Supreme Court Judgements 1. Section 138 NI Act - No Vicarious Liability For Cheque Dishonour Merely Because A Person Was A Partner Or Stood Guarantor For Loan : Supreme Court Case Title : Dilip Hariramani vs Bank of Baroda Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 457 The Supreme Court bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna has held that a person cannot be...
Supreme Court Judgements
Case Title : Dilip Hariramani vs Bank of Baroda
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 457
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna has held that a person cannot be convicted for the offence of dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act merely because he was a partner of the firm which had taken the loan or that he stood as a guarantor for such a loan.
Case Title: Sathyanath vs Sarojamani | CA 3680 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 458
The Supreme Court observed that a plea of res judicata cannot be determined as preliminary issue when it is a mixed question of law and fact.
Preliminary issues can be those where no evidence is required and on the basis of reading of the plaint or the applicable law, if the jurisdiction of the Court or the bar to the suit is made out, the Court may decide such issues with the sole objective for the expeditious decision, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian said.
3. [Delhi Govt vs LG] Supreme Court Refers Questions On The Issue Of Services To Constitution Bench
Case Title: Govt Of NCT Delhi vs Union of India: CA 2357/2017
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 459
A 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli referred to a Constitution Bench limited questions pertaining to the legal dispute between the Delhi Government and the Central Government regarding the control over administrative services in the national capital.
Case Title: Samarpan Varishtha Jan Parisar vs Rajendra Prasad Agarwa
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 460
The Supreme Court observed that the inmates of a old age home are licensees and have a legal right to stay in the room of the old age home only so long as they comply with the terms and conditions of such license.
"The inmates in the old age home are licensees and are expected to maintain a minimum level of discipline and good behaviour and not to cause disturbance to the fellow inmates who are also senior citizens.", the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian.
Case Name: Ravinder Singh @ Kaku vs State of Punjab | CrA 1307 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 461
The Supreme Court bench of Justices UU Lalit and Vineet Saran has observed that the certificate under Section 65B(4) of Evidence Act is mandatory to produce electronic evidence and that the oral evidence in the place of such certificate cannot possibly suffice.
Case Title: Veena Singh (D) vs District Registrar/Additional Collector (F/R)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 462
The Supreme Court observed that the execution of a document/deed does not stand admitted merely because a person admits to having signed the document/deed.
The "term" execution in Section 35(1)(a) Registration Act means that a person has signed a document after having fully understood it and consented to its terms, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna and Bela M. Trivedi observed.
Case Title : Suresh Mahajan versus State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 463
Noting that "the reality in the state of Madhya Pradesh as of now, is that, more than 23, 263 local bodies are functioning without the elected representatives for last over two years and more", the Supreme Court on Tuesday observed, "This is bordering on break down of rule of law and more so, palpable infraction of the constitutional mandate qua the existence and functioning of such local self-government, which cannot be countenanced"
Case Name: Nedumpilli Finance Company Limited vs State of Kerala | CA 5233 0F 2012
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 464
The Supreme Court has held that the state enactments such as Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 and Gujarat Money Lenders Act, 2011 will have no application to Non Banking Financial Companies (NBFC) regulated by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).
The bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed that the Chapter IIIB of the RBI Act is a complete code in itself and the power of intervention available for the RBI over NBFCs, is 'from the cradle to the grave'.
Case Title: Bharat Kalra vs Raj Kishan Chabra | CA 3788 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 465
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian has reiterated the time limit for filing of the written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure is not mandatory (if it is not a commercial suit).
In this case, a suit for injunction was filed by the plaintiff. The High Court upheld the Trial court order refusing to condone the delay of 193 days in filing of the written statement on the ground that there was "no plausible explanation and coherent reason" explaining the delay in filing the written statement.
Case Name: Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh vs State of Goa
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 466
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed that only the clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any order fixing or revising minimum rates of wages can be corrected by invoking Section 10 of the Minimum Wages Act.
