conviction solely on the basis of the same, without corroboration, would not be justified," a bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai said.
Case Title: Rishipal @ Rishipal Singh Solanki Versus Raju and Another| Criminal Appeal No 541 of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 344
The Supreme Court has observed that the reasons which weigh with the Court in cancelling the bail granting to co accused would also apply in case of bail preferred by another accused in relation to the same FIR and incident. The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant rendered this observation while considering a criminal appeal assailing Allahabad High Court's order dated November 9, 2021.
Case Title: M/S Shree Vishnu Constructions V The Engineer In Chief Military Engineering Service & ors| Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 5306/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 345
The Supreme Court on April 1, 2022 expressed concerns at the time taken by the Telangana High Court to dispose of an arbitration application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after a period of four years. The bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna also observed that arbitration applications for appointment of an Arbitrator are required to be decided and disposed of at the earliest, otherwise the object and purpose of the Arbitration Act shall be frustrated.
Case Name: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 2 v. M/s. Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd.| Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4063 of 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 346
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, held that whether corporate death of amalgamating entity upon amalgamation per se invalidates an assessment order issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be determined on a bare application of Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956 or its equivalent in the 2013 Act, which deals with the dissolution of the said company. The Apex Court stated that the same would depend on the terms of the amalgamation and the facts of each case. A Bench comprising Justices U.U. Lalit and S. Ravindra Bhat allowed a plea assailing the order of the Delhi High Court affirming the order of the Income Tax Tribunal, which quashed the assessment order at the threshold without going into the merits of the matter. While allowing the appeal, the Bench restored the matter before the ITAT for determination on merits(Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 2 v. M/s. Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd..
Case Title: Sukh Dutt Ratra vs State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 347
The Supreme Court bench of Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha has observed that forcible dispossession of private property of a person without following due process of law, is violative of both their human right and constitutional right.
Case Name: Haryana Urban Development Authority, Karnal v. M/s. Mehta Construction Company And Anr| Civil Appeal No. 2693 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(SC) 348
The Supreme Court has held that apart from the grounds mentioned in Section 34(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2013, an arbitral award can be set aside only when it is vitiated by patent illegality, and not on ground of erroneous application of law or by misappreciation of evidence. A Bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna allowed an appeal assailing the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had affirmed the order of the District Judge that the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and the Conciliation Act, 1996 was, inter alia, barred by limitation. Observing that the Courts below had not fully appreciated the objections raised, the Bench remitted it to the District Judge for fresh consideration.
12. Try To Complete Cross-Examination Of Witness On Same Day : Supreme Court
Case Name: Neetu Tripathi v State of UP & Anr| Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3997/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(SC) 349
The Supreme Court has observed that once the witness is in the witness box and is being cross examined, every endeavour must be made to ensure that the cross examination is completed on that day. The bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh rendered this observation while considering a SLP assailing Allahabad High Court's order dated March 19, 2021
Case Name: M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Mahendra Pal Bhatia And Ors.| Civil Appeal No. 5377 of 2015
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(SC) 350
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian has held that if any land fell within the expression 'mine' under the Section 2(h) of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 it would stand transferred to and vest in the Central Government under Section 3(1), irrespective of who owns the said land. "The focus of Section 2(h) read with Section 3(1) is on the property and not on who the owner of the property is." The Apex Court noted that the residence of officers and staff of coal-mines would also fall under the ambit of the definition of 'mine'.
Case Title: Chairman Cum managing Director Fertilizer Corporation Of India Ltd. Vs Rajesh Chandra Shrivastava
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 351
The Supreme Court observed that ad hoc payment made pursuant to the interim orders passed by Court does not form part of "wages" within the meaning of the expression under Section 2(s) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for the purpose of calculating gratuity. A party who is in enjoyment of an interim order, is bound to lose the benefit of such interim order when the ultimate outcome of the case goes against him, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed.
Case Title: Experion Developers Pvt Ltd vs Sushma Ashok Shiroor | CA 6044 of 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 352
The Supreme Court has held that Consumer Courts can grant relief to flat buyers who are aggrieved with the delay in delivery of the apartment as per the agreement.
Consumer Courts have the power to direct refund and compensation to a consumer for the deficiency in not delivering the apartment as per the terms of Agreement, the Court held.
"A consumer invoking the jurisdiction of the Commission can seek such reliefs as he/she considers appropriate. A consumer can pray for refund of the money with interest and compensation. The consumer could also ask for possession of the apartment with compensation.", the bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha observed.
Case Title: Abid Ul Islam vs Inder Sain Dua | CA 9444 OF 2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 353
The Supreme Court observed that a leave to defend under Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, cannot be granted on mere asking and a tenant has to put in some material of substance to the extent of raising a triable issue. The object behind Section 25B is facilitating not only the expeditious but effective remedy for a class of landlords, sans the normal procedural route, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh observed.
Also Read: "Shockingly Brazen": Supreme Court Pulls Up Litigant For Dropping Union Minister's Name During Argument
17. Centre's Direction Not Binding On A State University, Only Recommendatory : Supreme Court
Case Name: State of Uttarakhand v. Sudhir Budakoti And Ors.| Civil Appeal No. 2661 of 2015
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 354
The Supreme Court has held that a direction issued by the Union Government is not binding on a State University and that it is only recommendatory. Holding so, the Court held that a Registrar of a State University cannot make a claim for a higher pay scale based on a circular issued by the Central Government. A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh allowed an appeal assailing the order of Uttarakhand High Court, which permitted the writ petition filed by a Registrar of State University seeking parity in pay with its counterparts in Central University.
18. Supreme Court Upholds Foreign Contribution(Regulation) Amendment Act 2020
Case Title : Noel Harper and others versus Union of India
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 355
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the 2020 amendments made to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 2010, which introduced restrictions in the handling of foreign contributions by organizations in India. A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar pronounced the judgment in PILs challenging the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Act 2020.
Case Title : Dr.Joe Joseph and others versus State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 356
In the Mullaperiyar dam dispute between the States of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court directed that the Supervisory Committee -which was constituted by the Supreme Court in 2014 to monitor the safety arrangements of the 126-year old dam- should continue its operations till the National Dam Safety Authority under the Dam Safety Act 2021 comes into effect. It expanded the Committee by adding one technical member each from Kerala and Tamil Nadu. The reconstituted Supervisory Committee will decide all outstanding matters related to Mullaperiyar Dam's safety and conduct a safety review afresh. For this purpose, it may frame terms of reference in accordance with the provisions of the 2021 Act.
Case Title: State of Rajasthan vs Banwari Lal | SLP(Crl) Diary no. 21596/2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 357
The Supreme Court observed that merely because a long period has lapsed by the time the appeal is decided cannot be a ground to award the punishment which is disproportionate and inadequate. The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed that it has come across a number of judgments of different High Courts in which the criminal appeals are disposed of in a cursory manner and by adopting truncated methods.
Case Title: Mallada K Sri Ram vs State of Telangana | CrA 561 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 358
The Supreme Court observed that preventive detention cannot be ordered merely because a person is implicated in a criminal proceeding.
"A mere apprehension of a breach of law and order is not sufficient to meet the standard of adversely affecting the "maintenance of public order" , the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant observed while quashing a detention order.
22. Order Can't Be Termed "Mala Fide" Just Because It Is Illegal, Erroneous Or Perverse: Supreme Court
Case Title: Chandra Prakash Mishra vs Flipkart India Private Limited | CA 2859-2861 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 359
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose has observed that every erroneous, illegal or even perverse order/action by a Statutory authority, by itself, cannot be termed as wanting in good faith or suffering from malafide. For imputing motives and drawing inference about want of good faith in any person, particularly a statutory authority, something more than mere error or fault ought to exist, the Top Court also observed.
Supreme Court Updates
The Supreme Court on Monday reserved orders on the plea to set aside the bail granted to Ashish Mishra in the Lakhimpur Kheri case. A bench comprising the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli was considering the special leave petition filed by the family members of the farmers who got killed in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence challenging the February 10 order of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to accused Ashish Mishra, son of Union Minister Ajay Mishra Teni.
During the hearing, the bench asked if the High Court could have gone into the merits of the matter while deciding the bail application. The bench also told the State of Uttar Pradesh that it ought to have filed an appeal against the bail order as recommended by the judge monitoring the Special Investigation Team. "We expected state to act on suggestion of the SIT", the bench orally told the State. The State, while saying that the offence was grave, added that Mishra was not a flight risk and that the witnesses have been given adequate protection.