Case Name: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 467
The Supreme Court revoked the approval granted by the Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) for doubling the existing railway line from Castlerock (Karnataka) to Kulem (Goa).
The bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, B R Gavai and Aniruddha Bose observed that the assessment of the impact which the project would have on the environment..would have to be strictly undertaken before the project is considered by the NBWL.
Case Title: Rekha Jain vs State of Karnataka | CrA 749 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 468
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna has observed that, to make out a case against a person for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, there must be a dishonest inducement to deceive a person to deliver any property to any other person.
Case Title: New Delhi Municipal Council vs Minosha India Limited
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 469
The Supreme Court bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy has held that the entire period during which the moratorium was in force in respect of corporate debtor can be excluded while computing the period of limitation for a suit or proceeding by the corporate debtor.
14. KEEP THE SEDITION LAW IN ABEYANCE: SUPREME COURT RULES IN A HISTORIC ORDER
Case Title: S.G. VOMBATKERE vs UNION OF INDIA ( WPC 682/2021) EDITORS GUILD OF INDIA AND ANR. vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (WPC 552/2021)
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 470
In a historic development, the Supreme Court on ordered that the 152-year old sedition law under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code should be effectively kept in abeyance till the Union Government reconsiders the provision.
In an interim order, the Court urged the Centre and the State governments to refrain from registering any FIRs under the said provision while it was under re-consideration.
A bench comprising the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli held that all pending trials, appeals and proceedings with respect to charges framed under Section124 A be kept in abeyance. Adjudication with respect to other sections may proceed with no prejudice be caused to the accused, it held.
Case Title: M.P. Rajya Tilhan Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Maryadit vs Modi Transport Service
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 471
The Supreme Court observed that a court appointed commissioner's report is only an opinion or noting and are 'non-adjudicatory in nature'.
The parties can contest an expert opinion/commissioner's report, and the court, after hearing objections, can determine whether or not it should rely upon such an expert opinion/commissioner's report, the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi observed.
16. Appeal To NCLAT Shall Be Filed Within A Period Of 30 Days, Reiterates Supreme Court
Case Title: Safire Technologies Pvt. Ltd Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 472
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justice L N Rao and Justice P S Narasimha in the case of Safire Technologies Pvt Ltd versus Regional Provident Fund Commissioner reiterates that an appeal against the order of NCLT shall be filed before the NCLAT within a period of 30 days and the appellate tribunal can only condone delay for a period of 15 days.
Case Title: Aravinth R.A. vs Secretary To Government Of India Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 473
The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of Regulations 4(a)(i), 4(a)(ii), 4(b) & 4(c) of the National Medical Commission (Foreign Medical Graduate Licentiate) Regulations 2021, Schedule II 2(a) and 2(c)(i) of the National Medical Commission (Compulsory Rotating Medical Internship) Regulations, 2021.
The court held that the National Medical Commission has power to frame these Regulations for foreign medical graduates.
"It is true that the country needs more doctors, but it needs really qualified doctors and not persons trained by institutions abroad, to test their skills only in their mother land.", the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian observed.
Case Title: Prabha Tyagi vs Kamlesh Devi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 474
The Supreme Court held that a victim of domestic violence can enforce her right to reside in a shared household, irrespective of whether she actually lived in the shared household.
"Even if an aggrieved person is not in a domestic relationship with the respondent in a shared household at the time of filing of an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act but has at any point of time lived so or had the right to live and has been subjected to domestic violence or is later subjected to domestic violence on account of the domestic relationship, is entitled to file an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act.", the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna held.
19. Contract Act Does Not Recognize Sale Of Pledged Goods By Pawnee To Self : Supreme Court
Case Title : PTC India Financial Services Ltd versus Venkateswarlu Kari and another
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 475
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna has held that the Indian Contract Act 1872 does not recognize the sale of the pledged goods by a pawnee to himself in the event of default of payment by the pawnor.