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea which alleged that the Bar Council of India has violated the Competition Act by "misusing its dominant position" by imposing an upper-age limit of 30 years for pursuing legal education. The petition was filed by a practicing advocate claiming that by enacting Clause 28 of Schedule III, Rule 11 to Part IV– Rules of Legal Education, 2008 under the Advocates Act, 1961 (barring candidates of General category who have attained the age of more than 30 years from pursuing legal education), the BCI has imposed maximum age restriction upon the new entrants to enter into the legal education and thus, created indirect barriers to the new entrants in the profession of legal service.
The Supreme Court, on Monday, issued notice in pleas filed by the State of Jharkhand assailing two orders passed by the Jharkhand High Court granting bail to RJD Chief, Lalu Prasad Yadav in cases related to the fodder scam. A Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai agreed to hear the pleas assailing the orders of the Jharkhand High Court dated 17.04.2021 in the Dumka treasury matter and 09.10.2020 in the Chaibasa treasury matter.
4. Attorney General Objects To Plea In Supreme Court To Enforce Fundamental Duties
The Attorney General for India KK Venugopal on Monday objected to a writ petition which has been filed seeking directions to enforce fundamental duties and steps to sensitise the citizens about their duties.
Asserting that "tremendous amount of work" has been done by the Ministry of Law and Justice to create awareness about duties, the AG said that the petitioner should have first done research to ascertain the facts before filing the writ petition. The AG added that the prayer to enact a law to enforce duties is not maintainable at all as no mandamus can be issued by the Court to the Parliament.
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the vaccine mandate issued by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation for entry in public places.
"Ultimately the Municipal Commissioner is incharge of public spaces within the city. He has to ensure the safety of the residents," the Court said orally while dismissing a Special Leave Petition filed against the Gujarat High Court's order of upholding a circular issued by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation ("AMC") denying entry to certain public places to those who have not received both the doses of COVID Vaccine.
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a writ petition filed by a father seeking court-monitored probe into the kidnap, gang-rape and murder of his minor daughter. A Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana granted liberty to the petitioner's father to approach the High Court. The Bench, also comprising Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Hima Kohli, made strong remarks against the petitioner's approach of moving the Supreme Court directly instead of moving the High Court first.
NEET-PG Counselling : Supreme Court To Hear Tomorrow Issue Related To Maharashtra State Quota
The Supreme Court, on Monday, did not permit Advocate, Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, AAG, State of Tamil Nadu to mention the matter pertaining to the vaccine mandates and non-disclosure of the clinical trial data of COVID-19 vaccines.
Appearing before the Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, Mr. Tiwari sought its permission to mention the matter in order to bring on record the subsequent developments. "In the vaccine mandate matter, there are certain developments. Just wanted to bring the facts on record." Justice Rao was of the opinion that the Court was not going to take into account any development subsequent to the hearing that had concluded almost 10 days back and judgment was reserved.
8. Amazon & Future Retail Agree In Supreme Court To Appear Before Singapore Arbitration Tribunal
Amazon and Future Retail Ltd on Monday expressed their agreement before the Supreme Court to appear before the Singapore Arbitration Tribunal. They further expressed their wish to have the arbitration proceedings expedited. The development happened in the special leave petition filed by Amazon challenging the Delhi High Court's order which stayed the arbitration proceedings on a challenge made by FRL. It has been the case of FRL that it is not covered by the arbitration agreement as Amazon's deal was with Future Coupons Private Ltd (FCPL).
On Monday, the Supreme Court, inter alia, directed the State Government/ Union Territories to complete the process of preparation of Social Investigation Reports in respect of the children who have been identified to have lost both or either parents post March, 2020 and produce them before the Child Welfare Committee.
On being told that the Supertech Ltd - whose twin towers in Noida were ordered to be demolished for violation of building rules- was undergoing insolvency, the Supreme Court on Monday directed the Interim Resolution Professional(IRP) to segregate the claims of unpaid homebuyers from other creditors.
The Supreme Court, on Monday(April 4), agreed to hear a plea challenging a Madhya Pradesh High Court order directing Madhya Bharat Arya Pratinidhi Sabha ("Sabha"), an Arya Samaj organisation to comply with the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 ("SMA") while solemnising marriages. The High Court had further held that no one other than the competent authority under the SMA can issue marriage certificates.
12. Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Re-Appointment Of Kannur University VC
The Supreme Court on April 4 issued notice in the SLP challenging the Re appointment of the Vice Chancellor of Kannur University.
A bench comprising Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath issued notice on the Special Leave Petition that assailed Kerala High Court's order datedFebruary 23, 2022 ("impugned judgement") wherein a Division Bench had upheld Single Judge's order of dismissing the writ challenging VC's re appointment.
13. 'If Not For COVID, Would Have Heard This' : CJI Agrees To Hear Electoral Bonds Matter Urgently
The Chief Justice of India NV Ramana on Tuesday agreed to hear the plea challenging the Electoral Bonds Scheme on an urgent mentioning made by Advocate Prashant Bhushan.
"This matter has not been listed for more than a year. Every two months, fresh tranche of electoral bonds are issued. In fact today, there is a report that a Calcutta based company has paid Rs 40 crores through electoral bonds to stop excise raids. This is distorting democracy", Bhushan submitted.
"If it was not because of COVID, I would have heard this. Let us see, we will take this up", CJI Ramana said.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea by a group of doctors seeking extension of deadline for completion of internship beyond July 31, 2022 to accommodate interns whose internship got delayed due to compulsory Covid duties. The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Bela M Trivedi rejected the petitioners' prayer observing that extension of deadline will disrupt the academic schedule.
In the NEET-PG Counselling matter, the Supreme Court on Tuesday clarified that a candidate will lose the seat allotted in Round-2 of All India Quota Counselling only if she joins a seat allotted in the Special Round for the newly added 146 seats. The Court clarified the Frequently Asked Questions(FAQ) list issued by the Medical Counselling Committee for the Special Round. As answer to FAQ Number 2, the MCC had stated "If you are allotted a seat in Special Round you will have no claim on the earlier /old seat".
16. TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee Moves Supreme Court Against Delhi HC's Refusal To Quash ED Summons
The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear next week the plea filed by All India Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee and his wife challenging Delhi High Court's order refusing to quash summons issued to them by Enforcement Directorate in connection with West Bengal coal scam case.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought Centre's response in the plea challenging the constitutional validity of Section15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 on the ground of gender discrimination. The petitioner challenges the provision arguing that there is discrimination in the devolution in case of a woman dying intestate, in comparison with the rules for devolution where a male has died intestate.
18. Mullaperiyar Case : Supreme Court Suggests Giving Supervisory Committee Powers Under Dam Safety Act
In connection with the Mullaperiyar dam dispute, the Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Centre and the states of Tamil Nadu and Kerala to consider a "working arrangement" where the court-appointed Supervisory Committee may be entrusted with the functions and duties of the National Dam Safety Authority under the Dam Safety Act, 2021.
In the backdrop of recent death of a practicing doctor by suicide in Rajasthan allegedly due to harassment by a patient's family, the Indian Medical Association(Dwarka) has moved the Supreme Court seeking directions for issuance of guidelines for protection of doctors who are regularly falling victim of physical assault at the slightest suspicion over treatment of the patients.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice in a writ petition seeking to modify the term of 3 years fixed by a notification issued by the Ministry for the members of the National Company Law Tribunal as 5 years.The Notification was issued on 20.09.2019 by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs in exercise of the powers conferred by section 408 of the Companies Act, 2013. The term was fixed as 3 years or till the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier.
While refusing to allow petitioner's request to withdraw the case, Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice in a writ petition filed seeking investigation into a multi crore bank scam allegedly committed by an Uttarakhand IPS Officer and into the alleged murder of a whistle blower.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a married daughter's claim for compassionate appointment on account of the death of her father who was in government service, a the widowed mother did not sponsor her name. A bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar noted that as per Rule 2.2 of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in Madhya Pradesh as per which the surviving spouse has to sponsor the child for compassionate appointment.
23. Supreme Court Reserves Decision In Petition To Move Regional Bench Of NGT From Bhopal To Jabalpur
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, reserved its decision in a petition challenging 'various anomalies' arising out of implementation of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The Petitioners have also sought for directions of the Court to move the regional bench of NGT from Bhopal to Jabalpur. The bench comprising of Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice Hrishikesh Roy has further directed that the parties may file their written submissions in five days.
The Central Government on Tuesday informed the Supreme Court that it will come up with a mechanism with regard to the properties which are proceeds of crime as defined under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act but are purchased by a new owner in insolvency process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The question involved is whether in cases where the property is acquired by the original owner through money laundering, can the Enforcement Directorate attach such a property after it is purchased by a new owner under IBC process.
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday directed all States to comply with the direction issued by it in 2012 to enhance the pension of retired judicial officers. The States have been asked to submit a compliance report within 4 weeks.