The Court noted that as per Section 176 of the Contract Act, in the event of default by the pawnor, the pawnee may bring a suit or sell the pledged items on giving the pawnor reasonable notice of the sale.
Case Name: Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. And Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 476
The Supreme Court has bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian has held that a person who purchased a land after it vested with the State under land acquisition proceedings has no right to claim lapsing of the proceedings invoking Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Case: K Dhandapani vs State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 477
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a man accused in a POCSO case after noticing that he had married the prosecutrix and had two children.
"This Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix. We have been informed about the custom in Tamilnadu of the marriage of a girl with the maternal uncle.", the bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai observed while rejecting the objection raised by the State which contended that the marriage might be only for the purpose of escaping punishment.
Case Title: Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. vs Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission | CA 2578-2579 OF 2008
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 478
The Supreme Court bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai has observed that an association of corporate bodies can establish a captive power plant primarily for their own use.
23. Duomatic Principle In Company Law Applicable Even In Indian Context: Supreme Court
Case Title: Mahima Datla vs Renuka Datla | CA 2776 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 479
The Supreme Court observed that Duomatic Principle that 'strict adherence to a statutory requirement may be dispensed with if it is demonstrated otherwise on facts, if the same is consented by all members' is applicable even in the Indian context.
The bench comprising Justices Vineet Saran and JK Maheshwari clarified that the said principle is only applicable in those cases wherein bona fide transactions are involved and that 'Fraud' is a clear exception.
Case Title: Veerendra vs State of Madhya Pradesh | CrA 5 & 6 OF 2018
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 480
The Supreme Court observed that a lapse or omission to carry out DNA profiling, by itself, cannot be held to be fatal in rape cum murder cases.
"The lapse or omission (purposeful or otherwise) to carry out DNA profiling, by itself, cannot be permitted to decide the fate of a trial for the offence of rape especially, when it is combined with the commission of the offence of murder as in case of acquittal only on account of such a flaw or defect in the investigation the cause of criminal justice would become the victim.", the bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and C T Ravikumar observed.
Case Title : Ibrat Faizan versus Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 481
The Supreme Court has held that an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 can be challenged in a writ petition filed before a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna held that NCDRC is a "tribunal" falling under Article 227 . The legality of the order passed by the Delhi High Court by which it held as maintainable the Article 227 petition filed against the NCDRC order was in question before the Supreme Court.
Case Title: Surendran vs State of Kerala |CrA 1080 of 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 482
Overruling some of its earlier judgments, the Supreme Court observed that evidence of a deceased wife under Section 32 of Evidence Act with respect to cruelty could be admissible in a trial for a charge under Section 498A of the IPC.
This is, however, subject to satisfaction of two preconditions (1) Her cause of death must come into question in the matter (2) The prosecution will have to show that the evidence that is sought to be admitted with respect to Section 498A of the IPC must also relate to the circumstances of the transaction of the death.
The bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli upheld the judgment of the Kerala High Court which had set aside the concurrent findings of conviction of the courts below and acquitted the appellant under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code while confirming his conviction under Section 498A of the IPC.
Case Title: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Chetan Jeff| Civil Appeal No. 3116 Of 2022
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 483
The Supreme Court recently approved the rejection of the candidature of a person for the post of police constable for suppressing the pendency of a criminal case against him.
A division bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna was considering an appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgments of a single bench and a division bench of the Rajasthan High Court which had directed for accepting the candidature(State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Chetan Jeff). The High Court had observed that the application can be accepted as the offences are trivial.
Case Title: Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah @ Lala Vakil vs State of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 484
The Supreme Court observed that the remission or premature release in terms of the policy which is applicable in the State where the crime was committed has to be considered.
The bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath observed that the appropriate Government under Section 432(7) CrPC can be either the Central or the State Government but there cannot be a concurrent jurisdiction of two State Governments.
Case Title: Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority versus Maradu Municipality and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 485
The Supreme Court on Friday held that the owners of the flats in the four buildings in Maradu, Kochi, which were demolished in 2020 for CRZ violations, are not entitled to interest on the refund payable to them by the builders.