All India Trinamool Congress's Spokesperson Saket Gokhale has moved the Supreme Court challenging the extension of tenure of Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, current Director of Directorate of Enforcement on grounds of it being invalid under the provisions of Sec 25 of The Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday recorded the agreement between Amazon and Future Group to approach the Singapore Arbitration Tribunal to resume the arbitration proceedings on an understanding that the Tribunal will on priority hear Future Retail Ltd's application seeking termination of the arbitration proceedings instituted by Amazon against the FRL's merger with Reliance Group.
The Court recorded that the Arbitration Tribunal will hear termination application filed by the Future Group under Section 32 (2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 in priority to other matters and pass orders.
Based on the agreement by parties to appear before the Arbitration Tribunal, the bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice Krishan Murari and Hima Kohli therefore disposed of the special leave petition filed by Amazon challenging the Delhi High Court's order which stayed the arbitration proceedings on a challenge made by FRL.
28. Centre Should Allocate Funds To Implement Domestic Violence Act : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that the Central Government cannot leave the implementation of the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act 2005 to the States alone and should bear the responsibility of allocating funds for the enforcement of the rights under the Act.
29. "Ingenuity Of Lawyers" : Supreme Court On 60 Cases Between Husband & In Matrimonial Dispute
"The ingenuity of the lawyers has to be marked, 60 cases between a husband and a wife!" the Supreme Court of India remarked on Wednesday while hearing a case of matrimonial discord. The remark came from Justice Hima Kohli, after the counsel appearing for petitioner informed a Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana that 60 cases have been filed by the husband and wife in 30 years of marriage and 11 years of separation.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday in hearing on the issue of fixation of standards for fees for arbitrators orally observed that the claim and the counter-claim have to be bundled together with a ceiling of Rupees 30 lakhs for the determination of fees as per the 4th Schedule of the Arbitration Act.
In the NEET-PG 2021 Counselling matter, the Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a plea by students, who had resigned from the seats allotted in the Round-2 of State Quota Counselling, seeking permission to attend the Mop-Up rounds. However, the Court has allowed such students to rejoin the State seats from which they initially resigned by April 9 5 PM.
32. "If We Hear All Political Issues, What Are Political Representatives Elected For?" CJI Ramana
While remarking that petitions are being filed for 'everything under the sun', the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana on Thursday expressed displeasure towards petitions on political issues being filed before the court instead of relief being sought from the Government.
33. Supreme Court Releases Theft Case Convicts On Probation On Good Conduct
While refusing to interfere with the order of conviction of persons undergoing imprisonment for the offence of theft, the Supreme Court on Monday directed their release on probation of good conduct. A Bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Bela M Trivedi issued the direction having regard to the sentence of 3 months imprisonment imposed by the courts on the appellants for the offence under Section 379 IPC and and that there are no criminal antecedents against the appellants.
34. Mullaperiyar Dam Case : Supreme Court Rejects Kerala's Plea To Change Supervisory Committee Head
In the Mullaperiyar dam case, the Supreme Court on Thursday turned down a plea made by the State of Kerala to replace the present Chairman of the Supervisory Committee, which was constituted by the Supreme Court in 2014 to monitor the safety arrangements of the 126-year old dam.
35. Can Haj & Umrah Services Be Exempted From GST? Supreme Court Starts Hearing Tour Operators' Plea
The Supreme Court on Thursday commenced hearing on a string of petitions filed by various private tour operators seeking exemption from the Goods and Services Tax for the Haj and Umrah services offered by them to pilgrims travelling to Saudi Arabia.
Also Read: Supreme Court Disapproves Use Of RTI Replies To Show Govt's Stand
The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed Orissa Minerals Development Co Ltd to dispose of the iron ores from the mines in Odisha. A Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Hima Kohli was considering applications filed by Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd. (in respect of Belkundi Iron Ore Mine and Bagaiburu Iron Mines) seeking to dispose of the undisposed lying mined material. The applications were filed in a 2014 PIL moved by the NGO Common Cause.
The Supreme Court, on Thursday, approved the recommendation of the Central Empowered Committee's ("CEC") made in its Report No. 6 of 2021 dated 23.04.2021, that instead of clearing canopy of virgin forest along a 10.5 km long corridor in the State of Goa, the 400KV electric lines in the Goa-Tamnar Transmission Project can be laid along the alignment of the existing powerline, which does not require felling of trees.