A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai ruled so on the reasoning that the purchasers had been staying in the flats allotted to them for a period of 8-9 years on an average and that they still have undivided share in the land, the market value of which has increased substantially. The bench also observed that the flats that were taken possession of in the years between 2009-2013 would have depreciated in value.
29. "Will Create Chaos & Uncertainty": Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Postpone NEET PG 2022 Exam
Case Title: Dr R Dinesh Kumar Reddy v. Medical Counselling Committee
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 486
The Supreme Court dismissed pleas to postpone NEET-PG 2022 scheduled for May 21, saying postponement will create chaos and uncertainty and will impact patient care and will cause prejudice to over 2 lakh students who have prepared.
The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant was considering a petition preferred by doctors seeking to postpone the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test for Postgraduate (NEET-PG) 2022 exam scheduled on May 21 citing a clash with ongoing counselling for NEET PG 2021.
Supreme Court Updates
The Supreme Court, on Monday, asked the State Governments to publicize the suggestions put forth by National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and its order with respect to 'the serious problem of discontinuance of education of children caused due to pandemic and other situations which we cannot envisage'.
The Supreme Court on Monday directed that it will be open to the official of the Vikaspuri police station (in Delhi) to verify by tomorrow the availability at the address indicated of the seven Myanmarese citizens who were allowed by the Manipur High Court to travel to New Delhi to seek protection from the UNHCR in May last year.
The Supreme Court on Monday expressed displeasure at Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi leaving a virtual hearing in the middle of the arguments.
Unhappy with the Senior Counsel's act of joining another court without seeking Court's leave, the bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna in their order said, "After the submissions were completed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, we wanted some further questions to be asked to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. However, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Advocate, for the petitioner has left the Court in the midst of arguments and when the matter was going on. This is absolutely unfortunate. When the matter is going on he ought not to have left the matter. Even if he might be required in another Court, he should have asked the leave of the Court."
NEET PG Aspirants have approached Supreme Court seeking to exit from the seats already joined pursuant to the 2nd round of counseling in the All India Quota of the counseling process without paying the huge amount of penalty.
The writ petition was listed before the bench of Justices LN Rao and BR Gavai but the bench on Monday directed the petitioners to mention the same before the bench headed by Justice Chandrachud.
The Supreme Court, on Monday, directed that the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Mains Examination, which was earlier stayed as it clashed with the schedule of the Preliminary Exam of Madhya Pradesh Civil Judge, Junior Division (Entry Level) Exam -2021 to be held on 20, 21 and 22 May, 2022.
6. Supreme Court Issues Notice On Meru Cab's Plea Alleging Anti-Competitive Practices By Uber
The Supreme Court, on Monday, issued notice in the appeal filed by Meru Cab assailing the order of the National Company Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) refusing to set aside the order passed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) exonerating Uber from allegations of abuse of dominant position.
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere in a petition seeking lowering of cut off percentile for admission in NEET Super Speciality courses.
Filing a counter affidavit in the plea moved by a juice shop owner from Delhi's Jahangirpuri area claiming that his shop was unauthorizedly demolished by the New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) on April 20, 2022, the corporation has submitted before the Supreme Court that his plea should not be entertained.
9. Will Re-examine & Reconsider Section 124A IPC: Centre Tells Supreme Court
The Centre informed the Supreme Court on Monday through an affidavit that it has chosen to reexamine and reconsider Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code which criminalises the offence of sedition.
The affidavit was filed in a batch of petitions filed by journalists, activists, NGOs and political leaders challenging the constitutional validity of Section 124A IPC.
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition filed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) challenging the demolition drive initiated by the South Delhi Municipal Corporation in the Shaheen Bagh area of Delhi.
A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai said that it cannot interfere at the behest of a political party. The bench asked why the High Court cannot be approached.
The Supreme Court on Monday stayed Calcutta High Court's order of directing Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), New Delhi to conduct a forensic audit of the CCTV cameras that were used during the Contai Municipality elections.
A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant issued notice in the petition filed by the West Bengal State Election Commission to consider the question of law as to whether the directions by the High Court can substitute the procedure provided by law.
The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the further proceedings in the High Courts in the petitions challenging the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules, 2021) and the Cable TV Networks (Amendment) Rules 2021.
A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and Abhay S Oka passed the order while issuing notice in the transfer petitions filed by the Union Government seeking the transfer of the petitions from High Courts to the Supreme Court.
13. Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Listing For Plea Challenging Divorce Through Talaq-E-Hasan
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant urgent listing for a plea challenging the practice of divorce through the Muslim personal law practice of Talaq-E-Hasan, as per which a man can divorce his wife by pronouncing "talaq" once a month for three months.
In a contempt petition alleging non-compliance of Top Court's order of making the students who participated in State Quota or AIQ round 2 ineligible for AIQ Mop Up round, Supreme Court on Monday sought response from the State of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Telangana.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice in a special leave petition filed by a husband challenging a judgment of the Karnataka High Court which refused to quash the case for marital rape filed against him by his wife.
The High Court had sustained the trial court's order of framing charges for rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Cod against him on a complaint by his wife.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed disappointment at the Central Government changing its stances in a plea seeking minority status for Hindus in states where they are numerically less.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday has agreed with the Centre's suggestion to defer the hearing of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the offence of sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code till it reconsiders the provision.
The Court has sought the response of the Centre on the status of pending and future cases till the Govt. takes a decision.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted liberty to SAD Leader Bikram Singh Majithia to approach the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court against quashing of FIR registered against him in NDPS case and for grant of bail.
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, was perturbed to note that an affidavit filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh indicates that one of the parameter's to adjudge a Public Prosecutor as the 'Star Prosecutor of the Month' is their ability to secure death sentence.
21. Justices Krishna Murari Recuses In Plea By CEO, NOIDA, IAS, Ritu Maheshwari
Justice Krishna Murari on Wednesday recused from hearing the plea filed by the Chief Executive Officer of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority(NOIDA) Ritu Maheshwari IAS, challenging order of the High Court, wherein warrant was issued against her by the Allahabad High Court to ensure her presence in a contempt proceeding.
Supreme Court Stays Warrant Issued By Allahabad HC Against Noida CEO Ritu Maheshwari IAS
The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, expressed concern about 'the coincidence' that as and when Samajwadi Party MLA, Azam Khan secures bail, a new case is registered against him.
At the request of the Additional Solicitor General, Mr. S.V. Raju, the Bench comprising L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and A.S. Bopanna, granted time to the State Government to file a reply and adjourned the matter to Tuesday (17th May).
23. NEET BDS 2021: Supreme Court Seeks Centre's Response In Plea To Reduce Percentile For Qualification
The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought Center's response in a petition preferred by BDS aspirants challenging the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare's notice dated May 7 of refusing to lower the percentile for qualification of NEET BDS Course for the academic session 2021-2022.
The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Sanjiv Khanna and Surya Kant while issuing notice in the plea asked the Center to file a counter affidavit specifying:
- Total eligible candidates after deducting the admission granted for MBBS Courses (BDS Courses)
- Total number of vacant seats in All India Quota and State Quota
- The number of seats which are remaining in government colleges on one hand & private/deemed colleges on the other hand.
The Supreme Court, on Monday, urged the Allahabad High Court to take up 350 bail applications of convicts incarcerated for 10 years or more pending before it as on 22.04.2022, in one go and decide them by 25th July.
Considering the urgency in adjudication of the bail applications, a Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh stated that if required the matters can be dealt with by the Vacation Benches of the High Court.
The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, reserved judgment in a plea filed by A.G. Perarivalan, the life convict in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, seeking release from the prison based on the recommendation made by the State Government in September 2018.