38. Vyapam Scam Whistleblower Dr Anand Rai Moves Supreme Court Against MP Police Arrest
Vyapam Scam Whistleblower Dr Anand Rai has moved the Supreme Court against Madhya Pradesh High Court's order refusing to quash the FIR registered against him and vacating the interim order of protection granted to him in a case related to a Facebook post. Senior Advocate Vivek Tankha on Friday informed a Bench headed by CJI Ramana that Rai was arrested Thursday night after the whole police force came to Delhi and took him to Madhya Pradesh. He added that the arrest was made despite a notice to appear before the police today.
It's a new trend started, the Government has started maligning the Judges! It's unfortunate" the Chief Justice of India remarked on Friday. The remark was made while considering two special leave petitions including one filed by the State of Chattisgarh challenging the High Court's order quashing FIR registered against Aman Kumar Singh, former IRS Officer and Principal Secretary to former Chief Minister under the Prevention of Corruption act.
40. 'You Can't Be Drunk On Border Security Force Duty' : Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal Of BSF Officer
The Supreme Court, on Friday, refused to entertain a plea filed by an erstwhile Border Security Force personnel who was dismissed from service, inter alia, on charge of being intoxicated while on duty.
41. National Medical Commission Has Power To Stop Admissions In Medical Colleges: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, on Friday, stayed the operation of the order of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad, which permitted Annasaheb Chudaman Patil Memorial Medical College to admit students to fill up its 100 seats in the MBBS course for the academic year 2021-2022.
The Union Government has filed an application in the Supreme Court seeking action against petitioners who filed a PIL making allegations against security forces of committing extrajudicial killings during anti-Maoist operations in Chhattisgarh. Contending that the petitioners deliberately submitted false information before the Court, the Centre has sought action for perjury against them.
43. Supreme Court Dismisses District Judge's Plea For 3 Advance Increments For Having LLM Degree
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to interfere with a judgment of the Jharkhand High Court which rejected a plea to grant three advance increments to District Judges having LLM degree. A bench comprising Justice L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai dismissed a special leave petition filed by a District Judge in Jharkhand challenging the judgment dated December 6, 2021 of the High Court which rejected his plea for three advance increments for possessing an LLM degree.
Responding to a contention that the twelve-member expert Committee appointed by the National Green Tribunal ("NGT"), to oversee that mitigation measures are effectively implemented by NHAI, lacks independent experts, the Supreme Court, on Friday, asked the Solicitor General of India and the Counsel appearing for Citizens for Green Doon, Mr Ritwick Dutta to provide a list of independent individuals or institutions who can be inducted into the said Committee.
The Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to Tamil Nadu godman Siva Sankar Baba in a case related to alleged child sex abuse of students in a school run by him. As one of the bail conditions, s bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai directed that he should not use YouTube or any other social media for dissuading persons to approach the authorities to file complaints.
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on the special leave petition filed by Solidarity Youth Movement, the youth wing of Islamic organization Jamaat-E-Islami Hind, challenging the Kerala High Court's order which quashed the government scheme to provide minority scholarship to Muslims and Christians in 80:20 ratio.
A request from a higher court is expected to be honoured, the Supreme Court remarked while seeking explanation from the Registrar General of the Bombay High Court about not listing a matter despite its request.
The Supreme Court has rejected the preliminary objections raised by the State of Haryana to a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Haryana Sikh Gurudwara (Management) Act 2014. A bench comprising Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V Ramasubramaniam decided to hear on merits the petition filed in 2014 by a man named Harbhajan Singh, a member of Shiromani Gurudwara Prabhandak Committee(SGPC).
Activists Harsh Mander, Anjali Bhardwaj and Jagdeep Chhokar have moved the Supreme Court seeking directions to the Union of India to file a status report with regard to compliance with the directions issued by the court last year for the benefit and welfare of migrant workers.
50. Online Portal Developed For Motor Accident Claims : Centre & Insurers Tell Supreme Court
The insurance companies have developed a web-portal under the aegis of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways which can be used to upload information related to motor vehicle accidents and to integrate the database relating to accident claims.
The portal can be used by the police to upload the accident reports on it. The portal will alert the concerned insurance company and the details of the vehicles and owners can be fetched as it is linked to the Vaahan portal. The portal can thus reduce the paper work related to the accident claim process and can expedite the claims settlement.
The Supreme Court recently expressed concern that even after its repeated interventions, the Allahabad High Court had rejected a bail application solely on the ground that the appeal itself should be heard. The Apex Court noted that such an approach would serve no purpose given the burgeoning pendency of appeals before the concerned High Court.