26. Supreme Court To Fix Standards For Arbitrators' Fees; Reserves Judgment
The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved judgment on the issue of fixation of standards for fees for arbitrators.
The bench of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud, Sanjiv Khanna and Surya Kant reserved the same while considering the issue regarding the mandatory nature of the 'model' fee scale for arbitrators prescribed under the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.
As regards the blacklisting of almost 3500 persons in connection with the Tablighi Jamaat congregation, the Supreme Court on Wednesday orally remarked that the petitioners may consider the government's suggestion to make a representation for individual cases for a re-think on their own merits, as there may be scope of a resolution as regards deserving cases if not all.
The Enforcement Directorate on Thursday voiced an apprehension before the Supreme Court about interrogating Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee, the nephew of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and his wife Rujira Banerjee at Kolkata.
The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice in the petitions challenging Central Govt's decision to trade 5% of its shareholding in the Life Insurance Corporation through IPO.
The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and PS Narasimha refused to grant any interim relief against the LIC IPO.
"They are spoiling the whole atmosphere", the Supreme Court of India remarked on Thursday while hearing a plea filed by Jitendra Tyagi alias Vasim Rizvi seeking bail in the case related to alleged hate speech made at the Dharam Sansad held at Haridwar in December 2021.
31. Heera Exim Gold Scam : Supreme Court Dismisses SFIO Plea To Cancel Bail Of Nowhera Shaikh
The Supreme Court, on Thursday, dismissed the application filed by Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) seeking cancellation of bail granted to Nowhera Shaikh, the Managing Director of Heera Gold Exim Private Limited. The proceedings in furtherance of the fresh FIR registered were also stayed.
32. Manipur Extra Judicial Killings Probe : Supreme Court Seeks Status Report From Centre
The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Union of India to file a status report with regard to investigation into the alleged extra judicial killings in Manipur.
The investigation is being carried out by a Special Investigation Team constituted by CBI pursuant to Supreme Court's direction in July 2017.
33. Supreme Court Permits E-Rickshaws In Matheran As Pilot Project To Check Feasibility
The Supreme Court, on Thursday, permitted the State of Maharashtra to implement its proposal to introduce a few eco-friendly e-rickshaw in Matheran Eco-sensitive Zone, on an experimental basis, to check its feasibility to replace the hand-pulled rickshaws plying in the area.
The Supreme Court, on Thursday, asked the State of West Bengal to look into the issue that in South 24 Parganas District of West Bengal, 'women of older age groups' are being forced into prostitution after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Supreme Court of India on Thursday directed the Central Government to file an affidavit indicating the stages of investigation in different cases relating to coal block allocations by 15th July.
The Supreme Court, on Thursday, quashed cancellation of allotment order passed by the State of Uttar Pradesh for a plot in Organised Development Scheme, Phase III, Pilkhuwa District - Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh allotted under the category of Middle-Income group to a lady, on the assurance that she would pay Rs. 2 lakh to compensate for the delayed payment of installments.
A Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna was of the view that the offer made by the lady to pay a further sum of Rs 2 lakhs towards compensation for the delay, is a fair one.
37. "I Will Read Papers & See" : CJI On Plea For Status Quo On Gyanvapi Mosque Survey
The issue relating to the survey ordered by a Varanasi court in Gyanvapi mosque on a plea by few Hindu devotees was mentioned before the Supreme Court on Friday.
Mentioning the matter before the Chief Justice of India, Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi sought status quo of the local court's order.
"Survey has been directed in relation to Varanasi property. This is covered by Places of Worship Act. Now the Court has ordered Commissioner to conduct a survey!", Ahmadi submitted.
"Let me see", the CJI said.
Also Read: Gyanvapi Mosque Survey Issue Listed Before Bench Of Justice DY Chandrachud
38. "Will Create Chaos & Uncertainty": Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Postpone NEET PG 2022 Exam
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed pleas to postpone NEET-PG 2022 scheduled for May 21, saying postponement will create chaos and uncertainty and will impact patient care and will cause prejudice to over 2 lakh students who have prepared.
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea filed by IIT aspirants who appeared in JEE Advanced 2020 and 2021 seeking extra opportunity for them to appear in JEE Advanced 2022.
Though not eager to issue notice, the Supreme Court, on Friday, asked its registry to list a plea seeking quashing of notification issued by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation which had called for the demolitions in the riot-hit Jahangirpuri and also sought compensation for the losses caused in the process, with the other petitions pending before it in this regard.
41. Unfilled Tribunal Vacancies : Supreme Court Asks CAT Members To Function Beyond Their Tenure
Taking note of the vacancies in the Central Admininstrative Tribunals, the Supreme Court on Friday passed an order directing incumbents who are holding the post of members of CAT as judicial or administrative members to continue to function even beyond their term, subject to their consent and availbility .
The Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to pass this direction as a special arrangment.
42. Supreme Court Seeks Responses Of Centre & ECI On Plea Challenging J&K Delimitation Exercise
The Supreme Court, on Friday, asked the Union Government, UT of Jammu and Kashmir and the Election Commission to file their response in a plea, inter alia, challenging the Delimitation exercise undertaken in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir pursuant to the notifications of 2020, 2021 and 2022.
While hearing a plea seeking direction to AIIMS to have a defined criteria for arriving at seat matrix for institutional preference candidates in INI-CET examination, the Supreme Court, on Friday, directed all AIIMS Institutes to adopt roster based reservation followed by Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Pondicherry (JIPMER).
"We direct that the roster point based reservation for preferential candidates as followed by JIPMER be implemented in all the AIIMS. However, the roster points need not be similar to that of JIPMER."
The Supreme Court on Friday pulled up the State of Kerala for filing a Special Leave Petition assailing Kerala High Court's order of affirming the seniority of an upper division clerk.
"In the case of an upper division clerk who has been given seniority, is there for SC to interfere? We are not a court of law but a court of justice as well. Dismissed," the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant orally remarked while dismissing the SLP against the order dated January 17, 2022.
While considering a contempt plea preferred by victims of endosulfan alleging failure on the part of State of Kerala to disburse 5 lakhs compensation, the Supreme Court on Friday asked the State's Chief Secretary to hold monthly meetings to undertake the process of identification of the victims of endosulfan, ensuring disbursement of compensation of Rs 5 lakhs and taking steps to ensure provision of medical facilities.
The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the direction of the Patna High Court, also of Friday, by which the Bihar DGP was required to produce Sahara India Group Head Subrata Roy in the Court on May 16.
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice in a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of section 376DB of IPC, 1860 to the extent that it prescribes minimum mandatory sentence of life imprisonment till natural life.
In a plea for premature release of accused Manichan in the Kalluvathukkal Hooch Tragedy case, the Supreme Court on Friday directed the Kerala State Advisory Board to produce the original file pertaining to him in sealed cover, along with reasons why his application for release could not be decided for the last four months.
The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation has moved the Supreme Court against Kerala High Court's order setting aside the interim order issued in its favour by which the Oil Marketing Companies were directed to levy the price of High Speed Diesel (HSD) at par with the price available at retail pumps temporarily.
The Supreme Court has issued notice on a petition filed by a personal guarantor which raises a constitutional challenge to the personal insolvency provisions under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("Code").
The Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the amendments made to the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection) Act 2015 in 2021 by which certain categories of offences against children have been made non-cognizable.
The Supreme Court on Friday pulled up the Bank of Maharashtra for challenging a High Court's order of directing the bank to accept the OTS proposal given by a farmer who had availed a loan from the bank.
"Go after bigger fish. Such a litigation in Supreme Court will spoil the families of farmers financially," the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant remarked while dismissing the plea assailing Madhya Pradesh High Court's order dated February 21, 2022.
"You don't file cases against the ones who loot 1000s of crores but whole law comes into place when a matter of farmers comes. You accepted the Down Payment also", the bench orally remarked.